2010:warmest year ever since records began

[Diogenes]

Not necessarily. They may be TRYING to do good. Or do you mean that the government doing JUST its legitimate job is "good"?

I mean some people are intentionally trying to characterize the government doing it's job as "do good" meddling. They argue that the government prohibiting drugs is similar to liberal social meddling, but I argue that it is a normal and proper role for the government to perform, and is no different from enforcing speed limits.

But exceeding the speed limit is not "illegal" per se, not is it a crime in fact.

You are quibbling with words again. If it is against the law, If it is breaking the law, it is a crime. The orientation is decided, the only question is scale.

People exceed the 55 mph, even the 70mph speed limits by HUGE amounts, on live TV with regularity (Indy 500 comes to mind). And you are quite free to develop your own patch of road and exceed the speed limit just as much a you wish!

And the reason this is perfectly legal is because you are endangering no one other than yourself. (or people who knowingly affirm the risk) See the connection?

Speed limits are an attempt (questionably executed) by government to do one of the few things it should legitimately do; develop default social contract. It is perfectly proper for government to announce that "in the absense of specific social contract to the contrary, this is the contract that the courts will use in deciding issues wrt anyone who uses this road". To the degree that government owns the roads, (WAY TOO HIGH in my not so humble opinion) they have the "right" to come to a voluntary agreement with those who wish to make use of their road. What makes it "right" is the voluntary nature of the agreement.

Now your just playing "lawyer chess" . This is a philosophical argument. Playing with the meanings of words is irrelevant. Your response indicates that you consider speed limits to be legitimate. Your response does not acknowledge overtly that the underlying philosophy of speed limits is to reduce the probability of danger to others, but you tacitly acknowledge this. You further guardedly acknowledge that this is within the legitimate mandate of government.

I submit that given that all of the above is true, you have conceded all the philosophical points necessary to justify government interdiction of drugs.

I Win!

[MSimon]

D,

Well if I don't accept your "crimes have been done" in a particular instance then we are living in different worlds.

My point though: even among those who believe a crime has been done the general opinion on the punishment is: misdemeanor manslaughter for the doctor and the woman goes free. Not exactly the Murder One that it ought to be honestly charged at if it was as many say: murder.

[MSimon]

I submit that given that all of the above is true, you have conceded all the philosophical points necessary to justify government interdiction of drugs.

After nearly a hundred years of trying and over a $ trillion spent the government has proved that it can't interdict drugs. Prices are down quality is up. The opposite of the promise. i.e. typical government program.

[Diogenes]

Nope. Wrong is not related to probability of hurting someone. It is involving a person in an action involuntarily, and ONLY that. Increasing the probability of hurting someone is potentially BAD, not wrong.

I think you need to rethink your definition. Firing a gun into the sky is wrong because you've increased the probability of hurting someone. It is a crime (and morally wrong) whether you hurt someone or not.

If I am floating in the mddle of the pacific inside a fleet of a thousand people who are there volunatrily to participate in a giant game of "Russian Roulette" which consists of each person in turn firing one shot into the air, thereby increasing the chance that someone gets hurt, have I committed a crime?

Of course not. We have all participated in a voluntary (if not too bright) action. Not WRONG. Bad perhaps, but not wrong. Not wrong, not a crime.

Sure, as long as they are aware of the nature of what they are doing, and competent to make such a decision for themselves. Children and mentally defectives cannot consent.

So that begs the question. Is anyone who would consent to such a thing "mentally defective" ? Makes it a sort of judgment call on the part of authorities. In the ocean, probably no one would give a hoot. Try it in one country or another, and i'm sure they wouldn't tolerate it.


This issue does remind me of a point that I have been contemplating lately, and it has made it clearer to me that the difficulty people have with this and other issues is due to the often binary nature of the human decision making process. Most people cannot fathom an idea that's partly this or partly that. They simply don't think in composite analog, they think in black and white binary.


I'm a bit rushed for time, so I'll give you the outline of something I thought of this weekend.


In a monarchy, the people belong to the Monarch. They are assets, which he calls "Subjects" that serve his purpose. Should he need them, (such as for a war) he would expect them to be quickly gathered into an army so he can use them to fight off an invader, or perhaps invade another country.

With this legal structure, the law is what the King says it is. In such a legal system, a King would consider disputes between "subjects" which might result in injury or death to be "damage to my property." and so take a dim view of it.

For this reason, it is easy to understand why a King might require participation in acts which benefits the King's purpose (such as mandatory archery practice required by Edward the III (I think) ) and prohibit acts which harm the King's purpose. Murder, rape, and drugs.


So the argument is sound that under this legal system, it makes sense for the King to prohibit drug use because it harms him. (and the Nation, which is the same thing.)


Of course we don't live under such a system, but does it have an analogue in Freedom loving America?


It seems to me that it does, and one that is based on a similar but analogue principal, and that is why it is so hard to discern by a binary viewing people. I think i've figured it out, but I have to go now, so I'll relate to you my thinking on this when next I have a chance to respond.

[KitemanSA]

That would be great except for one thing. The government has been constantly interfering with social pressure for a long time, and shows every sign of continuing to do so.

The government DECREES what the "correct" morality is. Those are the new established rules.

As I keep repeating ad nauseum, "All laws are imposed morality. "
The question isn't whether morality should be imposed by law, but whose?

Which basically demonstrates that you are a Progressive. They have that warped attitude too!

[KitemanSA]

But exceeding the speed limit is not "illegal" per se, not is it a crime in fact.

You are quibbling with words again. If it is against the law, If it is breaking the law, it is a crime. The orientation is decided, the only question is scale.

Only to those who deem themselves property of the state. The rest of us know better.

People exceed the 55 mph, even the 70mph speed limits by HUGE amounts, on live TV with regularity (Indy 500 comes to mind). And you are quite free to develop your own patch of road and exceed the speed limit just as much a you wish!

And the reason this is perfectly legal is because you are endangering no one other than yourself. (or people who knowingly affirm the risk) See the connection?

Yes. DO YOU???

Speed limits are an attempt (questionably executed) by government to do one of the few things it should legitimately do; develop default social contract. It is perfectly proper for government to announce that "in the absense of specific social contract to the contrary, this is the contract that the courts will use in deciding issues wrt anyone who uses this road". To the degree that government owns the roads, (WAY TOO HIGH in my not so humble opinion) they have the "right" to come to a voluntary agreement with those who wish to make use of their road. What makes it "right" is the voluntary nature of the agreement.

Now your just playing "lawyer chess" . This is a philosophical argument. Playing with the meanings of words is irrelevant. Your response indicates that you consider speed limits to be legitimate.

Legitimate default contract law, not CRIMINAL law.

Your response does not acknowledge overtly that the underlying philosophy of speed limits is to reduce the probability of danger to others, but you tacitly acknowledge this. You further guardedly acknowledge that this is within the legitimate mandate of government.

I submit that given that all of the above is true, you have conceded all the philosophical points necessary to justify government interdiction of drugs.

I Win!

And the reason this is perfectly legal is because you are endangering no one other than yourself. (or people who knowingly affirm the risk) See the connection?

To which I responded

Yes. DO YOU???

Drug use is equivalent to "engangering no-one other than yourself". Therefore by your logic it should not be illegal. But it doesn't matter where or how much or anything about your usage, it is still illegal. Thats like arresting you for driving too fast on your own speed-way. Nuts, I tell you, simply nuts! Everyone loses.

[IntLibber]

I mean some people are intentionally trying to characterize the government doing it's job as "do good" meddling. They argue that the government prohibiting drugs is similar to liberal social meddling, but I argue that it is a normal and proper role for the government to perform, and is no different from enforcing speed limits.

But exceeding the speed limit is not "illegal" per se, not is it a crime in fact.

You are quibbling with words again. If it is against the law, If it is breaking the law, it is a crime. The orientation is decided, the only question is scale.

Strictly speaking, speeding is not a crime, it is a violation. Provided you pay your fine, and do not get too many speeding tickets in x amount of time, it doesn't go on your criminal record, though it does remain on your DMV record. A moving violation is a violation of the commercial code, not the criminal code, as roads are channels of commerce, violation of traffic ordinances are moving violations of commerce.

People exceed the 55 mph, even the 70mph speed limits by HUGE amounts, on live TV with regularity (Indy 500 comes to mind). And you are quite free to develop your own patch of road and exceed the speed limit just as much a you wish!

And the reason this is perfectly legal is because you are endangering no one other than yourself. (or people who knowingly affirm the risk) See the connection?

Actually, it is because the track is a section of roadway without any fixed speeding limits. There are sections of public highway where this is also the case, such as interstates in areas of Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, and a few other places in the US, as well as on the German Autobahn and some similar highways in Italy. In these cases, you are, in fact, placing others at risk by driving at high speeds since they are public highways, and on some (the German Autobahn), you can actually be ticketed and fined for going too slow.

US interstate highways also have a minimum speed limit as well, which is 35 - 45 mph in most areas, which can only be violated if you are operating an oversized load and have the appropriate pacing vehicles ahead and behind you (what you normally see with movements of manufactured homes and other large industrial equipment), or during inclement weather when speed limits are often lowered on many highways.

That all said, there is nothing inherently dangerous from travelling at fast speed. Like they say about jumping off a cliff, it isn't the fall that kills you, its the landing. A vehicle going too slow on a highway is as much or more of a safety hazard to other vehicles than one going too fast.

It is also a fact that the majority of traffic fatalities happen at speeds less than 25 mph and within 1/4 mile of one's home.

Speed limits are an attempt (questionably executed) by government to do one of the few things it should legitimately do; develop default social contract. It is perfectly proper for government to announce that "in the absense of specific social contract to the contrary, this is the contract that the courts will use in deciding issues wrt anyone who uses this road". To the degree that government owns the roads, (WAY TOO HIGH in my not so humble opinion) they have the "right" to come to a voluntary agreement with those who wish to make use of their road. What makes it "right" is the voluntary nature of the agreement.

Now your just playing "lawyer chess" . This is a philosophical argument. Playing with the meanings of words is irrelevant. Your response indicates that you consider speed limits to be legitimate. Your response does not acknowledge overtly that the underlying philosophy of speed limits is to reduce the probability of danger to others, but you tacitly acknowledge this. You further guardedly acknowledge that this is within the legitimate mandate of government.

I submit that given that all of the above is true, you have conceded all the philosophical points necessary to justify government interdiction of drugs.

I Win!

Given the success and safety of limitless highways in the US, Germany, and Italy, the claim of speed limits being for reducing probability of danger to others is thus voided, and the fact that most traffic fatalities happen at less than 25 mph demonstrates that it isn't speed that kills, but carelessness and negligence, which can occur at any speed.

[Diogenes]

continuing the "King's Property" analogue ....



Regarding the King's Property viewpoint, it is easy to see the philosophical basis for why something might be prohibited or allowed, but does a similar concept obtain in a Freedom loving Republic?


YES. (I thought, as an awareness slowly dawned.)

All Nations, regardless of design, have need of defenders. They also have need of Growers, Producers, Shippers, etc.

So I thought to myself, does there exist a general case theorem that might describe the philosophical boundaries of this notion? Can one be intuited out, perhaps?

If any conduct, results in the people being unable to defend the integrity of the nation, the nation will die. (such as everyone shooting themselves in the head.)

If any conduct seriously degrades a nation's ability to defend itself from an aggressor, the probability increases that the nation will fail. The probability of the nation's failure (from this cause) is directly proportional to the severity of the conduct and the scope of it.

Meaning if it's trivial in severity, and only a few people do it, it's adverse impact on the nation is trivial. Contrawise, if the effect is severe, and a significant percentage are doing it, then the impact on a nation might be serious. (as in the case of Sexual libertineism during the Gregorian era. (Which preceded and caused the Victorian era.) )

Nations obey the laws of evolution too. If a modification is useful, it flourishes. (Republican Capitalism 1776-2008) If it is disadvantageous, it dies faster. (Communist USSR 1924-1991). If it's REALLY BAD, it dies a lot faster. (National Socialism 1933-1945)


What this means is, a nation can put up with detrimental behavior (Y) to the extent that it can balance losses with beneficial behavior (X), weighed against probable threats (Z).

If (X - Y >= Z)
{
GovernmentSurvives();

}

else
{
GovernmentDies();

}


This notion should apply to any and every form of government including a Free Republic. A nation so free that it can't defend itself isn't free at all.

The difficulty comes in weighing apples against oranges. Surely there is an exchange rate? Yes, but it's dynamic, and depending on innumerable components. The answer is also likely to be multi-dimensional.

And this is where the human perception problem comes in. People like their answers in Binary, not composite analog. The actual answers of multidimensional problems can only be understood in terms of a multidimensional framework. Basically a Direction Vector with a Scale.(With the vector jerking around in orientation and length because of it's time fluctuating components. Probably some sort of strange attractor thing going on.)

That can be translated into a black and white answer, but it is extremely difficult to do, and the answer may only be temporarily correct. That's one of the difficulties of trying to analyze churning social dynamics. The weighted values do not all stay the same.

Most people just wing it, and propose laws that cover the general gist of it, but sometimes go too far, and other times don't go far enough. A lot of people rely on past experience to make assumptions about future probabilities. Given enough data, this method works well because it is a form of negative feedback.

(I'm running out of time again, so i'm just going to skip a bunch of stuff.)


The point I am making is that Individual freedom cannot trump the needs of a nation to the extent the individual can do anything he wants to himself. No nation could survive if a large chunk of the population was spaced out on drugs. It would leave the nation defenseless against those who would overthrow it. This is why the Chinese emperor considered the British Opium trade to be an attack on it, and why it resorted to the practice of killing it's own citizens to stop this behavior.

When a nation cannot compel it's populace to come to it's defense (either through coercion or exhortation) it is doomed.

The idea that the Individual is an island answerable to know one but themselves, can only exist as a transient condition. Should such a notion obtain to the extent that it damage the ability of the group to maintain it's organizational integrity, the new rulers will abolish the notion/Nation.

Ergo, Libertarianism is an alluring, but false and deceptive god, but people often cannot see this because the composite of their knowledge and perception is so short.

I would like to remonstrate further, but I have to go. I've skipped over a bunch of connecting pieces, and left out examples and histories, but I think i've put out enough to convey the gist of what I am trying to get across.


Later dudes.

[AcesHigh]

I know that sooner or later some of you will run into news about the "historical" snowfall that fell in the two southernmost brazilian states this week.

And use it as "proof" that MMGW is an invention.

Before any of you do it, let me remind you of a few things:

1 - this is the largest snowfall in Brazil since... 1994. That is, the largest one since the internet became popular, and probably this is why only now you hear about snow in Brazil

2 - brazilian cities as low as 500m (in southern Brazil) above sea level get snow at least once a year. Usually light snow.

3 - the lack of more snow is NOT caused by lack of low temperatures, but because the lowest temperatures in southern Brazil usually come with very dry polar air masses from Antartica... coldest days USUALLY have a sky without any cloud in it. To have cold temperatures AND humidity, the necessary ingredients for snow, is much more rarer.

4 - we used to have MUCH MORE snow in the past. Just as an example, in 1879, the city of Vacaria saw an accumulation of 2 meters of snow. In 1957, São Joaquim had 1.5 meters of snow accumulation. The snow of this week reached "incredible" 30cm of accumulation. Hardly truly historic.

[Diogenes]

This is your primary lack of understanding. The distinction between the two IS black and white (actually bad and wrong).

That is your subjective perception. I think whether or not something is a crime and wrong is highly dependent on the intentions of whomever commits the act. Throwing a rock off a cliff is inconsequential unless you know that there are people below likely to be hit by it and killed or injured.

If you try to think with indistinct words, you have indistinct thoughts. For your own clarity of thought, MAKE A DISTINCTION. I don't much care HOW you distinguish them, but DO SO. Then, when we converse, if I know how you use words DISTINCTLY, I can translate between YOU speak and ME speak and we can understand each other.

I have harped remorsely about how I define words so that you can have a chance of understanding my clarity of thought on this matter.

Unfortunately for you, the task of defining words is left to consensus.

[Diogenes]

Maybe soon you will recognize that favoring the drug war is a similar mistake.

Down with drugs. Legalize them!

As it stands currently, it looks like the only mistake is how we are fighting the drug war. I think we need a lot more death penalty for drug dealers. Especially foreign ones.

Do you really believe that it is moral to kill people because you have a disagreement with them?

Not for disagreement. For disagreement on something I consider fundamental to my ability to survive. Yes, any disagreement along those lines is, in my opinion, ample justification for killing them.

For Examples, Iran with an atomic bomb or Government confiscation of guns. Selling poison to people in my community is pretty much along the same gist.

But for disagreement in general? H3ll no! I don't mind people disagreeing with me. Most of them do and I know it. But we aren't talking about a debate here, we are talking about the real world actions taken by individuals that I regard as a threat to my community. They should be matched by real world action taken by those tasked with defending the community, and I think expanding those actions to include killing the malefactors is not only reasonable, but perfectly in line with historic norms.

If so, then I guess you volunteer for drive-by shootings and all the other ills of the drug war. I am torn between hoping those ills visit you soon and you waking up.

Yes, wish ill on me. That just means you agree with me on visiting ill upon malefactors, we just have a difference of opinion about what conduct is worthy of it. I daresay that if the threats which I perceive from our out of control government come to pass, we shall all do well to own a pot to piss in, with fear and misery as close companions.

[Diogenes]

Hmmm. Pointing a gun at me does not harm either. I may percieve a potential for harm so I have every right to point out that I don't volunteer to be threatened like that. I have every right to inform you that if you continue to point your gun at me I will take it as permission to do what I choose to stop you from involving me involuntarily. I would also support a uniform social contract to make that the default condition. But there has been no harm until you pull the trigger or hit me with it or whatever.

It is currently a crime to point a gun at someone. It is called "Feloniously pointing a firearm" and you can go to prison for it.

Yet again you fail to make the important distinction. It is not a crime because it is felonious. It is felonious because it is felonious. And yes they can jail you for committing a felony, but that doesn't make it a CRIME i.e. WRONG, per-se.

You are going back and forth between polar and rectangular coordinates. It's difficult to keep up with which side of a particular word definition you are using.

A lot of people don't try to argue two separate sides for the word "Crime."

Pointing a firearm at someone without having a good and legitimate reason for doing so, (such as they are a criminal trying to rob or assault you.) is both morally wrong and legally wrong.

In this case, the word "Crime" means wrong in both definitions.

[Diogenes]

Now I think I see one of our points of contention in this discussion. I count it as immoral AND illegal, to increase the risk of danger (either recklessly or intentionally) to innocents, while you only count it as immoral and a crime if someone is actually HURT.

So I give you again, the example of firing a gun into the air. (in a city) I contend the act is both immoral and criminal. (even if no one gets hurt.)

I gave you a similar case above and have tried to lead you to a correct answer. Maybe now you will twig to the reality.

Sometimes you make statements like you are finally getting it, then you make a statement like this. To continue to try or to give you up as a lost cause?

I see you as splitting hairs without justification, and making distinctions which are not in evidence.

[Diogenes]

Some people intentionally mis-use words to hide their wrong-doing. That doesn't make the real meaning the same. Borrowing, the temporary, authorized use of something not your own, is NOT stealing. And saying you "borrowed" something you stole does not make it ok.

Sometimes you need to look at the deeper meaning, not the surface obfuscation!

I know this from personal experience. If you give someone the keys to your car to go get some burgers and come back, and they take off with it and go on a two day joy ride, the cops won't do a frickin thing for 48 hours. They refer to this as "Unauthorized taking", and it is a misdemeanor if they even bother to prosecute it.

But you know in your heart that the joyrider did you WRONG. You did NOT volunteer to have him take your car for that long. He involved you in that taking involuntarily. He stole from you the minute he did not come back with your car.

You experienced how the government screwed up there. So why don't you get it that the government could be screwing up royally wrt the drug war?

I don't have any disagreement with the notion that the government is screwing up the drug war. I see evidence in abundance that they are mostly interdicted from doing anything right. They are ruling a capricious and selfish, self absorbed, ignorant people, that throw childish fits about the silliest things. As a result, their motivations are often opposite and contradictory.

That does not mean that they should ignore their mandate. The fact that they execute it poorly does not mean they shouldn't do it at all. It means they should do it, but do it better.

[Diogenes]

To the degree that parent is neglecting tse's responsibility to the child, that parent should be held culpable for any harm, no matter what the cause; drugs, alchohol, the Jerry Springer Show.

Except for the drugs, they very likely wouldn't have behaved in this manner.

Do you have data to support this opinion? Many adults are just delinquent in their duties, having nothing to do with "illegal drugs".

No, don't go looking for it because despite my curiosity it doesn't change the facts. It is not the drugs per-se that is wrong, it is the injureous neglect of the responsibilty. Effectively, it can be said that under common law (and should probably be written into an unambigous default social contract) that the parant has a contract with the child to provide righteous and good guidance for the child's development into adulthood. Until adulthood, the child is assumed to volunteer for that guidance. To the degree the parent's actions are bad for the child that parent is violating the voluntary nature of the agreement and is doing the child wrong. At that point they should be subject to criminal sanctions.

This is another case where people are trying to perceive artificial boundaries between acts and events when in fact there are no boundaries, just the perception of them.

Saying it isn't the drugs fault, but it is the fault of the effect of the drugs, is just silly. (the effect of the drugs being the neglect.)

Now you will say that's not what you are saying, but it is in fact what you are saying. I just stated it plainly in the hopes that you might be able to see that it is exactly what you are saying.

Lets try a bit of logic.

A=B. B=C. Therefore, A=C. Right?

Drugs = Drug effects. Drug effects = Neglect. Ergo Drugs = Neglect.

Seems pretty simple to me.