Total Posts:85|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Legalization of hallucinogenics

hauki20
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 10:08:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I challangee anyone to give me one logical reason why hallucinogens (like LSD, psilocybin, mescalin, etc) should stay illegal. I know that I'm setting a challange that can't be beaten, since there is no (logical) reason why hallucinogenics should stay illegal. Although marijuana should be legal, there are at least a few legitimate arguments against legalization of said drug. But to this day, after countless hours of looking, I have been unable to find a single logic-based argument which would give a coherent reason to keep the safest drugs in the world illegal (excluding emotional appeals, but they're pretty rare). And this isn't my opinion either; if you compare drugs that are commonly said to be mild (like marijuana), hallucinogenics are infinitely safer. And if you compare legal drugs and hallucinogens... it's almost laughable.

Now, there is one argument that might seem somewhat logical at first, that being the fact that hallucinogens can trigger psychosis. When you bother to check the facts you realize that this argument, like many other anti-drug arguments are illogical, fallacious, misleading and alarmist. For example, in one study it was found that the rate of psychosis occurring is about 1:1700. In that experiment, if I remember correctly, LSD triggered psychosis in only one subject, but it is worth noting that the subject had genes that predisposed him to schizophrenia. Oh, and his psychosis ended after 5 days. On top of that, many legal drugs (incl. alcohol) can trigger psychosis too. The questio arises, why is everyone focusing on the highly unlikely possibility of a psychedelic to trigger psychosis? The answer should be obvious to anyone attached to the facts. The anti-drug speakers want to instill fear in us with lies. The motives are subject to speculation.

Sorry if this is a little incoherent in some places.
Arrogance and deception,
Torment and Bliss,
Oh, I envy your lack of justification
When mine is so sincere


[u]And btw, why can't I use [url=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBCode]BBCode?[/url][/u]
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 10:49:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
You'd have to have a definition on the role of government first, and that is something that we won't agree on.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 1:50:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 10:49:23 AM, OreEle wrote:
You'd have to have a definition on the role of government first, and that is something that we won't agree on.

Given your recent comments, I'd have to gather that you think the government should police every aspect of our lives, destroy civil liberties, and enslave us which includes telling us what we can and cannot put into our own bodies. You think the government should treat us like children in cages.

You're right, I don't think we agree on what the role of government is.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 2:00:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
To answer the OP, I agree with most of what you're saying regarding the health safety aspect. It's already known that psychedelics contain the same toxicity as water, zero. Psychedelics are the safest drugs, safer than nicotene, alcohol, marijuana, and even caffiene. However, their mental effects indeed can be risky. As far as I know, these shouldn't have any long lasting negative affects even with a bad trip, but they do have long lasting positive affects.

However, whether these drugs are safe or not is irreleveant because the government can't tell us what to put in our bodies. Just like they can't tell us to not eat McDonalds 2 times a day everyday, nor can they tell us not to swallow a knife if we so choose.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 2:10:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 2:00:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
However, whether these drugs are safe or not is irreleveant because the government can't tell us what to put in our bodies.

Why not?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 2:15:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 2:10:27 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 4/28/2011 2:00:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
However, whether these drugs are safe or not is irreleveant because the government can't tell us what to put in our bodies.

Why not?

The Constitution guarantees civil liberties. Obviously they can and they do tell us what to do, but it's antithetical to freedom and simply unconstitutional.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 2:22:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 2:00:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
To answer the OP, I agree with most of what you're saying regarding the health safety aspect. It's already known that psychedelics contain the same toxicity as water, zero. Psychedelics are the safest drugs, safer than nicotene, alcohol, marijuana, and even caffiene. However, their mental effects indeed can be risky. As far as I know, these shouldn't have any long lasting negative affects even with a bad trip, but they do have long lasting positive affects.

However, whether these drugs are safe or not is irreleveant because the government can't tell us what to put in our bodies. Just like they can't tell us to not eat McDonalds 2 times a day everyday, nor can they tell us not to swallow a knife if we so choose.

The government is the people, they can only do what we let them
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 2:27:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 2:15:33 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Constitution guarantees civil liberties. Obviously they can and they do tell us what to do, but it's antithetical to freedom and simply unconstitutional.

I don't really care what the constitution says. I'm asking for your reason for why you believe the government shouldn't interfere in the particular freedom to ingest particular things. Vague statements like 'it's antithetical to freedom' will only do if you also accept that all law enforcement should be abolished.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 2:30:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 2:22:00 PM, reddj2 wrote:
At 4/28/2011 2:00:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
To answer the OP, I agree with most of what you're saying regarding the health safety aspect. It's already known that psychedelics contain the same toxicity as water, zero. Psychedelics are the safest drugs, safer than nicotene, alcohol, marijuana, and even caffiene. However, their mental effects indeed can be risky. As far as I know, these shouldn't have any long lasting negative affects even with a bad trip, but they do have long lasting positive affects.

However, whether these drugs are safe or not is irreleveant because the government can't tell us what to put in our bodies. Just like they can't tell us to not eat McDonalds 2 times a day everyday, nor can they tell us not to swallow a knife if we so choose.

The government is the people,

That's funny. What about when the government outlawed alcohol? The majority of the people favored that right? Wrong.

they can only do what we let them

That does seem to happen a lot. The people are supporting the enslavement of themselves indeed. It's like they're taking the shackles the government gives them and puts it on their own ankle.

"Understand that there is hidden hand controlling and manipulating the world and you are participant in that because you are allowing those hooks into your flesh." -- Michael Tsarion
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 2:41:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 2:27:14 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 4/28/2011 2:15:33 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Constitution guarantees civil liberties. Obviously they can and they do tell us what to do, but it's antithetical to freedom and simply unconstitutional.

I don't really care what the constitution says.

I don't either but the government claims to abide by it and it would be nice if they did.

I'm asking for your reason for why you believe the government shouldn't interfere in the particular freedom to ingest particular things. Vague statements like 'it's antithetical to freedom' will only do if you also accept that all law enforcement should be abolished.

In Ron Pauls "Liberty Defined" he said liberty is freedom to live as you like so long as you don't infringe on anyone else's freedom. That's not word for word, but it's something similar to that.

Also, I don't have to oppose some sort of peacekeeping agency just to uphold freedom.

Yes, if you accept the premise of freedom, then it follows that the government can't tell you what to ingest. What would you do if the government came in your house and told your baby not to chew on a rattle?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 2:42:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 1:50:02 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/28/2011 10:49:23 AM, OreEle wrote:
You'd have to have a definition on the role of government first, and that is something that we won't agree on.

Given your recent comments, I'd have to gather that you think the government should police every aspect of our lives, destroy civil liberties, and enslave us which includes telling us what we can and cannot put into our own bodies. You think the government should treat us like children in cages.

Yeah, something along those lines. Though I'd go more with dangerous rabidous dogs in cages, rather than mere children.


You're right, I don't think we agree on what the role of government is.

can't agree on everything. :)
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 2:46:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 2:41:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/28/2011 2:27:14 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 4/28/2011 2:15:33 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Constitution guarantees civil liberties. Obviously they can and they do tell us what to do, but it's antithetical to freedom and simply unconstitutional.

I don't really care what the constitution says.

I don't either but the government claims to abide by it and it would be nice if they did.

No, it would be nice if they admitted that they don't obide by it, and place it in a museum as a historical document of the way things use to be.


I'm asking for your reason for why you believe the government shouldn't interfere in the particular freedom to ingest particular things. Vague statements like 'it's antithetical to freedom' will only do if you also accept that all law enforcement should be abolished.

In Ron Pauls "Liberty Defined" he said liberty is freedom to live as you like so long as you don't infringe on anyone else's freedom. That's not word for word, but it's something similar to that.

"everyone else's freedom" is also very vague.

Do people have the right not to be physically harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be economically harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be emotionally harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be psychologically harmed by another?

And "harmed" to what degree in each of these?

If I gave you a pat on the back, that damages some skin cells, so technically, harm is physically done, does that mean I've infringed on your rights?


Yes, if you accept the premise of complete freedom, then it follows that the government can't tell you what to ingest. What would you do if the government came in your house and told your baby not to chew on a rattle?

fixed. I accept the premise of partial freedom.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 2:46:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 2:41:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/28/2011 2:27:14 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 4/28/2011 2:15:33 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Constitution guarantees civil liberties. Obviously they can and they do tell us what to do, but it's antithetical to freedom and simply unconstitutional.

I don't really care what the constitution says.

I don't either but the government claims to abide by it and it would be nice if they did.

I'm asking for your reason for why you believe the government shouldn't interfere in the particular freedom to ingest particular things. Vague statements like 'it's antithetical to freedom' will only do if you also accept that all law enforcement should be abolished.

In Ron Pauls "Liberty Defined" he said liberty is freedom to live as you like so long as you don't infringe on anyone else's freedom. That's not word for word, but it's something similar to that.

people who put their babies in ovens as a result of tripping balls aren't inpinging upon those babies' freedoms?

Also, I don't have to oppose some sort of peacekeeping agency just to uphold freedom.

Yes, if you accept the premise of freedom, then it follows that the government can't tell you what to ingest. What would you do if the government came in your house and told your baby not to chew on a rattle?
signature
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 2:48:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
@Geo

Why shouldn't government roles also be extended to safeguarding people's happiness and welfare? What does 'liberty' have that elevates it beyond nothing more than one consideration amongst many that a government should consider when making laws?
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 2:54:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 2:46:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
Do people have the right not to be physically harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be economically harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be emotionally harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be psychologically harmed by another?

And "harmed" to what degree in each of these?

I agree that "harmed" is too ambiguous of a word. I like the way Ragnar puts it. Freedom is being free from aggression, or initiatory force. If you use these terms the aswers to your questions are:

Yes.
No.
Depends, usually not.
Depends, probably.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 2:59:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 2:54:11 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 4/28/2011 2:46:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
Do people have the right not to be physically harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be economically harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be emotionally harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be psychologically harmed by another?

And "harmed" to what degree in each of these?

I agree that "harmed" is too ambiguous of a word. I like the way Ragnar puts it. Freedom is being free from aggression, or initiatory force. If you use these terms the aswers to your questions are:

Yes.
No.*
Depends, usually not.
Depends, probably.

*Except in cases of fraud.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 2:59:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 2:48:59 PM, Kinesis wrote:
@Geo

Why shouldn't government roles also be extended to safeguarding people's happiness and welfare?

The government isn't there to provide or safeguard happiness, it says that it protects the PURSUIT of happiness, it doesn't guarantee it. If you want to be a heroin addict, be a heroin addict. That's YOUR life choice and your own pursuit of happiness even if you fail in your pursuit.

What does 'liberty' have that elevates it beyond nothing more than one consideration amongst many that a government should consider when making laws?

Well the government is there to protect freedoms (such a statement may indeed be a contradiction) and protect property rights. The government is not there to police every aspect of your life.

Yet, the government has harmed my life more than any criminal has. So now I stead of worrying about just criminals, I have to worry about the government invading and coercing me as well.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 3:01:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 2:54:11 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 4/28/2011 2:46:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
Do people have the right not to be physically harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be economically harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be emotionally harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be psychologically harmed by another?

And "harmed" to what degree in each of these?

I agree that "harmed" is too ambiguous of a word. I like the way Ragnar puts it. Freedom is being free from aggression, or initiatory force. If you use these terms the aswers to your questions are:

Yes.
No.
Depends, usually not.
Depends, probably.

You got it wrong. It should be:

Yes
Yes
No
No
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 3:06:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 2:59:11 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 4/28/2011 2:54:11 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 4/28/2011 2:46:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
Do people have the right not to be physically harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be economically harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be emotionally harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be psychologically harmed by another?

And "harmed" to what degree in each of these?

I agree that "harmed" is too ambiguous of a word. I like the way Ragnar puts it. Freedom is being free from aggression, or initiatory force. If you use these terms the aswers to your questions are:

Yes.
No.*
Depends, usually not.
Depends, probably.

*Except in cases of fraud.

I typically like that too, but you run into issues with pressure and "threat of force."

I don't see that there is a way to have a simple litmus test that is all encompassing. It just seems that society and the world are so complex, that a complex code is what is needed.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 3:06:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 3:01:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/28/2011 2:54:11 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 4/28/2011 2:46:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
Do people have the right not to be physically harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be economically harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be emotionally harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be psychologically harmed by another?

And "harmed" to what degree in each of these?

I agree that "harmed" is too ambiguous of a word. I like the way Ragnar puts it. Freedom is being free from aggression, or initiatory force. If you use these terms the aswers to your questions are:

Yes.
No.
Depends, usually not.
Depends, probably.

You got it wrong. It should be:

Yes
Yes
No
No

And why should some harms be valued more important than others?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 3:13:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 2:46:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/28/2011 2:41:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/28/2011 2:27:14 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 4/28/2011 2:15:33 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Constitution guarantees civil liberties. Obviously they can and they do tell us what to do, but it's antithetical to freedom and simply unconstitutional.

I don't really care what the constitution says.

I don't either but the government claims to abide by it and it would be nice if they did.

No, it would be nice if they admitted that they don't obide by it, and place it in a museum as a historical document of the way things use to be.


I'm asking for your reason for why you believe the government shouldn't interfere in the particular freedom to ingest particular things. Vague statements like 'it's antithetical to freedom' will only do if you also accept that all law enforcement should be abolished.

In Ron Pauls "Liberty Defined" he said liberty is freedom to live as you like so long as you don't infringe on anyone else's freedom. That's not word for word, but it's something similar to that.

"everyone else's freedom" is also very vague.

Do people have the right not to be physically harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be economically harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be emotionally harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be psychologically harmed by another?

And "harmed" to what degree in each of these?

If I gave you a pat on the back, that damages some skin cells, so technically, harm is physically done, does that mean I've infringed on your rights?

I never used the word "harm." This whole post is a strawman.

Yes, if you accept the premise of complete freedom, then it follows that the government can't tell you what to ingest. What would you do if the government came in your house and told your baby not to chew on a rattle?

fixed. I accept the premise of partial freedom.

No such thing.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 3:14:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 2:48:59 PM, Kinesis wrote:
@Geo

Why shouldn't government roles also be extended to safeguarding people's happiness and welfare? What does 'liberty' have that elevates it beyond nothing more than one consideration amongst many that a government should consider when making laws?

governments should be by the people for the people i reckon. and thus, brought about by freedom and continued by freedom, and thus, freedom is the most important matter of all.

...well, that being my opinion with the power i currently hold ;)
signature
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 3:18:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 2:22:00 PM, reddj2 wrote:
The government is the people, they can only do what we let them

Oh really? So if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is "doing it to himself" and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 3:19:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 3:06:49 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/28/2011 3:01:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/28/2011 2:54:11 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 4/28/2011 2:46:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
Do people have the right not to be physically harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be economically harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be emotionally harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be psychologically harmed by another?

And "harmed" to what degree in each of these?

I agree that "harmed" is too ambiguous of a word. I like the way Ragnar puts it. Freedom is being free from aggression, or initiatory force. If you use these terms the aswers to your questions are:

Yes.
No.
Depends, usually not.
Depends, probably.

You got it wrong. It should be:

Yes
Yes
No
No

And why should some harms be valued more important than others?

Again, I never said "harm." When Korashk answered your questions, he didn't answer them in the form you presented and neither did I. He corrected them to exclude "harm."

Now to answer question, the answer is "yes" to physical and economic and "no" to emotional and psychological because initiatory coercion can only happen on the physical and and economic level. You can't coerce someones mind, no one is a mind controller, and even when the Illuminati tries to, you are still the only one in control of your own mind.

Haven't you heard the quote "No one can make you feel inferior without your permission"?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 3:23:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 3:18:30 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 4/28/2011 2:22:00 PM, reddj2 wrote:
The government is the people, they can only do what we let them

Oh really? So if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is "doing it to himself" and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part.

"the people" as a whole, not people individually.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 3:25:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 3:23:24 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/28/2011 3:18:30 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 4/28/2011 2:22:00 PM, reddj2 wrote:
The government is the people, they can only do what we let them

Oh really? So if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is "doing it to himself" and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part.

"the people" as a whole, not people individually.

No government exists that is the puppet of the people.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 3:26:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 3:19:12 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/28/2011 3:06:49 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/28/2011 3:01:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/28/2011 2:54:11 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 4/28/2011 2:46:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
Do people have the right not to be physically harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be economically harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be emotionally harmed by another?
Do people have the right not to be psychologically harmed by another?

And "harmed" to what degree in each of these?

I agree that "harmed" is too ambiguous of a word. I like the way Ragnar puts it. Freedom is being free from aggression, or initiatory force. If you use these terms the aswers to your questions are:

Yes.
No.
Depends, usually not.
Depends, probably.

You got it wrong. It should be:

Yes
Yes
No
No

And why should some harms be valued more important than others?

Again, I never said "harm." When Korashk answered your questions, he didn't answer them in the form you presented and neither did I. He corrected them to exclude "harm."

Now to answer question, the answer is "yes" to physical and economic and "no" to emotional and psychological because initiatory coercion can only happen on the physical and and economic level. You can't coerce someones mind, no one is a mind controller, and even when the Illuminati tries to, you are still the only one in control of your own mind.

Haven't you heard the quote "No one can make you feel inferior without your permission"?

Yeah, I hear bullies say it all the time to justify the harm that they do.

Unfortunately, we know that this is not the case, as how you feel emotions are triggered by physical chemicals, which are not consiously controled. So the notion that no one can effect your mind without you letting them is scientifically false.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"