I admire this columnist. He has a way of saying things that just get to me. He is also the author of "Tuesdays with Morrie".
I hope you enjoy the story...


The lunacy of misguided patriotism
April 13, 2003
BY MITCH ALBOM
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST
http://www.freep.com/sports/albom/mitch13_20030413.htm

There aren't many great movies about sports but there is one about baseball and it's called "Bull Durham." It was made in 1988 and people today still swear by it. It was funny and warm and acerbic and crazy, much like the game itself.

So beloved is this film, that the Baseball Hall of Fame had a 15th anniversary celebration scheduled for it later this month at Cooperstown, N.Y. I say "had" because the event was just canceled. The reason it was canceled was because the president of the Hall of Fame, a Michigan native named Dale Petroskey, didn't like the antiwar comments made by two of the film's stars, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon.

Never mind that Robbins and Sarandon are only two characters in the film. (Kevin Costner is the big star.) Never mind that Robbins, who was stunned, said he had no intention of speaking politically at the event.

"I was looking forward to getting away from the war and politics for a weekend," he said. "Of course I wouldn't have said anything. It's an event about a movie."

Never mind all that. Mr. Petroskey, who worked under Ronald Reagan as a White House assistant press secretary, apparently sees Robbins and Sarandon as unworthy of an appearance in Cooperstown, a place that, over the years, has enshrined drunks, racists, drug addicts and adulterers.

"We believe your very public criticism . . ." he wrote in a letter released to news agencies last week, "helps undermine the U.S. position, which ultimately could put our troops in even more danger."

Oh boy.

Infield fly rule and Mideast
Where do you begin with such misguided patriotism? First of all, it's the Baseball Hall of Fame, not the Pentagon. Petroskey's political views are no more appropriate there than Sarandon's and Robbins'. Who is this guy? Who decided the Hall of Fame's position on the Middle East?

Secondly, let's get beyond this "putting our troops in danger" thing. A couple of Hollywood types expressing their opinions does not put bullets in the face of our troops. Half the world spoke out against the war: I haven't seen our men and women going down because of it.

What I have seen is President Bush, in a message to the Iraqi people, saying "you will soon be free." Saying "the tyranny will end." Saying "the government belongs to you."

That's funny. What Bush wants to give to Iraqis, Mr. Petroskey won't share with his fellow Americans.

You know what you get when you cross patriotism with censorship? McCarthyism. We lived through that once. We're supposed to be smarter.

Petroskey is not being smart. He is being smug. Perhaps he is swept up in this notion that the more you hug the flag, the more popular you become.

I say hugging a flag is simple. Hugging what it stands for is harder.

Crash Davis and Nuke LaLoosh
At one point in "Bull Durahm," Costner teaches Robbins the cliches he'll need for baseball. He teaches him how to reveal nothing, how to say what people want to hear, like, "We gave 100 percent" and "I'm just here to help the team."

At first Robbins objects. He says it's not honest. Costner tells him that's the point.

It's a funny scene. But there's nothing funny when someone wants you to live that way. I may not hold with things that Robbins and Sarandon say -- in fact, I don't -- but their right to say it and not be ostracized is a cherished tenet of American life.

Which is why these new "super patriots" like Petroskey are actually more un-American than the people they criticize. "Public figures, such as you," he wrote to Robbins and Sarandon, have an "obligation to act and speak responsibly."

"Responsibly" apparently means agreeing with him.

We're on dangerous ground here, folks. Rather than let hatemongers divide us into right and left, pro-war vs. antiwar, we ought to celebrate the things that bring us together: things like freedom, the right to speak our minds, and baseball.

Petroskey just struck out on three pitches.

Pentium 2.4 512, Win XP SP2, ATI A-I-W 9800, Intel M/B, On-Board Audio

I know of several ordinary Americans who didn't agree with starting the war when we did although they in no way supported Sadaam Hussein. I don't want to go into all the arguments as to whether they were right or wrong to hold that opinion but the point is they were AFRAID to state it except to their closest friends. One of them said to me that "it's better to keep quiet about such things here"! Were they being paranoid?

Yes, they were. I don't know anyone that would say something that dumb.

KevinR,I don't understand how you have lost your ability to celebrate any one of the three things that bring us together. Am I wrong?

No they weren't. Just look at some of the vitriol that's been poured on people who posted anti-war here.

Insert text here

The funny thing about that is, if you assume most people's opinions are wrong-headed and misguided, it follows that most who support the war are wrong, and that most who oppose it are wrong as well. And most likely, no one will ever know the real answer, because once the dust settles (i.e. years from now) there'll be so many interrelated variables at play, you could argue any position successfully.

Ultimately it's simply a loss/gain equation. From what I've seen here, the opinion of those who support the war is that pretty well any loss is okay for a presumed future gain. The problem is, where's the future, and what's the gain - answer: nobody knows because it's the future and it hasn't happened yet. That's why the ends can never justify the means in the present tense - there's nothing moral or philosophical about it, it's simple physics.

Thats a terrible example Paul. If a person is afraid to state their opinion in an online forum, they need to have their head examined. Its not like they are going to get into a real fist fight over it, and the only danger they face is that of their credibility, ego, or "social standing", and who says thats necessarily a bad thing? .. and considering our company, I'm sure most of us have had those stepped on a few times!

I'm afraid to take a position on anything here!

Shelly

So am I...
... but not for the same reasons as you, Shelly, I am sure !!!

Pentium 2.4 512, Win XP SP2, ATI A-I-W 9800, Intel M/B, On-Board Audio

When in doubt, I just take missionary position and consider myself lucky! }>

Vitriol, isn't that an Australian gasoline additive?

No, not paranoid. It is sometimes very difficult to deal with the verbal onslaught that such a view might generate.

Verbal??? All I ever get on this forum is words on a screen. How does one go about getting the verbal plug-in?? And does it have a "sensitivity" adjustment?

>Verbal??? All I ever get on this forum is words on a screen.
>How does one go about getting the verbal plug-in?? And does
>it have a "sensitivity" adjustment?

I don't recall saying anything about this forum in reference to verbal onslaught. It may interest you to know that I do have conversations with people outside this forum. Go figure!}>

Read your post #12, doofus.

edit....Oh wait. While every post before yours was talking about the forum, YOU were talking about something else. Now I get it. God, I'm sooooooooooooo stupid.

There is much truth in what he says, but in the grand scheme of things, this is not unexpected or of great importance in the middle of a war. When people make a decision to criticize the government when we are at war, they should realize and be prepared to accept the consequences.

Shelly

Consequences: Being yelled at, that's one thing...losing your constitutional rights...that's another.

What utter horsecrap! Who, what, when, where.....prove it or wave your white flag.

http://www.ucsdguardian.org/cgi-bin/opinion?art=2002_12_05_03

http://www.thepowerhour.com/postings-four/air-travel-id-case.htm

Osama vowed that he would strike fear into the hearts of the infidels by delivering a blow upon the US heartland. He delivered on his much telegraphed promise. The fear that has ensued is manifest not only in the group hysteria and psychological pathologies that gripped the US in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, nor just in the economic jitters-turned-stock market turmoil that racks Wall street today. It is most palpably manifest in the militarisation of the US internal security network, which has coupled police state legislation under emergency powers with government encouragement of citizen vigilance at home, in the neighborhood, schools and workplace. The result has been a climate of fear in which mere suspicion or “foreign” appearance warrants infringement of basic constitutional guarantees and civil rights. Thus not only is the fear felt by US society one of terrorism. It is also fear of government and of each other, sowing the seeds of distrust within even as the rhetorical championing of patriotism remains the public mantra of the day.

In SEC 304 it would force individuals to take HHS mandated drugs and vaccines. Nothing in the bill recognizes the individuals right to refuse medical treatment for reasons of conscience, religious belief, or medical necessity.
The bill also provides that manufacturers are removed from any liability for any injury or death resulting from any ingredient listed on the vaccine licensing application. It gives immunity to the manufacturer for all vaccines.
The bill also provides and agency within HHS to collect and data-mine personal information from the public....telephone records, bank records, magazine subscriptions, medical records, travel data, etc.

Friday, April 11, 2003

GOP calls for wider powers to track citizens
Critics rip bid to make Patriot Act permanent

By CHARLES POPE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT

WASHINGTON -- With the war on terrorism lagging behind the war in Iraq, Republicans in Congress and the White House are pushing legislation that would give federal authorities sweeping new powers to monitor, track, profile, and even revoke citizenship of U.S. citizens.

The effort is being directed along two controversial fronts, involving current law as well as new proposals. Both have generated fierce resistance on Capitol Hill and from civil liberties groups.

On one track, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, with the backing of the White House, wants to make permanent the provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the sprawling 2001 law hastily passed only weeks after the Sept. 11 attack.

The law greatly expanded the government's ability to search records and monitor people and their property.

It gave the government new authority to conduct telephone and Internet surveillance with minimal judicial oversight and created a broad new definition of "domestic terrorism" that could lead to the investigation and prosecution of people engaged in acts of political protest.

It also gave federal agents the power to survey all book and computer records at libraries, and permitted non-citizens to be jailed without formal charges for up to six months.

Because of concerns that the law might go too far and harbor unintended consequences, Congress stipulated that the Patriot Act dissolve in 2005.

But Hatch, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said this week that he wants to make the law permanent.

At the same time, the Bush administration is drafting new legislation, dubbed Patriot II, that would provide federal agents even more authority to issue wiretaps, conduct "data mining" and monitor people presumed or known to have terrorist connections.

Although the bill is still being drafted, those with knowledge of it say it would, among other things, allow federal authorities to make secret arrests and to "infiltrate and monitor" worship services.

Critics say the proposals are troubling.

"We know the government has used some of these laws incorrectly, and we know that this has been the least cooperative Justice Department in anyone's memory," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said in response to Hatch's plan to strip the "sunset provision" from the Patriot Act.

"History shows that a government that doesn't want oversight often is a government that has something to hide."

The Illinois chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union wrote a letter to the state's two senators Wednesday urging them to oppose Hatch.

Other groups also are mobilizing to fight the proposal.

"After a mere 18 months since the enactment of the legislation, it is simply too soon to measure the impact of these provisions and move to make them permanent," said the letter to Sens. Dick Durbin and Peter Fitzgerald.

Hatch declined to comment, but Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said the law has been crucial in the fight against terrorism. "It has been an invaluable tool in our efforts to prevent terrorist activity," Corallo said.

"The Patriot Act gives us the tools we need to better protect the American public while also protecting civil liberties."

Corallo declined to comment on Hatch's proposal, but a Justice Department official who asked to remain nameless said Hatch has the support of the department. Republican aides believe Hatch's amendment could pass the Senate. It could run into trouble in the House, however, where Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., has stressed the importance of congressional oversight. Sensenbrenner was instrumental in inserting the sunset provisions in the Patriot Act.

Opposition also is coming from a more surprising direction -- mainstream conservative organizations that usually count Attorney General John Ashcroft among their heroes.

"Already, government investigative powers have been dramatically expanded," said former Rep. Bob Barr, a well-known conservative who once was a close ally of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. "Already, intelligence is working under the flawed premise that to get the bad guys you need to spy unmercifully on the good guys."

Barr appeared at a forum yesterday with three other influential conservatives, who have banded together with, improbably, the American Civil Liberties Union to try to defeat the initiatives.

"We hope that the White House will take notice from the shared concern expressed today that Americans of all political stripes want leaders who strive to make us all both safe and free," said Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU's Washington office. She joined Barr and David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform; and Lori Waters, executive director of the Eagle Forum.

Murphy said the draft bill would, if passed in its current form, represent a big shift away from America's long-standing commitment to the right 'to be left alone,' " she said.

Among other powers, Murphy said the bill would "give the government the unprecedented authority to revoke Americans' citizenship and open the door to government suppression of lawful protest activities."

Waters said passage of the two measures would edge the country closer to a philosophy "where there are two types of people: the caught and the uncaught. .... We see a growing effort of the government to tag and track everything we do," she said. "We don't think these are the most effective way of preventing terrorists from getting on planes and blowing them up."

A Justice Department official who didn't want his name used said the initial criticisms would be moot because many of the objectionable provisions will not be included in the final bill. Some of the ideas, the official said, were proposed only to get discussions started within the department and were never intended for inclusion. He wouldn't say which provisions fit in that category.

Civil libertarians and conservatives alike are still unnerved by an earlier proposal by the Justice Department called Operation TIPS that would encourage citizens to watch and report strange behavior. That proposal died last year in Congress.

Another worrisome idea, critics say, is a plan by the government to develop a system to "profile" all airline passengers to gauge their risk. Critics also worry that federal officials might try again to win approval for a national ID card. Congress has rejected that idea.

Do you want more? I'll get more.

I'm more afraid of people like you than any affects of the Partiot Act Part I or Part II.

You're probably afraid of your own shadow also.

How soon we forget!!The same group of folks who are so teed off about the patriot act and this war that isn't fair or legal because we wouldn't let the UN block it(France,Russia and Germany really) were complaining about the fact that our country and its intelligence groups didn't prevent 9/11.There was the usual condemnation of the President and any one associated with the CIA and the FBI etc.The usual loonies were up in arms complaining.CNN was spilling the fact that raids were going to take place in Florida the next morning because some jerk who attended the top secret meeting couldn't keep his big mouth shut.SO no one was apprehended when those raids took place the next morning.These are the same folks who cry long and loud about any and every thing our goverment does and I mean EVERYTHING.Many are politically motivated and I wonder really what makes the others tick.HAL hasn't posted lately and I hope it's because he sees the futility of doing so while our troops are in danger.I question, not the right of their posting ,but rather their true motivation.It's OK to be ornery even if it's political but timing is important too.
Aside to Jenn: I,m sure you have other friends to talk to.Do they all share your view ?

81 Newbee

"These are the same folks who cry long and loud about any and every thing our goverment does and I mean EVERYTHING."

If that's not a logical fallacy*, I don't know what is. There's no denying that the patriot act and other such laws restrict people's freedom, and equating people's criticism of such laws with whining instead of actually trying to address their concerns is rather arrogant, IMO.
I'd love to see a thorough, logical defense of the government's active restriction of our rights, but I doubt I ever will.

* See "poisoning the well" fallacy: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

>There's no denying that the patriot act and other such laws
>restrict people's freedom,

What patriotic act or law ?

BIG BROTHER

The USA Patriot Act, which I assume you're familiar with. If not, you can read it at this link: http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

Thanks I did not know that was what it was called.

BIG BROTHER

And you call yourself "Big Brother"?

If the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, the courts will declare it so. That is the function of the US Supreme Court, in case anyone has forgotten. I think you might also find that they are significantly more qualified to judge if the Patriot Act restricts citizens' rights. Or do you have a degree in Constitutional law and years of judicial experience already, Mr. Man?

I haven't seen anything indicating that Congress intends to amend the Constitution, have you?

My usage of the word "right" was more in the moral aspect of the word, not the legal aspect. I don't need any legal knowledge to see that the Patriot Act, as well as the DMCA and other such laws, make restrictions to certain rights, such as the amendment made to Section 3103 of title 18 of the United States Code in section 213(b) of the Patriot Act that allows execution of a warrant without notification.
The courts are not the final word on what is and isn't moral, not by a long shot.

They are the final word on what is Constitutional. You might keep that in mind.

Legally, yes. Ethically, no. There's a big difference between the two. The constitution can be interpreted under any number of ethical frameworks, and the one many modern US courts seem to be adopting is one based in the restriction of freedom.

So tell me, what are the consequences of your ethical position? Oh yeah, nothing. Not one thing.

First off, my ethical beliefs are irrelevant to this discusion. The subject is on the ethical beliefs of modern US courts, specifically those relating to an individual's right to freedom.

Secondly, there are plenty of consequences to my ethical beliefs (assuming a definition of "a logical conclusion or inference" for the word "consequence"). For example, I believe that any action which does not infringe on the rights of people other than the one perfoming the action should be legal. One of the consequence of this would be the legalization of the personal use of drugs.

In this case we are discussing "consequence" as an action resulting. Unlike the legal rulings of the Supreme Court, your beliefs aren't going to make any difference. Just as your comment above indicates. You believe that. So what? Are you going to take action in order to work towards that as a goal? Otherwise, it's just hot air.

First off, you're commiting a number of logical fallacies by implying that the actions commited by the people holding a specific belief determine the truthfullness of it. That is essentially a form of the ad hominem fallacy; you're attacking the people holding a belief instead of the belief itself.

Secondly, I plan to actively vote once I'm old enough to do so. While the overall consequences of myself voting are extremely small, it's still more than nothing. If it wasn't, then why vote?

Then when are you going to join the Military and become a *real* man?



Ed W.

Ed W.

"IN GOD WE still TRUST - ALL OTHERS, WE used to MONITOR"

I doubt the military would even accept me. My motor coordination is pretty horrible, and I hate crowded places. Maybe the Air Force, but I'd probably be pretty ill-suited for that too.

What are you talking about?

Those people can say whatever they want. They just need to recognize that their statements can and will have consequences (as in actions resulting from their statements).

Words mean something, Mr. Man. Statements don't just sit in air, without consequences. You should know that by now.

Then what did you mean by post #36? Since it's pretty obvious to every voter that their beliefs will have an impact (albeit a very small one), I assumed you were using an ad hominem of some kind.

You old enough to vote?

See post #44. Simply because I cannot vote for my ethical beliefs does not in any way whatosever discount said beliefs. I can't even begin to conceive the amount of fallacious reasoning that must of lead you to that conclusion.

Al, I'm old enough to vote AND drink! So would your statement in #36 apply to me as well? Or are you just talking about the difference between ethical and/or moral attitudes/beliefs/whatever and the actual effective implementation of those ideas?

Bingo with the latter, Doc. Practical consequences.

Well, even though I think the basic argument that actions resulting in consequences that stem from belief are the only ones really worth having, I hardly think that voting is the ultimate test of validation.

Not claiming that voting is the ultimate test, Doc. It was Mr Man who claimed that voting was his way of providing action to support his beliefs. I find there are actions that are significantly more effective and proof of belief than voting. I don't think we can expect Mr. Man to take any of those actions.

What are those actions, Al? What am I supposed to do? Run out and form a protest? Send all my money to the Libertarian Party?

"It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out where the strong man stumbled, or where a doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man in the arena whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs, and who comes up short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause. The man who at best knows the triumph of high achievement and who at worst, if he fails, fails while daring greatly, so that his place will never be with those cold timid souls who never knew victory or defeat."
---Teddy Roosevelt

Wow, you completely avoided answering any of my questions. I woulda thought you'd at least give an ambiguous attempt at answering them, but it looks you you didn't do that either.

I read it as saying that he was under the impression that a voter (like me, not him.. he knows he can't vote) is working under the basic assumption that their ethical beliefs would somehow shape their intepretation of something like Roe v. Wade, and therefore they would vote accordingly, and would therefore make some sort of substantial (only cummulative, of course) change for the better (and thats where you get into the definition of nationalism, lets avoid that one for the time being!).

One problem that arises from the issue of the "you have to do something" ideal is that there are a lot of people that feel there are no limits to actions taken (legal OR ethical) to ensure their beliefs (and therefore, their will) is implemented as they see fit, and ONLY as they see fit. Thats why people like Ayn Rand list Adolf Hitler among their lists of hero's.

Thats not to say I don't laugh at people who bitch and moan about every little thing they think is wrong with the world or the U.S. or wherever they happen to live, and then spend the night watching American Idol and eating Cheezy-Poofs dipped in mayonaise.

BTW, MrMan, here's what I think Al is trying to point out with the Roosevelt (my favorite of the two, by a long shot) quote: TANSTAAFL!.. although I could be wrong.

No, Doc. You're right.

And Mr. Man, you have to come up with what actions will support your beliefs. It isn't up to me. But no actions means you might as well not have those beliefs.

"I find there are actions that are significantly more effective and proof of belief than voting. I don't think we can expect Mr. Man to take any of those actions."

So come on Al, what are those actions?

I think the point is that you can only hope to make viable changes through action, but what actions you take are entirely up to you. Only by trial and error (or trial and success) will you know whats going to work and whats going to be a waste of time.

There are no molds for making change or progress, you can't just say "yes, this is what will be effective" in a given situation, especially if you have no understanding of that situation. I wouldn't tell Myk or Al how to fire a certain weapon because I probably don't have experience with them, but they wouldn't tell me how to install a car audio system because they haven't done it before either.

So you'll just have to do what Locke says, and do it your way and see what happens, because thats about all you really have in this world.

actions" (and then followed up with a personal attack). This implies the presence of generic actions which one can use to further their beliefs, and I want to know what they are and how they apply to me (which they obviously do, otherwise he wouldn't have used the personal attack).

Yes, to further THEIR beliefs, not yours.

MrMan - you need to learn more about illicit drug use before advocating legitimizing it.

JP

Find your missing friends...

Proud to be a Brat!

JP

I said for personal use; I do not advocate complete, boundry-less legalization. Use of drugs in public should of course have regulations.

I've read dozens of articles on the subject and am well acquainted with the arguments put forth by both sides of the debate. Your accusation of ignorance is quite arrogant.
I am, however, open to other viewpoints. If you have a book or web site to recommend, I'd like to hear it.

I repeat myself: MrMan - you need to learn more about illicit drug use before advocating legitimizing it.

You have not learned.

Reading information on the Internet is not enough to learn first hand about the effects that recreational drug use can have on a person. I have seen people I know have their lives and their health damaged by it.

I challenge you to sit in on an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting and see what havoc a legal drug can cause on people's lives. Visit an open shelter and listen to people's stories there. Almost all will have been affected by drugs.

It may be trendy these days to advocate legal use of recreational drugs, but consider the stance of government and big business on that issue. Those who use drugs loose the best jobs that are out there because their judgement cannot be trusted. In the military, drug abusers will never be officers or hold the high security clearances needed for many positions. Their morality cannot be trusted.

Arrogance comes from not knowing about this issue.

JP

Find your missing friends...

Proud to be a Brat!

JP

I have a family member that's a recovering alcoholic, so get off your high horse. I know what the effects off drugs can be, but you know what? If half of the money spent on the war on drugs were spent on increasing public awareness and creating rehabilitation centers, drugs would be far less of a problem.

"It may be trendy these days to advocate legal use of recreational drugs, but consider the stance of government and big business on that issue. Those who use drugs loose the best jobs that are out there because their judgement cannot be trusted. In the military, drug abusers will never be officers or hold the high security clearances needed for many positions. Their morality cannot be trusted."

This is largely a result of the public stigma created by government in regards to drugs.
Also, you have commited a logical fallacy in assuming that since few buisness executives admit to drug abuse, then few executive use drugs. Such people can't admit in public to drug abuse, since they'd probably be thrown in jail as a result.
You commited another fallacy in stereotyping every person that uses drugs as not being worthy of trust. You can't possibly have spoken to even a small percentage of the people that abuse drugs, and thus are not qualified to make such a statement.

I know it's trendy for republicans to oppose any sort of drug legalization, but go speak to some of the people who were forced into commiting theft and other such things because they didn't have the freedom to recover from their addiction on their own.

"I have seen people I know have their lives and their health damaged by it."

And I have seen many of my friends do exceptionally well after recreational use in their younger days. Lawyer, Teacher, Successful Business person.

People grow up and get on with life. But, there are the few who are not strong enough to get their acts together.

This is my experience.

Pentium 2.4 512, Win XP SP2, ATI A-I-W 9800, Intel M/B, On-Board Audio

I am re-posting this reply to post #38, because someone decided to delete my original post (#54) within five minutes of it being posted last night. Heaven help anyone who deletes it again!
__________________________________________________________________

"For example, I believe that any action which does not infringe on the rights of people other than the one perfoming the action should be legal. One of the consequence of this would be the legalization of the personal use of drugs."

That is about the dumbest thing I have seen posted!

The use of drugs has a huge impact upon society. If you are drug impaired, and as a result cause the injury or death of an innocent person, you have certainly infringed upon their rights!

If you are high on drugs and severely injure yourself, society will have to pay for your medical expenses, once your own funds and insurance runs out. The current burden of such cases is a monumental burden on our medical system. This infringes upon all of our rights.

If you develop an ever growing addiction to drugs, and have to resort to stealing to pay for your habit, because nobody will hire a junkie for a decent job, your infringe on our rights, Or do you also feel that the government should provide you with free narcotics, to support your habit?

Drug addiction is not a victimless crime. Or do you feel you, by some magic, can use drugs and not get addicted? You are demonstrating far less mature judgment than I previously gave you credit for.

Shelly

It seems I accidently deleted Shelly's post. I apologive.

I forgot to leave out the word "directly", as in "any action which does not directly infringe on the rights of people other than the one perfoming the action." The example you cited are indirect consequences, and thus can't be blamed on drugs any more than water could be blamed if a person drunk a ridiclously huge amount and hurt others as a result.

The core aspect of my political philosophy, and that of libertarians everywhere, is freedom, both economic and individual freedom. Freedom comes at a price.

>It seems I accidently deleted Shelly's post. I apologive.
>
>I forgot to leave out the word "directly", as in "any action
>which does not directly infringe on the rights of
>people other than the one perfoming the action." The example
>you cited are indirect consequences, and thus can't be
>blamed on drugs any more than water could be blamed if a
>person drunk a ridiclously huge amount and hurt others as a
>result.
>
>The core aspect of my political philosophy, and that of
>libertarians everywhere, is freedom, both economic and
>individual freedom. Freedom comes at a price.


What the heck is an apoligive ?

LilJoe

That makes even less sense than your original post. Of course the drug abuse is the proximate cause of the problem! Just as is alcohol abuse. Your water analogy is even more ridiculous. We are not talking about voluntary behavior here. Once addicted, the user is no longer in control, but is at the mercy of the addiction. Even with professional intervention the recidivism rate of drug addicts is well documented. Far higher than with alcoholics. Drug addiction = ruined lives.

Shelly

Sorry for reviving this thread, I just thought of a way to phrase this.

>That makes even less sense than your original post. Of
>course the drug abuse is the proximate cause of the problem!

Approximate is a term that pertains neither to the concepts of directness or indirectness. Let's see what the definition of indirect is in this context, so as to clear up any confusion:

adj 1: having intervening factors or persons or influences; "reflection from the ceiling provided a soft indirect light"; "indirect evidence"; "an indirect cause"

Can you give me an example of something that will both back up what your saying and be directly caused by drugs?

PS Do you have an opinion on Shostakovich? I've become increasingly fascinated by the man, and was wondering if you had anything to share on him.

Your reading skills need some work!

prox·i·mate
Pronunciation: 'präk-s&-m&t
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin proximatus, past participle of proximare to approach, from proximus nearest, next, superlative of prope near -- more at APPROACH
Date: 1661
1 : immediately preceding or following (as in a chain of events, causes, or effects) <proximate, rather than ultimate, goals -- Reinhold Niebuhr>
2 a : very near : CLOSE b : soon forthcoming : IMMINENT
- prox·i·mate·ly adverb
- prox·i·mate·ness noun

Shelly

Sorry, I misread your post.
To expand on my previous post, drugs in themselves cause no direct infringment on other's rights. Let's consider a hypothetical situation involving Bill. Bill uses a drug, gets in his car and causes a crash. The drug is indirectly related to the crash, as there are intervening factors involved there (eg the car, other drivers, etc). If the Bill becomes addicted and is forced to steal, again, there are intervening factors involved (eg actual act of theft, etc).

Lets talk about Chris, then. He took acid, which caused him to say strange things about being God. He also decided to take a .30 caliber rifle from his closet, and shoot Aaron in the head while he's playing video games. So the intervening factors here are what? The gun? The T.V.?

BTW, this isn't hypothetical, it really happened. I went to high school with all of these guys.

My condolences.

Picking up the gun was an intervening action, was it not?

Its an action that would not have happened had he not been stoned out of his mind.

True. But you probably know better than I do that we can't outlaw everything that has negative consequences. There has to be a guideline of some sorts, and I think the one under debate is a pretty good general one. Freedom is nearly always the first concern for me.

How would putting a government stamp of approval on drug use change the adverse consequences of using drugs? The given situation is just such a reason that people are trying to curb drug use to begin with. Then consider that even though alcohol use is legal, it creates great misery for many people, either directly through drinking it or the effects on those who care about the drunk.

JP

Find your missing friends...

Proud to be a Brat!

JP

It won't, but that's not the point. The point is twofold, first that we can't outlaw an action simply because some bad things can happen as a result of it (see the water analogy I used previously), and secondly that there has to be a line between what we should legalize in the name of freedom and what must stay outlawed. The latter is where we disagree. I think that the importance of freedom outweighs the negative consequences of legalizing drugs, where you obviously do not.

Thats because when you talk about legalizing certain drugs, its in an extremely narrow framework, bound not by how it pertains to our societies acceptance of reality, but how it fits into the mold of a as-yet unseen utopian world.

See the following:

John Stuart Mill's On Liberty
John Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration and Second Treatise on Government
Morris Cohens Property and Sovereignty, which is related to Libertarianism.

I would even think that Yania v. Bigan, Farwell v Keaton, and McFall v Shimp would be good to read, because the aspect of Good Samaritan law applies directly to both Libertarianism and the legalization of drugs.


I'll even be nice and not expect an essay! It will soon be finals week, so I wouldn't have time to grade it. }>

.

But thanks a lot for the book recommendations. I'll look into them.

I think that the importance of freedom outweighs the negative consequences of legalizing drugs, where you obviously do not.

Suicide is illegal. It's also carries obvious negative consequences. What advantage is there to legalizing suicide? Or drugs?

JP

Find your missing friends...

Proud to be a Brat!

JP

Read that sentence again. Freedom is the advantage, which I think outweighs the negative consequences of legalizing drugs.

So the freedom to kill yourself with government approval isn't the same as the freedom to torture yourself and your family with government approval?