Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: inigo on November 17, 2012, 07:16 pm
-
----------------------------------------------------
Week 8 of "Defending the Undefendable"
----------------------------------------------------
Getting close to the end of the book... Seems like maybe a lot of you are ready to be done with this...
This week we come to the very last and final, Section VIII.
Again we will read the entire section because its only about 30 pages long. Just pick up where we left off last week and finish the book.
This is also a great week to sum up any conclusions you have come up with over the last 8 weeks.
What did you guys think?
----------------------------------------------------
Week 7 of "Defending the Undefendable"
----------------------------------------------------
Welcome to the newcomers! I wanted to make sure everyone had a chance to catch up and chime in so I waited a few days to start this week.
This week we come to Section VII and will read through the whole thing because it's so short. It starts on page 197 (216 pdf) and ends on page 220 (239 pdf).
Since this is a short week we'll be back to updating on Fridays.
PDF: http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf
E-PUB: http://library.mises.org/books/Walter%20Block/Defending%20the%20Undefendable.epub
Audio: http://www.learnoutloud.com/Free-Audio-Video/Business/Economics/Defending-the-Undefendable/44596
----------------------------------------------------
Week 6 of "Defending the Undefendable"
----------------------------------------------------
This week we finish off Section VI: Business and Trade, specifically chapters 23-25 or pages 169-195
For the PDF these correspond to pages 188-214
For links on places to get the book please see below.
----------------------------------------------------
Week 5 of "Defending the Undefendable"
----------------------------------------------------
Sorry for not having much reading time and getting involved these last few weeks, it looks like the rest of you are not finding the time either. :-\
Regardless, the book club goes on! When you guys are in the mood to pick up a book and read, we'll be here for ya! ;D
We're getting close to the end here, as we move onto Section VI: Business and Trade. Since this is a long section, we will only read the first four chapters of it, 19-22.
In other words, from page 139-168 or if your going by the PDF reader page number 158-187.
See below for links on where the book can be found.
----------------------------------------------------
Week 4 of "Defending the Undefendable"
----------------------------------------------------
Hey guys, this week we'll move right along to Section V: Financial, which starts at the top of page 99 and ends at the bottom of page 135. (118-154 for the pdf)
Again, for those just joining us, here is some resources for finding the book online for free:
PDF: http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf
E-PUB: http://library.mises.org/books/Walter%20Block/Defending%20the%20Undefendable.epub
Audio: http://www.learnoutloud.com/Free-Audio-Video/Business/Economics/Defending-the-Undefendable/44596
----------------------------------------------------
Week 3 of "Defending the Undefendable"
----------------------------------------------------
Sorry for the delay in posting an update this week. Hope some of you used the extra few days to get caught up to where we are. :)
Moving on in our book, "Defending the Undefendable" this week we will read Section IV: Outlaw, which goes from page 73 and ends on 96 (PDF 92-115).
PDF: http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf
E-PUB: http://library.mises.org/books/Walter%20Block/Defending%20the%20Undefendable.epub
Audio: http://www.learnoutloud.com/Free-Audio-Video/Business/Economics/Defending-the-Undefendable/44596
----------------------------------------------------
Week 2 of "Defending the Undefendable"
----------------------------------------------------
This week we will be reading Section II and Section III, Medical and Free Speech, respectively.
Section II begins at the top of page 27 and we will read until the end of Section III at the bottom of page 72. (PDF pg. 46-91)
Again here are a few links to different formats of the book. (Thanks Hungry Ghost for the new formats!)
PDF: http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf
E-PUB: http://library.mises.org/books/Walter%20Block/Defending%20the%20Undefendable.epub
Audio: http://www.learnoutloud.com/Free-Audio-Video/Business/Economics/Defending-the-Undefendable/44596
Or you can buy a physical copy from Mises.org, Amazon, or anywhere else you can find it. :)
Enjoy!
-----------------------------------------------------
Week 1 of "Defending the Undefendable"
-----------------------------------------------------
Hey everybody! Hope you guys enjoyed the movie night as much as I did! If you haven't participated in that yet, then by all means your still welcome to go to that thread and comment on the movie!
But now it's time to go back to hitting the books. :)
This week, we will begin our newest selection, "Defending the Undefendable" by Walter Block.
Here is a description from mises.org:
"Professor Block's book is in a new edition from the Mises Institute, completely reset and beautifully laid out in an edition worthy of its contents.
It is among the most famous of the great defenses of victimless crimes and controversial economic practices, from profiteering and gouging to bribery and blackmail. However, beneath the surface, this book is also an outstanding work of microeconomic theory that explains the workings of economic forces in everyday events and affairs.
Murray Rothbard explains why:
Defending the Undefendable performs the service of highlighting, the fullest and starkest terms, the essential nature of the productive services performed by all people in the free market. By taking the most extreme examples and showing how the Smithian principles work even in these cases, the book does far more to demonstrate the workability and morality of the free market than a dozen sober tomes on more respectable industries and activities. By testing and proving the extreme cases, he all the more illustrates and vindicates the theory."
F.A. Hayek agreed, writing the author as follows: "Looking through Defending the Undefendable made me feel that I was once more exposed to the shock therapy by which, more than fifty years ago, the late Ludwig von Mises converted me to a consistent free market position. … Some may find it too strong a medicine, but it will still do them good even if they hate it. A real understanding of economics demands that one disabuses oneself of many dear prejudices and illusions. Popular fallacies in economics frequently express themselves in unfounded prejudices against other occupations, and showing the falsity of these stereotypes you are doing a real services, although you will not make yourself more popular with the majority."
Just read the table of contents and you'll see why we're so excited about this next book. :D
We're going to slow it down a bit from last time, and only read about 30 pages a week instead of 50. If that's still too much I'll slow it down even more. But I think 30 pages is a fairly easy section of reading to do in one week.
So this week we will start with the forward by Rothbard on page ix, (10 on the pdf file) and will read the end of page 23 (42 pdf). This includes the forward, introduction, and the very first section: "Sexual"
The book can be downloaded for free from:
http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf
Or purchased from:
https://mises.org/store/Product2.aspx?ProductId=136
Note: If your overly careful about your anonymity, and are vigilant about leaving 0 tracks anywhere on the internet, then I am sure you can find the book from other sources, for instance there are used copies on Amazon for less than $10. Personally I like to have a hard copy to read from, makes it easier than doing your reading assignments on a computer screen.
Enjoy!
-
Excellent looks interesting....the ePub is available here:
http://library.mises.org/books/Walter%20Block/Defending%20the%20Undefendable.epub
for those reading on a phone; PDFs are a pain to scroll through, with an ePub you can set text size, and just have fewer lines on a page, whereas in a PDF pages are fixed.
-
Audio here:
http://www.learnoutloud.com/Free-Audio-Video/Business/Economics/Defending-the-Undefendable/44596
I'm enjoying this a lot more than the last book; I'm up to the drug addiction (4 and 5) so far he has only dealt with topics I agree with already. I'll be interested to hear his take on more difficult subjects
-
Thanks for those links HG!! I love the idea of an audio version, and that ePub is a great tip! I am so glad your enjoying this book so far, but I have to ask that if your going to read ahead, please at least wait until the weekly assignments catch up to those parts before discussing them. This week we're only reading up to the end of "Sexual". We're going a little slower this time but I hope you can still find enough to to talk about in the little sections we're reading to stay with us and help provide discussion on the weekly assignment. Thank you! ;)
-
Alright I'm gonna give it a go. First time I'll actually participate in this bookclub. This book got me heavily interested as it looks like it's gonna address subjects I used to spend nights reading about
I ordered on eBay and I'll start reading tonight with the provided link ;D
-
What I found refreshing was his ability to approach many topics stripped of their 'sacred cow' coloring, and seen again through his philosophical prism. I felt his view on abortion to be inconsistent with his view on violence and coercion, however. If the woman has a unilateral right to destroy the new life growing in her, isn't that "violent" to the unborn child, as in 'hey baby, you're not going to live.'? The Sonograms taken of the fetus before being aborted shows the fetus trying to move away from the murderous steel, so there's threat detection - if that's relevant. I aborted two situations as a college kid 50 years ago. Once in a while I am profoundly moved by the sorrow that these were two of my potential children flushed into garbage bags in the 1960s. Today I think it would be nice to have them alive.
I think there's an ontological difference between discussing the right of the prostitute to do what she does, and the right-of-the-unborn to life. This (abortion) has claimed the destruction of 30,000,000 potential human beings. I'm not smart enough to put this point of view into its proper intellectual disposition this post-Percocet morning, but I do look forward to others' comments.
-
Re my previous post, he states in the intro, "The impetus for this book is Libertarianism. The basic premise of this philosophy is that it is illegitimate to engage in aggression against nonagressors." If aggression is murder, as he says, at what point does the 'rights of the mother' end and the rights of the infant begin? If I know "it" is going to be born in 5 minutes, I can still abort it legally (late-tem abortion). If I wait another 5 minutes, it's born, it's alive and then it's murder.
Another point - admittedly tangential to the libertarian argument - is the potential benefits denied society by the condemnation of prostitution. This age of ours is different in sexual mores than ANY preceding history. Up till 1800s, a woman showing her ankle was considered scandalous. Today, we are all bombarded with so much sexual theater and culture in general that our young in high school anguish over not being able to do anything of consequence with their genital apparatus. This results in 60 million kids on psychoactive meds. Having sex therapists "attached" to the educational system would do much to alleviate this stress. We have "Special Ed." teachers, and we could have Sex Specialists who are very good with young teens. It might even be used as an incentive - "Wanna get laid? Do your homework!" :P
Seriously though, what is needed is a way to combat the erroneous message currently in psychological vogue in schools today; and that is if the young male is cognizant of homoerotic impulse or fantasy, he's a "gay" and should be helped to express himself as such. I think a patient professional sexworker could disavow much of this un-psychiatric psychiatry.
-
Great book so far, particularly loved the bit on discrimination. Something I have been thinking about a lot lately.
I felt his view on abortion to be inconsistent with his view on violence and coercion, however. If the woman has a unilateral right to destroy the new life growing in her, isn't that "violent" to the unborn child, as in 'hey baby, you're not going to live.'? The Sonograms taken of the fetus before being aborted shows the fetus trying to move away from the murderous steel, so there's threat detection - if that's relevant.
Compare this situation to that of a shopowner. If an unwanted customer comes into the shop, and refuses to leave, is the shopowner justified in forcing that person to leave (even if it means killing them in the process)? I would say yes, since this can be construed as aggression against the owner's property. Of course, in the case of a pregnant woman, the child does not have the ability to leave... but I don't think that changes the nature of the situation.
-
Hickory, if the growing unborn child is likened to an unwanted customer, why cant you kill it after it's born and you realize what a pain-in-the-ass a baby can be?
-
Hickory, if the growing unborn child is likened to an unwanted customer, why cant you kill it after it's born and you realize what a pain-in-the-ass a baby can be?
Because it's no longer on your "property" (the womb), and you can easily get rid of it without killing it.
As the author makes clear, it's not a question of what is moral and immoral, but simply what you can and cannot do.
-
Without getting too bogged down in the philology of it all, it would seem to me that the creation of another human being is a bit more significant than an unwanted customer, and 'what you can and cannot do' about that contains within it a certain morality. If today is Sunday and I'm 9 months pregnant and am due to give birth tommorrow, but I have an argument with my bf so i decide to kill the damned thing. I kill it Sunday nite, it's fine. I kill it Monday, it's murder. Is that libertarian?
-
The question of abortion is a difficult one, and I think you are right, CJF, to suggest that the author has dodged the issue by framing it entirely in terms of the woman's self ownership.
Let me just say first that I am very much pro choice in this matter; however I do appreciate the problems.
Hickory, while your picture of the baby as an aggressive squatter is amusing I don't think the analogy works. The baby's lack of ability to leave is much more important than you think; also you can't hold a baby guilty of "aggression". Even if you could I don't think that if someone offends against your property you are entitled to kill them.
A better analogy would be: you are paddling your lifeboat when a swimmer hauls himself aboard and collapses unconscious. Since the lifeboat is your property, are you entitled to call him a trespasser and heave him overboard to his death?
I think most people would agree that to abort a 9 month foetus is tantamount to murder ( indeed a woman in the UK was recently prosecuted for this and jailed for 8 years). On the other hand I think very few people would regard abortion of a newly conceived embryo as murder (religious fanatics aside). Between these two extremes we have to draw a line somewhere.
Most societies today draw the line between 20 and 28 weeks. This seems about right to me. Obviously in reality there is no specific cut off line between being human and not. But for legal purposes we need to create one.
Now that medical technology has progressed to the point where premature children can be kept alive even when born 4 months early, some people are made uneasy by the overlap with legal abortion. However if we think that in the future technology will allow even 3 month miscarriages to be kept alive; are we then to push back the date at which embryos get legal rights? This is obviously ridiculous.
An interesting thing to consider is: in a libertarian society, who will decide these matters? With no taxation and presumably little government who will decide the legal cut off for abortion? The mother? But what about an 8 month foetus?
-
I definitely see your point CJF. Most people who debate abortion focus on where life starts, with the assumption that killing a living human is wrong. Personally I think this argument is silly, and your point counters it very well... how can something go from being nothing to something in such a short period of time?
My point is not this though. My point is that while the child is inside you, it is inherently a burden. You are helping it to survive, and the only way to end that bond is to kill it. Once the child is born, it is no longer leeching off you unless you want it to. You don't have to kill it to separate yourself from it, so you no longer have a just reason.
A better analogy would be: you are paddling your lifeboat when a swimmer hauls himself aboard and collapses unconscious. Since the lifeboat is your property, are you entitled to call him a trespasser and heave him overboard to his death?
Well firstly, yes, I think you are, although it's clearly not a very moral choice.
More importantly, being pregnant is not just putting up with someone near you, it is a massive burden - it limits you physically, seriously impinges on your ability to earn money, form relationships, etc.
-
My understanding is the obamanation just upped the abortion green-light to 9 months. Late-term abortion is ok now.
-
Oh good pun. "the obamanation" Love it. Maybe I'm just out of touch with US politics CJF but I'm pretty sure Obama isn't planning to allow full term abortions! That's only for republican babies right?
You know I was really trying not to let your comments in the other thread comparing Obamas healthcare reforms to the Holocaust influence me in this one. You made a reasonable point and I thought we could have a sensible debate. But now you are just throwing out propaganda.
Hickory, I think it's probably to do with the cultural difference between UK and US. I assume you are American? It seems like the use of terminal violence to defend your property is popularly accepted over there. I understand many states have recently changed the law to allow you to shoot tresspassrs and home invaders at will.
In the UK we find this quite shocking. The law here relies heavily on the doctrine of "reasonable force" so that you are allowed to use violence only to defend your person or family. Our law around this is actually a bit of a confused mess so it's unclear what is actually allowed. But shooting burgalars is definitely out.
-
Wow 200 posts. On the chapter on
Male Chauvinism I have a couple of thoughts:
The author suggests that the problem of women being pinched and groped by men in public places is likely to be less in private businesses, because there is a market incentive to provide a safe environment for women customers (ie shops that don't prevent sexual harassment will lose female customers). But what about male customers? They might resent the business trying to curb their "harmless " caresses of passing women and take their business elsewhere. There is a regrettable tendency among libertarians to rely on economic " just so stories" like this; they consider one side but not the other
The other issue I have is with discrimination. He says that a business has a right to refuse to do business with a women; her rights do not extend to that, anymore than a right to have sex with any partner. I'm not sure this logic is right but can't put my finger on it. Does this right of discrimination extend to race? Does a store have the right to choose not to serve black people or gays? A school to refuse black pupils? I can see where he's coming from; nobody should be compelled to engage in trade they don't want. But it makes me uncomfortable. Can a doctor refuse medical treatment to a black person?
-
That part of his thesis did not connect with me. The idea that one is able to squeeze women's buttocks until it becomes such common knowledge - and how long would that take in a big city? - that the place would lose business is an awkward stab at logic, IMHO. Unless Im missing something here, his logic is women shop at the store, get groped, complain, and then over the years enough people hear about it to hurt the man's business.
The other part of the libertarian dilemma is concerning disrimination with a person's skin color: If I announce you can smoke at my restaurant, than I'll attract smoking customers and push many non-smokers away. OK, that's a choice I should be able to make. But if I say, I wont serve Jews, Muslims, Blacks, etc., then do I, as a store owner, reserve that right in a libertarian society? Is that a good thing?
-
There is the moral argument and the practical argument.
The moral argument says it doesn't matter if anyone else thinks a shop owner's policies are good or bad, all that matter is the parties involved in the transaction agree to the terms. If 3rd parties find it distasteful, it is irrelevant and it is immoral for them to get involved an impose their ideas on someone else.
The practical argument says that a shop owner, pursuing his self-interest, will try to make his shop as welcoming and safe as possible to the widest audience. Don't underestimate the power of reputation in a competitive market here. It can make or break a business. Of course they will kick anyone out that is harassing their customers.
-
Just finished again the chapter on prostitution. So far, I mean, seems to me, he's pretty much stone libertarian. It would be hard for one of us to be against legalization of prostitution, while being for the legalization of drugs. Mostly, both are due to the moral philsophy in the US, that came with the pilgrims. They weren't a bunch of free thinkers in general: they were very religious people, Calvinists, who wanted to practice their religion over here. And their religious views often equated 'fun' with 'sin.' Still the case.
Why on earth wouild prostitution be illegal? I mean, sometimes they trot out health reasons, but that's bullshit: it's always under 'vice' when it comes to law enforcement, not the health dept. Same with drugs. It seems the author is showing that the violence we should be concerned about, isn't the occasional violence that happens in prostitution or drug dealing, but the state violence that causes people to be deprived of their freedom, if they engage in these activities, whether as a purchaser or as a provider. That, from a libertarian viewpoint: the state is the criminal, that none of these activities are violent per se, but that the occaional violence within them is often used as an excuse to make them criminal offenses, when they really should be treated simply as marketplace transactions.
So far, the author, in my case anyway, is preaching to the choir. Many of us have already paid prices for our use of drugs, to include incarceration, so we know first hand all about the state's use of violence. In the US anyway, the principals the constitution was based on are libertarian, but the underlying protestant christianity which informed our beginnings, is still behind much of our criminal code. The founders were concerned about big government. They were right. This books isn't trying to say the marketplace is moral either. This book is just trying to show the more scorned examples or our hypocrisy, like pimps and prostitutes and others who catch societies wrath....off to the next chapter... :)
-
OP Updated for this weeks assignment
P.S. +1 to everyone who participated last week! You guys are the ones who give our community a good name. ;)
-
I would be interested to hear the opinion on this section of anyone who considers themselves a heroin addict. Is the authors viewpoint valid? Does he downplay or overemphasize anything?
He specifically mentions heroin addiction, but I suppose this would be applicable to anyone addicted to a controlled substance.
Thanks in advance for your input!
-
I was addicted to heroin in the 70's. This author's use of objective logic makes me feel quite pedestrian in my own thinking, but I'll throw in my two cents: I remember revolting cramps and mental anguish along with snot running down my nose in the long days when I finally decided to end it. There is a certain liberation of soul and spirit in knowing that one needn't rely on a powder to make life... and here I'm gonna get in more trouble.... bearable? enjoyable? Livable?
So the realization that heroin was central to my well being called out within me for a revolution of sorts. The fact that my entire family regarded me a liar-for-money and an addict, couldn't keep a job, etc., all backs up what this author points out as the downsides of prohibition, and I'm all for legalization of all drugs, but I see many are sensitive that I'm judging and prohibitive in my heroin remarks.
It reminds me of the opening in a 12-step program where they intone (from the Big Book) "that if any of our brothers and sisters can drink responsibly, fine, we take our hats off," or something like that. If users on SR can do heroin over the long haul - and Im not sure what that is - without it becoming a weight that says "I have to have this powder to make the world appear right" (a mentality that I admit I lean towards today for pot). When I found SR, Id been away from heroin and coke for 20 years. I immediately bought a bit of each and some syringes. As soon as the hit started, the whole nightmare of that existence flashed inside my brain in an instant. I started to puke, and didnt stop for 24 hours. I tossed the rest of the black tar into the toilet.
But 'on the side of addiction,' the DVD "The Marketing of Madness" points out that early psychiatry once advocated heroin as an antidote to mental illness (whatever they considered that to be), so there you would have people saying, "I'm taking my meds."
-
If I might just jump in late here...
To be frank, I think the first two chapters here are interesting, but I'm bothered by the author's lack of references. My apologies if I've simply overlooked them, but I see no citations offered as proof of his axioms, nor any that even provide evidence in support of them. He seems to feel his statements require none, but the human mind too easily accepts conclusions to leave the evaluation of an argument in its entirety up to one's own intuition. All premises require reasonable proof, otherwise the conclusions can't be trusted.
That said, I think it's much more likely he just didn't want to bother and was writing more for the pleasure of it -- which is fine, who would want to bother, really. That and I don't actually disagree with his conclusions or the argument as a whole. I do, however, question his statements about the overall efficacy of addicted medical professionals. I just don't feel that it's necessary to include that in order to justify his conclusions -- I think the best (and frankly the only truly acceptable way) to approach morality is from a position of maximizing the self sovereignty of all individuals in a society. Basically, preference utilitarianism, as in the modern take on John Stuart Mill I believe (but to be honest it's been quite awhile).
I've been diagnosed with ADHD, which depending on who you ask may mean that amphetamines have an almost totally different effect on me than on a "normal" individual. Still, since I've been an addict for years and generally don't mind being honest about it, I thought I'd speak up. Really I can sum up my entire response as: yes, in my experience, he's right but severely downplays how much productivity can suffer.
The long version is that I definitely do not function as well as I would if I were not addicted to the only medication that's truly effective at treating my disorder. I may or may not function as well as I would in the total absence of amphetamines... frankly I don't know the answer to that. Even when I abstain for a week or two (only happens if I'm forced to), I can't separate my dependence on the drug well enough to judge.
Still, I think amphetamines in particular warp his argument somewhat. Their daily abuse is somewhat unique among the popular drugs of addiction in that long-time addicts tend to exhibit the effects of almost constant exhaustion and severe malnutrition. Personally I eat a healthy diet and take vitamins, but sleep is not something I get very often. That makes it a little difficult to be addicted to amphetamines and still function as a proper member of society, but I can say with certainty it's still possible.
Extremely difficult and certainly at a diminished level, but his argument does still hold for them even as he presents it. I guess that means he could cite me as an anecdotal reference... hm :)
-
Y'know there's a certain cathartic element to this discussion. I just remembered how heroin, in certain place and time, kinda saved my life (or soul). I had been a year in a mental hospital in 1969 w/schizophrenic episodes. One minute fine, next minute vulnerability into delusionary architecture, and 'gone.' So Im "Outpatient" on an experimental dosage of fluphenazine hydrochloride (Permitil) 800 mg a day. Normal dosage is 25mg! I would shakily drive a cab in NYC while being half-alive, half frightened-to-death. I ran into an old stoner from my acid days and he says to me, "Have ya ever tried stuff?" It was my 22nd birthday, and he shot me up. When that heroin hit, I had HOPE. I continued to find hope, and I threw away the meds and went on a 12 year bender.
So, there is something efficacious about heroin, but I also concur I wouldn't want my brain surgeon sampling it very often.
-
I've always had libertarian views, etc Hell, Ron Paul has been my guy for years. I just wanted to thank DPR and Inigo for starting this book club.. It's been a real eye opener..
~Flush
-
I was/am a heroin addict, although since the birth of my first child a few years ago I manage my addiction with buprenorphine which blocks the effects of any other opiate. ( haven't been able to get high since!)
Unsurprisingly I agree with everything the author has to say about prohibition. The harmful effects associated with heroin use are mostly due to it being illegal, and the high price that leads to.
In the northern industrial districts of the UK in the early 1800s, many mill workers were addicted to opium, usually in the form of laudanum. However because it was very cheap it didn't cause the social problems we now associate with opiate use. If anything it made the workers more able to endure their onerous working lives. There was far more concern expressed over mill hands who turned to drink.
In an early chapter of "Flat Earth News" a recent book about dishonest journalism by Nick Davies, he describes a media panic in the fifties:
At that time in the UK heroin addiction was a fairly niche market; there were a few Chinese and Turkish immigrants who used it, ex servicemen who had become addicted due to medical treatment, other medical addicts, and doctors who became addicted due to access. It was largely confined to a few thousand in London, and a few in other ports. Addicts were mostly able to support their habits by using crooked doctors to write scripts, or by diverting legitimate supplies from hospitals etc.
However, after a couple of high profile OD cases ( involving the son of a Lord or something; the British press has always liked an aristocrat) the media began a 'moral panic' about this narcotic menace. As a result new much harsher laws controlling the prescription of opiates were enacted.
Suddenly the existing population of addicts found it much harder to get their drugs. As a result the price soared, and many had to turn to crime, OR sell heroin ( thereby creating new addicts). Criminal gangs, at first among London's Turkish community, then more generally, saw the opportunity and got involved with the importation and supply. The rest is history!
Certainly from my own experience it is the prohibition of heroin that has caused more problems for me than anything else.
Firstly; when me and my friends were teenagers, we used to buy our weed from an aging punk. He was an addict and had a methadone script. We used to ask him to score smack for us but he was reluctant. However, when he needed money to score his reluctance would evaporate! I guess this could be attributed to the high price of H caused by prohibition.
Secondly; in our home town there was a jeweler who specialized in repairing items sent from other shops. At one time or another several of my friends worked as a runner for this man, collecting and returning items for him. Many local addicts would bring stolen goods to this jeweler, and eventually he became involved with the drug business ( jewelers use a bath of hot ammonia to clean jewels. Local small time gangsters would come to rock up their coke ) As a result my group of friends were again exposed to a lot of crack and heroin at an early age. Again I think that much of this can be blamed on the illegality of the drugs, rather than the drugs themselves. ( the jeweler eventually lost his business and house due to addiction. Last I saw if him he was homeless)
I am not trying to shift responsibility from myself; I think to become an addict you have to have it in you already. Only a certain kind of person thinks "Heroin? Hmmm I'll try anything once!" most people have more sense. But I think that the illegality of it caused me to be exposed to it and to people who had a strong incentive to sell it to me.
Again; once I became an addict ( I used it on and off for many years but only became addicted in 2000, in my mid twenties) it was prohibition, and the high price and other difficulties that entails, that caused me the most problems, rather than the addiction itself.
I was employed at the time but found it increasingly difficult to hold down a job and manage to keep enough money and to score every day. Constantly getting weak adulterated gear that never held me gm for as long as needed, I would be sneaking out of work, asking for advances on my wages, I became a fairly unreliable employee and soon lost my job.
Like most unemployed addicts I had to turn to crime ( mostly petty theft) to pay the ridiculous prices for cut low quality drugs. I'm not going to dwell on my experiences; suffice to say I avoided prison and managed to get some control of my life with methadone and later buprenorphine.
The difference between being addicted to a drug you get legitimately prescribed by a doctor, and being addicted to an illegal drug, is immense. My current addiction, as the author suggests, is no more difficult than anyone who regularly needs medication.
I oppose the prohibition of drugs on pragmatic grounds: it causes more problems than it solves. Drug addiction should be treated as a medical, not a criminal problem. I guess I'm preaching to the choir here!
-
These three big "hard" drugs. Crack, Meth and Heroin are not the evil drugs the media makes them out to be, I think when used carefully (which, at least for me was extremely easy with methamphetamine; just don't chase a strong high!) they can all be extremely beneficial to life and motivation in a broken world with a broken people and a broken society. Not to mention enjoyable.
-
Finally got around to the weekly OP update.
I really need to jump in the conversation soon, I've been missing out on some juicy stuff!
-
Started reading this y'day, i know im a little behind but should catch up quick enough as im finding it quite interesting, just starting on medical chapter - which im looking forward to since been battling h addiction last 20years.
Wish i could throw in my 2c to DPR's question, will do as soon as i finished the chapter.
Imo the definition of libertarianism is what needs to be spread - as most people in my country wouldn't even know what the word means, but none the less would agree with its basic principles.
Anyway cheers for an interesting read so far, will join conversation soon.
-
OP Updated
-
keith richards of the rolling stones, long-time dope addict, declared that he was alive and well because he used high quality dope and was financially fortunate. more argument for the main problem of hard drugs being tied to their illegal nature. vice taxed and deregulated.
-
Hey DPR, thanks for the club. I just found my way here and enjoyed the posts so much that I downloaded and started listening to the first couple of chapters. Can't wait to hear more and maybe even drop a few comments. Some very thought provoking posts.
-
On the question of heroin addicts... I think tobacco and alcohol are way more addictive and dangerous. But even those don't come close to the severe danger from junk food, sugar and soda. The medical expense for treating health conditions related to junk food, sugar and soda abuse is sky high. Yet we don't see these dangerous substances outlawed. Clearly the damage to the human mind and health is not what made heroin illegal. I blame the conservative christians who control the US government and the pressure the US govmnt puts on other countries to keep dope criminalized. There is absolutely not logic in having coke and heroin illegal while much more (or at least the same level) dangerous substances are legal and cheep as fuck... An alcoholic without booze goes through worst withdrawal than heroin addict. In fact an alcoholic can die if he quits cold turkey. A tobacco smoker has grey lungs and damaged cardiovascular system...Yet both alcohol and tobacco are free and fairly cheep. So I call BS on the drug war.
-
Bit late to the party but thought I'd throw in my thoughts as I go along until I have caught up.
So, just read The Prostitue.
What the author is saying I find difficult to swallow. NOT because I disagree with the content - but more because I find the delivery mechanism quite affronting. I think on my part this is because of some of the reductions being made. I'll give an example.
"Nor does the
move toward prohibition of prostitution come from the prosti-
tutes themselves. They have volunteered for their tasks, and can
almost always quit if they change their minds about the relative
benefits."
In many cases within the sex work economies there are so many instances where people do not have a choice. They simply cannot 'almost always quit'. (I do see that this is in part a structural issue - were this form of work not made illicit the forms of violence used to govern it would be less overtly violent, than say, the much softer violence of the state regulatory system)
However I am aware that the author seems to be trolling slightly and using this as a writers method to highlight the point he is trying to make which is: if two parties come together to interact with eachother in a mutually agreed upon fashion then it is an absurdity for a third party to get involved (if no harm or loss is involved in the inital parties interactions). I would agree that this is a violence in its own right - to try to determine what anyone else should do is oppressive and a waste of energy.
And this is the crux I guess. In some peoples framework, harm&loss are happening. The 'little cop' comes out to play again. And we see the effects of people getting involved in other peoples business...
Interesting to think about this stuff though. Many schools of thought would agree that marriage within the patriarchal setup is akin to prostitution - radical feminists from the 70s were saying the same thing....
-
OP updated
-
Hello,
I am very please to join your club, well as you can see, I have chosen to take the name of a very famous libertarian, a student of Mises.
I did read 20 years ago Human Action, I loved it, Praxeoly has been very useful in my life... If you apply Praxeology to Drugs laws, you have to conclude that the best way to fight against drugs is to legalize it !!!
But really my best author is Murray Newton Rothbard, one of the best student of Mises, Ethics of Freedom its masterpiece changed my life.. He died in 1998 and I have to say that I would dream to meet him in order to know what is its analysis about the current situation. He would be so critical about what happens in USA, he would demonstrate that the State in USA has become out of control and that the 9/11 only shows the failure of Federal Agencies to protect their citizens, etc...
He would be horrified by the current situation of USA...
RIP
In memoriam of Murray Newton Rothbard
In the Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard explores in terms of self-ownership and contract several contentious issues regarding children's rights. These include women's right to abortion, proscriptions on parents aggressing against children once they are born, and the issue of the state forcing parents to care for children, including those with severe health problems. He also holds children have the right to "run away" from parents and seek new guardians as soon as they are able to choose to do so. He suggested parents have the right to put a child out for adoption or even sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract, which he feels is more humane than artificial governmental restriction of the number of children available to willing and often superior parents.
He also discusses how the current juvenile justice system punishes children for making "adult" choices, such as underage drinking or sex, removing children unnecessarily and against their will from parents, often putting them in uncaring and even brutal foster care or juvenile facilities, while at the same time denying to them those legal rights adults enjoy, such as trial by jury, a written transcript of their court proceedings
-
... He also discusses how the current juvenile justice system punishes children for making "adult" choices, such as underage drinking or sex, removing children unnecessarily and against their will from parents, often putting them in uncaring and even brutal foster care or juvenile facilities, while at the same time denying to them those legal rights adults enjoy, such as trial by jury, a written transcript of their court proceedings
Is that really true; juvenile defendants aren't guaranteed their right to trial by a jury of their peers, and the court transcript isn't available...? I mean I know in rare circumstances even American citizens are denied these rights on occasion, but kids don't have these rights as a general practice?