NationStates Jolt Archive

at what point do you think law should play no part in our lifes?

When they start regulating what we do to ourselves; i.e. when there are no victims involved but ourselves.

regulating wahtt we do to ousrselfs to what extent? get a tatoo take on voodoo? throw ourself of buildings or join a group of nut jobs who make it okay to shoot foreigners by brainwashing by making us think its good lawfull reason, or mabe aborting our babies before their self concious et-cetera

When they start regulating what we do to ourselves; i.e. when there are no victims involved but ourselves.

Care to cite an example?

Care to cite an example?

Drug laws. Exactly why should the government tell us what we can and cannot put into our bodies?

regulating wahtt we do to ousrselfs to what extent? get a tatoo take on voodoo? throw ourself of buildings or join a group of nut jobs who make it okay to shoot foreigners by brainwashing by making us think its good lawfull reason, or mabe aborting our babies before their self concious et-cetera

Tatoos are fine. Not sure what you mean by "take on voodoo." What's wrong with someone killing themselves? It would be wrong if they trespassed on that property to kill themselves, but killing themselves should not be wrong.

Joining a group would be okay. As soon as that group begins shooting foreigners, that's a problem. You are then infringing on those foreigners' right to live.

As brain waves do not begin to show in a baby until x-period of time, it would be okay to abort before that time. After that, as the baby is "alive" it would not. The whole issue is very sticky because we don't know when the baby is actually alive.

The point is, if you're not infringing on someone else's rights, what's the problem?

people always affect other peoples lives. were social creatures...what about the right to shoot bad locals, or forogneirs who are definatley gonna shoot us first? personaly ill never shoot someone whos about to shoot me,we must learn but thats my own deranged policy...how bout you?

people always affect other peoples lives.

That's true; but people don't always affect people's rights.

what about the right to shoot bad locals, or forogneirs who are definatley gonna shoot us first? personaly ill never shoot someone whos about to shoot me,we must learn but thats my own deranged policy...how bout you?

I don't see a problem with self-defense.

The law should play no part when its wrong... eg, Squatters' Rights and stupid things like that.

Drug laws. Exactly why should the government tell us what we can and cannot put into our bodies?


Well, it's not fair to say drugs don't harm anyone else - all that crime to feed habits, not to mention some of the property/people that are harmed under the influence of drugs

Well, it's not fair to say drugs don't harm anyone else - all that crime to feed habits, not to mention some of the property/people that are harmed under the influence of drugs

Those people/property are still harmed even though drugs are illegal. If drugs were legalized, harming property or other people because you're under the influence would still be illegal.

fine points my freinds but what got me riting the thread is this...
America refuses to kurb carbon deposits, this may be trashing the world and killing thousands of asians and africns.
the free market ripping of foreign countries, africa is apperently the contenent with the most riches.
a governments endorsment of a religion that may affect a womans right to abort.
think of some more for me i have drank to mutch and cant make anymore points, but you see whear im coming from?

Those people/property are still harmed even though drugs are illegal. If drugs were legalized, harming property or other people because you're under the influence would still be illegal.

What about the money made from selling drugs, which funds organised crime? What about the funds generated for the Taliban and other evil groups?
What about the fact that cannabis can cause serious psychological and psychiatric problems? Problems which will have to be paid for in my country by the rest of us in our National Health Service.
What about the thousands of lives across the world ruined by drugs, lives that meant something to people and are now worthless?
Can you really justify the suffering and immorality of this?

I think the line is drawn when the Law goes against the popular will.

The most important question you can ask yourself when putting a law in place, is "Would the citizens have imposed such a law on themselves?" And basically, if the answer is No, then the law probably shouldn't be in place, and if the answer is Yes, it is entirely appropriate for the police and courts to enforce the laws.

What about the money made from selling drugs, which funds organised crime? What about the funds generated for the Taliban and other evil groups?

Wrong. If drugs were legalized, what would be the point of organized crime? These drug lords made a living off of the black market of drugs. Now that you can buy some LSD at your local drug store, why bother finding a drug dealer?

Take a look at America circa 1920s; alcohol is banned = crime rate goes up; alcohol allowed = crime rate goes down.

Well, since the money for these drugs is now going to the pockets of corporations and those businesses (not drug lords) selling the drugs, your second question is kind of moot.

What about the fact that cannabis can cause serious psychological and psychiatric problems? Problems which will have to be paid for in my country by the rest of us in our National Health Service.


That's a good point. Pity your country decided to make you pay for the poor choices of other people.

What about the thousands of lives across the world ruined by drugs, lives that meant something to people and are now worthless?

If they really cared that much, they'd step in and try to help their friend quit using drugs.

Can you really justify the suffering and immorality of this?

If it doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, then yes.

at what point do you think law should play no part in our lifes?

The point at which our actions cannot be said to impose a demonstrable and significant impact upon the constitutional rights of other individuals. I.E. the law exists to prevent rape, murder, property crimes, etc, and thats where it stops. No social engineering, no nanny state, no impositions on individual freedoms in the interest of group or communal "rights," none of that garbage. The law is the line of enforcement between my right to swing my fist and your right to not be punched. Anything else is a step towards tyranny.

93
93/93

The point at which our actions cannot be said to impose a demonstrable and significant impact upon the constitutional rights of other individuals. I.E. the law exists to prevent rape, murder, property crimes, etc, and thats where it stops. No social engineering, no nanny state, no impositions on individual freedoms in the interest of group or communal "rights," none of that garbage. The law is the line of enforcement between my right to swing my fist and your right to not be punched. Anything else is a step towards tyranny.

93
93/93

Well said.

regulating wahtt we do to ousrselfs to what extent? get a tatoo take on voodoo? throw ourself of buildings or join a group of nut jobs who make it okay to shoot foreigners by brainwashing by making us think its good lawfull reason, or mabe aborting our babies before their self concious et-cetera

Lets address these points one by one. First, what buisness is it of the government to decide how I decorate my body? I think you would have a very hard time finding a compelling reason for the government to legislate body modification of any kind. Next, voodoo, I'm guessing you're talking about cults (hard to tell with your lack of puncutation and complete sentances), again, the government doesn't exist to protect me from myself. I am responsible for my own body and life, if I'm stupid enough to join a cult, thats my problem. Lets move onto the subject of suicide, then. Again, my body, I'm a freeman, not a serf or a slave. The government only has the right to intervene if the way in which I choose to kill mysef somehow interferes with the rights of others. Joining any kind of group is fine, human beings have a right to associate, if that group decides to infringe upon the rights of other in substantive ways, then the government can get involved, otherwise, stay away.

That brings us to abortion. I'm not interested in the fight and I will not respond to any responses to this portion of my post, but heres the way I see it. Abortion, in America, is about one thing, ownership of one's body. Morality has no place in the argument, this is about constitutional liberty. Heres a good example of why I feel that outlawing abortion is unacceptable:

Dick and Jane go out one night, have a one night stand, and Jane gets pregnant. Nine months later, a child is born, paternity tests are run, and it is discovered that Dick is the father. The child need a kidney transplant and Dick is a perfect match. Dick doesn't want to give up a kidney, he doesn't want to assume the risk of that particular medical procedure, and his life is likely to be shorted with only one kidney. Is dick and asshole? Sure, but you're not going to find a valid legal argument to make him give up his kidney. A government forcing someone into a medical procedure is anathema to freedom. Even if you grant every single argument of the pro-life crowd regarding rights under the 14th ammendment, when life begins, all that, you cannot jump the final hurdle.

93
93/93

people always affect other peoples lives. were social creatures...what about the right to shoot bad locals, or forogneirs who are definatley gonna shoot us first? personaly ill never shoot someone whos about to shoot me,we must learn but thats my own deranged policy...how bout you?

I've got a loaded 12 guage with shells designed to do maximum damage to soft tissue, but lose most of their kinetic energy when they hit a hard surface (like a floor or a wall). End result, if I feel myself or my family threatened, I will not hesitate to kill, and I'll sleep well the night after.

93
93/93

Wrong. If drugs were legalized, what would be the point of organized crime? These drug lords made a living off of the black market of drugs. Now that you can buy some LSD at your local drug store, why bother finding a drug dealer?

So as well as selling cigarettes and therefore legally killing people, you think we should allow heroine and cocaine to be peddled to everyone so that more death and misery are the result. Organised crime can just go legal and the same scum and make yet more money from their expertise in selling death.


Take a look at America circa 1920s; alcohol is banned = crime rate goes up; alcohol allowed = crime rate goes down.

Alcohol is perfectly safe in moderation. Can you sya that about ecstasy? No. Simply because one pill can kill you. Also Alcohol was legal before and perfectly accepted before prohibition. Drugs are totally unacceptable. Therefore your analogy is flawed.


Well, since the money for these drugs is now going to the pockets of corporations and those businesses (not drug lords) selling the drugs, your second question is kind of moot.

Incorrect. We will simply place a velvet cushion under corrupt and evil people in the same way we do now with the House of Saud.

That's a good point. Pity your country decided to make you pay for the poor choices of other people.
Not really. Its more of a shame that other people are irresponsible and take advantage of the system.


If they really cared that much, they'd step in and try to help their friend quit using drugs.

Have you ever tried reasoning with somebody addicted to Class A drugs? People who steal to feed their habit? If so, was it easy to disuade them?

If it doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, then yes.

The point is that it does. Drugs are a menace on all of society, as those who cannot afford to pay for them attack and rob the rest of us. Think of the additional policing costs, which must be funded by the taxpayer.
Basically, you're totally wrong.

Well, it's not fair to say drugs don't harm anyone else - all that crime to feed habits, not to mention some of the property/people that are harmed under the influence of drugs

Interested in banning alcohol, too? Lets face it, people want drugs, its natural, human beings have sought out intoxication for at least as long as we have cultivated grain. Prohibition just causes more problems because it allows a violent black market to develop around a very profitable product. You cannot stop it. Also, lets be clear, the vast majority of drug users never commit a drug related crime outside of simple posession.

What about the money made from selling drugs, which funds organised crime? What about the funds generated for the Taliban and other evil groups?
What about the fact that cannabis can cause serious psychological and psychiatric problems? Problems which will have to be paid for in my country by the rest of us in our National Health Service.
What about the thousands of lives across the world ruined by drugs, lives that meant something to people and are now worthless?
Can you really justify the suffering and immorality of this?

If drugs were legal organized crime wouldn't be a problem, that comes from prohibition. A legal product draws legal buisness. The "psychiatric" problems of Marijunana are greatly exaggerated (I saw this as a non-user) and virtually non-existant for casual users. The same is true with the vast majority of drugs. Now, I don't live in a country with socialized healthcare, so the costs are nil here, but even if they weren't, think of the end result of that line of thinking. Are you going to ban fatty foods? Roller coasters? Skydiving? How about playing contact sports? When you start banning activities because they might later cost the government, you start to move towards a world without personal choice. Finally, the lives of others are not my problem. I do not see why my freedom should be limited because some weak-willed douchebag doesn't know how to moderate his vices. We are free creatures with free will. The other side of that coin is that we are responsible for our own conduct. If you want to do a line of coke, thats fine with me, but don't come crying when you're sneezing blood.

I think the line is drawn when the Law goes against the popular will.

The most important question you can ask yourself when putting a law in place, is "Would the citizens have imposed such a law on themselves?" And basically, if the answer is No, then the law probably shouldn't be in place, and if the answer is Yes, it is entirely appropriate for the police and courts to enforce the laws.

*Tilts his head* You can't be serious? What you're talking about is mob rule, the tyranny of the majority. Do you have any idea how many terrible things have had the support of the citizens. Hitler was VOTED into office, Southerners overwhelmingly supported Jim Crow laws, and I bet if you asked 10 idiots on the street in Europe or the US if they were willing to give up civil rights if it meant they'd be safer from terrorism, they'd say yes. No, thank you. Governments exist to protect the rights of the individual over the whims of the majority and, in America, if government fails we always have the second ammendment to fall back upon.

93
93/93

Personally i've done my share of drugs and the only one i've stuck with is booze. Which with a fair hint of irony is the one i've had most bad experiences with.
Legalise all drugs. Ensure quality. Remove it from criminal hands. Give it away for free if you have to as i'm pretty sure the costs of producing them outweighs the costs of clearing up after every dealer and junkie criminal.
But in the end, legal or otherwise, it all comes down to personal responsibility.

So as well as selling cigarettes and therefore legally killing people, you think we should allow heroine and cocaine to be peddled to everyone so that more death and misery are the result. Organised crime can just go legal and the same scum and make yet more money from their expertise in selling death.

Why should the government tell people how to live their lives? If you want to buy and consume drugs, by all means go ahead. Just realize that you may die and that's your responsibility. If you don't want to take drugs, fine. It's about choice. Organized crime didn't go legal after the 18th amendment was repealed. It went out of business.

Alcohol is perfectly safe in moderation. Can you sya that about ecstasy? No. Simply because one pill can kill you. Also Alcohol was legal before and perfectly accepted before prohibition. Drugs are totally unacceptable. Therefore your analogy is flawed.

Drugs are totally unacceptable? Tell that to the Native Americans, Indians, Chinese, etc. Just because one society doesn't think drugs are acceptable, not because they infringe on rights, but because of Puritan values doesn't make them wrong.

Incorrect. We will simply place a velvet cushion under corrupt and evil people in the same way we do now with the House of Saud.

I wasn't aware that CVS funded terrorism!

Not really. Its more of a shame that other people are irresponsible and take advantage of the system.

Without that system they'd have to be held responsible for their actions. Instead, they don't have to worry about getting addicted because they know they'll have you paying for their medical bills. Great work!


Have you ever tried reasoning with somebody addicted to Class A drugs? People who steal to feed their habit? If so, was it easy to disuade them?

Nope, however, I have convinced several of my friends not to do drugs in the first place. Like I said, if you really care about someone, would you not try to help them? Help is not limited to "Hey, stop taking those drugs man..."; I'm sure you could help pay for his rehabilitation.



The point is that it does. Drugs are a menace on all of society, as those who cannot afford to pay for them attack and rob the rest of us. Think of the additional policing costs, which must be funded by the taxpayer.

Regardless of whether or not drugs are legal, those who want them, will get them. Additional policing costs? Well now, since drugs are legal (no more money being wasted on a war on drugs) and are being taxed, the government has that much more money to pay its police forces to protect the rights of the citizens.

As it is now, the government has to not only pay for the police when drug addicts steal, rob, murder, etc. but it also has to pay to fight drug lords, drug gangs, etc.

Basically, you're totally wrong.

Mmm... I love the smell of ignorance in the morning. ;)

So as well as selling cigarettes and therefore legally killing people, you think we should allow heroine and cocaine to be peddled to everyone so that more death and misery are the result. Organised crime can just go legal and the same scum and make yet more money from their expertise in selling death.

Umm, so? I hate to shatter your illusions, but as life goes on, you'll start to realize that you aren't so damned brilliant that your preferences should be the laws for others. If someone wants to kill themselves, well, thats their buisness. It neither fills my purse nor picks my pocket. If someone makes money pointing out that road, oh well, no one is forced to make that choice.


Alcohol is perfectly safe in moderation. Can you sya that about ecstasy? No. Simply because one pill can kill you. Also Alcohol was legal before and perfectly accepted before prohibition. Drugs are totally unacceptable. Therefore your analogy is flawed.

God, its like watching Refer Madness. Alcohol in moderation can kill some people, especially if they get behind the wheel or have a heart condition. Drugs are the same way. One pill of Ecstasy cannot kill a healthy person, and I defy you to find a single study with sound methodology that says it can. Most people who die as a result of taking Ecstasy do so from either dehydration or from a heart attack because they had a preexisting heart condition. Now, lets talk about drugs and prohibition. All drugs were legal before prohibition, and most of the drug laws that exist in the US (and Europe) have their roots in racism. Marijunana and opium were originally banned (if you look at the state laws that led to the federal laws) to harrass mexican and chinese immigrants. Even after that, drug prohibition in the united states has been more about keeping political appointees in work than about any social ill (the forerunner to the dEA was originally formed just after prohibition ended and it was staffed entirely by the same people who were in charge of going after rumrunners).



Have you ever tried reasoning with somebody addicted to Class A drugs? People who steal to feed their habit? If so, was it easy to disuade them?

People who steal to fill their habit are rare. The drug maniac is more a political invention created to demonize those whose skin is too dark than an actual being. I've known people who stole to feed habits, yes, but I've known just as many who maintained heroin habits for DECADES without anyone on the outside ever having an idea.


The point is that it does. Drugs are a menace on all of society, as those who cannot afford to pay for them attack and rob the rest of us. Think of the additional policing costs, which must be funded by the taxpayer.
Basically, you're totally wrong.

Simple solution to the question of robbery (and not just drug related): concealed carry. If you're so far removed from the rules of society that you would be willing to infringe that much on someone's rights, you need to be put down. As for policing costs, most of those would vanish when cops stopped having to spend so much time and money on simple possession and border enforcement.

93
93/93

It's sad this (very American) notion of people not working together for the greater good of the group but for oneself. Very opt-in.

Maybe Britain isn't so bad after all :(

I believe competition usually brings about greater advance than cooperation. I may be wrong.

Yeah, I'm sure "not paying for the mistakes of others" as you put it, seems admirable to those who can't afford health care

It's sad this (very American) notion of people not working together for the greater good of the group but for oneself. Very opt-in.

Maybe Britain isn't so bad after all :(

Europe made it's choice, the US made a different one. The US is built around personal liberty. Every single one of the original 10 ammendments (and the 27 rights contained therein) are individual. We are not a country of group, majority, minority, communal, or social rights. The founding fathers weren't really concerned with social issues, or with creating a strong society, they were concerned with maximizing the freedom of the individual, the ability to make one's own choices and one's own way on one's own. Even after the founding, this was the sole principal of the united states until FDR, and it still has many supporters. Europe made a different choice. Europe decide to make individual rights subserviant to communal goods. Now, I don't know how I would feel had I grown up in Europe, but as I am today, I believe that no good can trump individual rights. Once you start down that road, you sacrifice the very thing that makes you human: choice.

93
93/93

Once you start down that road, you sacrifice the very thing that makes you human: choice.

93
93/93

Personal autonomy is the work of our imagination. Yet we have been thrown into a time in which everything is provisional. New technologies alter our lives daily. The traditions of the past cannot be retrieved. At the same time we have little idea of what the future will bring. We are forced to live as if we were free. The cult of choice reflects the fact we must improvise our lives. That we cannot do otherwise is a mark of our unfreedom. Choice has become a fetish; but the mark of a fetish that is unchosen.

So as well as selling cigarettes and therefore legally killing people, you think we should allow heroine and cocaine to be peddled to everyone so that more death and misery are the result.


Not only is this a strawman ("people who want to legalize drugs want people to die"), but it also completely misses the fact that most people freely choose to begin smoking or taking any other kind of drug. I say "most" because there are children born by mothers who have drug problems; I do support severe penalties in such cases. However, adults are responsible for their own behavior. Despite the best efforts of the tobacco companies to "kill me," I do not smoke, and I will never smoke. If another adult chooses otherwise, then so be it. I oppose drug prohibition because I believe in personal responsibility.


Organised crime can just go legal and the same scum and make yet more money from their expertise in selling death.


Organized crime has the power in has, as concerns drugs, exactly because these drugs are illegal. Making trade in these drugs illegal does not prevent such trade, it only forces trade underground into the black market. Because those who operate in the black market are already considered criminals, they do not consider themselves bound to the same standards of behavior as legitimate businesses; drug lords rely on violence to eliminate competition, and are not bound to any kind of product safety or other consideration for their customers. The normal functions of supply and demand competition are severely retarded, allowing drug lords to charge whatever prices they want. This, in turn, results in super-inflated profits for the criminal syndicate. Thus, drug prohibition makes crime a very lucrative business.

Legalization and regulation would subject trade in drugs to supply and demand competition, eliminating super-inflated prices, and thus taking much of the incentive out of dealing such drugs. Legalization will also bring the trade out into the open, making it easier to enforce safety standards. It will also eliminate the reliance on violence: when was the last time your local pharmacy engaged in gun battles over turf?

Besides all that, a blanket ban ignores the many legitimate uses these drugs can have. For instance, the THC found in marijuana has the effect of reducing nausea while increasing appitite. Such effects would be useful, for instance, to cancer patients who must cope with the negative effects of chemical or radiation therapy.


Alcohol is perfectly safe in moderation.


Alcohol is the only drug that can be taken in moderation? Every single medicine a doctor can prescribe you can also kill you, if taken without moderation. Shall we ban the practice of medicine?


Alcohol was legal before and perfectly accepted before prohibition. Drugs are totally unacceptable. Therefore your analogy is flawed.


Alcohol is a drug. Since drugs are totally unacceptable, alcohol must also be prohibited. If you don't agree, then your statement that "drugs are totally unacceptable" is false.


Drugs are a menace on all of society, as those who cannot afford to pay for them attack and rob the rest of us.


People engage in such behavior only because they cannot peacefully and legally obtain drugs. The solution to drugs being too expensive is not to make them even more so, which is what further drug prohibitions will do.


Think of the additional policing costs, which must be funded by the taxpayer.


Consider the savings to the taxpayer when the unnecessary drug war is ended, and the private sector handles most issues of regulation and distribution.

Personal autonomy is the work of our imagination. Yet we have been thrown into a time in which everything is provisional. New technologies alter our lives daily. The traditions of the past cannot be retrieved. At the same time we have little idea of what the future will bring. We are forced to live as if we were free. The cult of choice reflects the fact we must improvise our lives. That we cannot do otherwise is a mark of our unfreedom. Choice has become a fetish; but the mark of a fetish that is unchosen.

I, for one, do not relish the day when choice was not an option. Yes, it is easier, more comfortable, safer, and far less scary to know what is expected, what is to come, but its slavery. Sure, maybe autonomy is a form of slavery as well, but it is one in which your master is entropy, not a baron or god.

I refuse to mourn the loss of tradition, the bad old days when the future was immutable, and I would rather they not be revived. Hell, I'd fight and kill to keep them lost. Yeah, its a cold harsh world out there, but I do not look upon a life where every step is chosen for me with anything other than revulsion. I will transcend the class of my parents, not because I was chosen by god or had the luck of being born rich, but because I have fought for every single victory I have taken, no matter how small. I will live my life as I see fit, without cowering in fear at the wagging finger of fathergod 5000 years in the past. I will love, and have married for love, rather than a dowery or buisness arrangement. Yes, an unchosen life of choice is a hard one, it is a painful one, it is one in which the meek and the sheep inherit nothing but the wind, but it is one in which someone who is pasisonate can thrive.

No, I do not know what the future holds. Yes, I have to improvise, and sometimes that is hard, sometimes it even takes things from me I would rather keep, sometimes choosing to survive, improvising a way to live, has made me cold and hard. Yes, some people are crushed by these choices, unable to think quickly enough to become anything other than bodies on the road. Still, I have no sympathy for those destroyed by the loss of their world, and no tollerance for those who look back masturbatorily on a time when everyone was enslaved. I'd take an axe, a will, and a absolute lack of knowledge of what is to come over a gilded cage every.single.time.

93
93/93

I, for one, do not relish the day when choice was not an option. Yes, it is easier, more comfortable, safer, and far less scary to know what is expected, what is to come, but its slavery. Sure, maybe autonomy is a form of slavery as well, but it is one in which your master is entropy, not a baron or god.
93
93/93

Missing my (slightly off-topic) point. Which was that the idea of choice is in the main an illusion. We control very little of our lives, whether you like it or not. It's part of the Christian and increasingly Humanist belief that human lives have meaning, have a history and that we freely choose how to live our lives. For Taoists the freest humans are not those who act on choices but those who never have to choose.

Missing my (slightly off-topic) point. Which was that the idea of choice is in the main an illusion. We control very little of our lives, whether you like it or not. It's part of the Christian and increasingly Humanist belief that human lives have meaning, have a history and that we freely choose how to live our lives. For Taoists the freest humans are not those who act on choices but those who never have to choose.


Do not get me wrong, human lives have no more meaning than we inject into them. Personally, I see little difference between actual and imagined meaning (its complicated). We control more of our lives than we notice, and those of us who fall on particularly hard times discover this. Sometimes the choices are small "coke or pepsi" sometimes they are large "ask for her hand or don't," sometimes they are terrible "give up, submit, and be free from pain, or risk your legal freedom by fighting back," but they are there, and they can have profound impact. One of the biggest problems with Taoism is shared by Christianity, it is a religion that was chosen and spread because it keeps people in line, it keeps them weak and submissive. Most of the major world religions share this trait (more because leaders have traditionally killed the followers of any other religion before it had a chance to gain political power). It is also important to understand the Taoism developed in a much more communal society than ours.

93
93/93

One of the biggest problems with Taoism is shared by Christianity, it is a religion that was chosen and spread because it keeps people in line, it keeps them weak and submissive. Most of the major world religions share this trait (more because leaders have traditionally killed the followers of any other religion before it had a chance to gain political power). It is also important to understand the Taoism developed in a much more communal society than ours.


I've been reading a couple of translations of the Tao Te Ching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Te_Ching) and it seems to me that Taoism is very anti-authoritarian. Keeping people "weak and submissive" is not the general impression I have had of it. The intended goal would seem to be exactly the opposite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Te_Ching#The_Sage_has_no_heart_on_his_own...).

I've been reading a couple of translations of the Tao Te Ching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Te_Ching) and it seems to me that Taoism is very anti-authoritarian. Keeping people "weak and submissive" is not the general impression I have had of it. The intended goal would seem to be exactly the opposite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Te_Ching#The_Sage_has_no_heart_on_his_own...).

Exactamundo.

We control more of our lives than we notice, and those of us who fall on particularly hard times discover this. Sometimes the choices are small "coke or pepsi" sometimes they are large "ask for her hand or don't," sometimes they are terrible "give up, submit, and be free from pain, or risk your legal freedom by fighting back," but they are there, and they can have profound impact.

How much of our decision making is based on conscious choices? How much of our decision making comes from a biological reaction, not necessarily what we choose?

Drug laws. Exactly why should the government tell us what we can and cannot put into our bodies?



Because people ripped off their tits on P are going around cutting people's hands off?


Actually that only happened in New Zealand. Still, people on certain drugs can be such a danger to society that those drugs are illegal. In theory, anyway. If laws were truely for that reason, alcohol would be illegal and pot wouldn't be.

at what point do you think law should play no part in our lifes?

Never! Law and order are required in any nation if it expects to survive.

I've been reading a couple of translations of the Tao Te Ching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Te_Ching) and it seems to me that Taoism is very anti-authoritarian. Keeping people "weak and submissive" is not the general impression I have had of it. The intended goal would seem to be exactly the opposite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Te_Ching#The_Sage_has_no_heart_on_his_own...).


Taoism has a very aesthetic character. It equates holy and spiritual with peaceful and simple. It focuses on inner strength and will power, as well as the power to endure. It stresses humility as a virtue and views desire as a vice. It also views violence and indeed resistance as wrong. Taoism, is, generally, quite pacifistic. While an individual who becomes a taoist is unliekly to seek to become a tyrant, he is also unlikely to reist a tyrant, or question his place in the world. He is unlikely to strive for more, and unlikely to better his life through war or rebellion. An army of half-starved aesthetics who are taght to accept "their place" is not going to ever engage in insurrection. While Taoism (or Buddhism) do not stress obediance to authority in the same way that Christianity does, they are also not religions that will become dangerous oppositions to the power of a ruler.

93
93/93

Exactamundo.



How much of our decision making is based on conscious choices? How much of our decision making comes from a biological reaction, not necessarily what we choose?

We are not simple machines, or even black boxes. Skinner might have had a fetish about understanding and controlling human reaction and behavior by controlling stimuli and experiance, but the theory that human behavior is nothing more than a very complex machine is flawed. Namely, it lacks entropy, it lacks randomness, and it lacks the understanding that all human behavior is not logical. If you've ever run a computer simulation of human behavior or worked on programs that attempt to approximate human choices (expert systems, neural networks, etc) you encounter the problem that those systems become very easy to game, they are, ultimately, predictable. Humans are not. Sure, some of our decisions are influenced by biological reactions, but biology is only one (relatively small) facet of the human experiance.

93
93/93

While an individual who becomes a taoist is unliekly to seek to become a tyrant, he is also unlikely to reist a tyrant, or question his place in the world. He is unlikely to strive for more, and unlikely to better his life through war or rebellion. An army of half-starved aesthetics who are taght to accept "their place" is not going to ever engage in insurrection. While Taoism (or Buddhism) do not stress obediance to authority in the same way that Christianity does, they are also not religions that will become dangerous oppositions to the power of a ruler.


Or does a Taoist simply recognize the obvious fact that no one has any power or authority over him that he himself does not freely choose to give? Whether one likes it or not, one is always free. Recognition of this fact is not submission, it is the highest expression of liberty. Simply standing there is the most subversive action a person can take.

We are not simple machines, or even black boxes. Sure, some of our decisions are influenced by biological reactions, but biology is only one (relatively small) facet of the human experiance.

93
93/93

I'd argue the opposite, that our experience is not of freely choosing how we live but of being driven along by biological needs - fear, hunger, sex. Conscious perception is only a fraction of what we know through our senses.
The electrical impulse that initiates action occurs half a second before we take the conscious decision to act. ie our actions are initiated unconsciously.
The bandwith of consciousness is about 18 bits. We process around 14 million bits of information per second. Meaning we have access to about a millionth of the information we use daily to supposedly make conscious decisions with.
I can recommend Schoppenhauer and Banjamin Libet if you want to see a better worded version of what i'm getting at.

This could probably do with a new thread ??
Getting slightly off the business of police states methinks...

I'd argue the opposite, that our experience is not of freely choosing how we live but of being driven along by biological needs - fear, hunger, sex. Conscious perception is only a fraction of what we know through our senses.
The electrical impulse that initiates action occurs half a second before we take the conscious decision to act. ie our actions are initiated unconsciously.
The bandwith of consciousness is about 18 bits. We process around 14 million bits of information per second. Meaning we have access to about a millionth of the information we use daily to supposedly make conscious decisions with.
I can recommend Schoppenhauer and Banjamin Libet if you want to see a better worded version of what i'm getting at.

I've read Shoppenhauer, and a small bit of Libet (not nearly enough), but from both my training in psychology and my research experiance, I'm rather unimpressed by the biological needs argument. Maslow codified it well enough, but I feel it is an incomplete picture at best. Further, the amount of information we process is deceptive. Not all of it is important, in fact, the vast majority of it is so unimportant our brains have evolved mechanisms to shut it out so we do not become distracted. Is the shape of the zipper on the purse of the women ahead of you in line at the bank of any real consequence? Is it secretly driving your subconscious reactions. Of course not, its garbage in the stream.
More to the point, however, I feel that the idea of the unconscious has been too broadly distributed by pop psychology. The unconscious does exist, but it isn't some grand conspiratorial force excercising it's invisible influence on our lives. Even when it does play into our lives, our conscious mind is far more powerful (well, with the exception of those suffering from some clinical conditions). I feel that the unconscious has become a modern interpretation of the devil or destiny. It is something we blame, something we use, in order to shift responsibility away from ourselves. If something goes wrong or someone makes a bad choice, its the fault of their unconscious. Being able to shift the blame is comforting, it is safe, but it is still just willful delusion.

93
93/93

If anyone here is a fan of police states, come to Britain. Here the Goverrnment tries to make policy based on the thoughts of unelected police chiefs.

But who needs that with the legislation we have now? Foreigners can be locked up indefinitely without charge, and subjects can be detained for a month.

A breif discourse on free will:

Pavlov's Dog: I have a million proofs that we are not free.
Shroedinger's Cat: I have one proof that we are free.
Pavlov's Dog: What is that?
Shroedinger's Cat: Who asks's what is that?