Quote from: joywind on March 30, 2012, 04:42 amQuote from: anarcho47 on March 30, 2012, 03:55 amYour anti-human personality type is, unfortunately, why most of western civilization is teetering on the verge of violent bankruptcy that could erupt at any moment. "for their protection" bullshit. Look, if you are trying to make a case that you have to protect people from THEMSELVES, while simultaneously instituting a fuckload of moral hazards that encourage people NOT to take care of themselves (socialized/public medicine, mandatory insurance, many etc's.).... can you see the logical fallacies in that position? Can you see the violation of basic human morality and inalienable rights? Can you at LEAST admit there are huge contradictions in a statement like that?You're just arguing by assertion. You haven't explained precisely wherein the contradiction consists, nor what specific rights would be violated by the institution of this policy. If you start with the assumption that all humans are equal and entitled to the same rights and privileges, regardless of differences in endowment, ability, merit, desires, temperament, etc., etc., then of course it would be a 'contradiction' to institute a drug policy that would prohibit the use of psychoactive substances to one segment of the population, whilst freely permitting them for a responsible minority. However, if you reject, as I do, the whole notion of human equality as a lifeless abstraction when applied to the world of human activity and reality, there is no contradiction. Humans are not equal, except perhaps in the basic sense that every citizen has an equal right to have his interests safeguarded by the government - but this is rarely what people nowadays mean by equality and is in any event merely a social convention. (A convention I happen to agree with, with the qualification that what people want is not always congenial to their own interests.)I think the natural law overrides most of what you are asserting here. The natural law, and human nature being a constant (which it IS, no matter how hard "progressives" and syndicalists etc. would like to think it can be rewritten at the point of a gun), dictates that you have the right to your body, your property, your labor and the fruits thereof, your expression, and your association. Namely - do whatever the hell you want, so long as you aren't violating anyone else's commensurate rights.You have the right to free speech. I have the right to free speech. We can both exercise our rights at the exact same time without infringing on each others right (i.e. I can type this at the same time as you type out some rationale for "professionals", "experts" etc. to use violence to stop people from "harming themselves). This is a negative, inalienable right. You possess this by nature of the fact you are human. Same goes for the others. I can transact freely with whom I will so long as I am acknowledging and allowing the other party to my transaction to exercise his own right to his property (or body/labor/service/whatever). i.e. we are both willing parties to whatever form of association we choose to take on.Your body does not belong to an intangible institution represented by words written on pieces of paper, and whose mandate is enforced at the point of millions of guns. Your business does not belong to them. It does not belong to "society". It belongs to YOU, or whomever you willingly deem it to belong to (as is your right).The counter-intuitive elements to your position are many. First of all - where the hell do you draw the line? You are talking about taking a completely subjective decision-making criteria, and turning it into a mandate that will get people locked in cages and kidnapped from their families. On what basis do you establish that someone has the right to make their own choice about their own body, whether that be to take a psychoactive drug for medical reasons or for the fun of the trip? How do you determine such a thing? Do you understand the functional elements of human nature? The consequences of attempting to forcibly limit people from peacefully doing what they want to do? Are you willing to acknowledge that you are fine with kidnapping someone and locking them in a cage for making a decision about their own body that doesn't violate the inalienable rights of anyone else on the planet?It seems to me like you are, like so many (sadly), floating in the postmodern moral fog on your worldview. If your position on personal drug consumption is as such, why in the hell are you even here? We as a community have no means of holding you to your own twisted standards, should you want to partake in what we have. We have no way of verifying if you are ordering products "for the trip", or for medical reasons. Are you going to submit a doctor's note to your vendor proving that you are in fact medicating yourself? What's fair is fair - if you are saying you advocate committing violence against peaceful people, then it certainly stands that we as a community should be able to withhold our products from you without you yourself passing your own smell test.TL:DR - your moral contradictions abound because you are operating on the same messed up plurality-morality bullshit that most of society has been operating on for a few generations (never a good result - see: history). There are no hard lines in this system of yours. It's all mish-mash. Tell me on what basis you can possibly justify this (please don't do the "it's utilitarian but I'm going to pretend it's moral because utilitarianism in the past has resulted in things like eugenics and genocide). What moral framework exists that is sound enough to clap your hands for violence against truly innocent people.