aeonicentity Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Before a verbal lynch mob forms, let me just preface this with the fact that I am still for non-agression, and still for libertarian thought, but I got off a date with a girl who used this as an argument for some things, and I find it morally repugnant. Fundamentally, many libertarians, and pseudo libertarians justify certain behaviors as O.K. because "it only effects me." What I am here to say is this: This is fundamentally impossible. This is a poor method by which one determines the morality or immorality of a thing. in consideration of conjecture 1: We live in a causal universe, and if there's anything Gordon Freeman taught us, its to prepare for unforeseen consequences. As a student of history, I find it often the case that small 'inconsiquential' and fundamentally selfish behavior often is the cause of things much greater than the initial intended consequences. But lets get to the issue we're all thinking about, which is of course, drugs. This is a common irrational argument applied to drug use: I'm the only one doing it, therefore, it only effects me, therefore none yo biznazz! But lets pick this apart. Are you really the only one doing it? No. Actually, its pretty well proven that if you live in close proximity to someone doing drugs, you're very likely to wind up doing them yourself because it seems pretty normal, and its easy to access. This is why its so damn hard to quit smoking when one partner still does. So, if you're in an even remotely close relationship, its possible that by doing drugs you're actually encouraging it in others. By living in a causal universe, you simply cannot expect that your drug use only effects you. In fact drug use effects a large number of people, including parents, siblings, loved ones, wives, drug dealers, other drug users, and if you're into hard drugs, the poor bastard that has to scrape your rotting carcass off the carpet when you OD and no one notices for a week.Since there is no reasonable expectation of non-causality, you pretty much have to accept that other people will have opinions, and that they may not appreciate your drug use. Here's a good example: Little Johnny Pothead has no problem with pot. He's usually pretty good about his consumption, and yet one day he comes home having been kicked from the team for sluffing practice in favor of smoking weed. Johnny could have been a good wide reciever, except that now he's not on the team, and the team looses the big game. More importantly, Johnny wasted mom and dad's $300 in football fees that year. I think in this case, mom and dad are perfectly justified in being angry at Johnny and particularly frustrated that he decided to do pot and waste money and time smoking. In this scenario (which I don't expect is all that uncommon either) the argument that "johnny's drug use didn't hurt anyone" is ridiculous. It hurt feelings, hurt groups, and hurt Johnny himself. Self destructive behavior isn't never unhurtful to others especially. While the degree of hurt certainly is small, saying that there is NO hurt is absolutely unrealistic. And this brings me around to idea 3, that its "none yo biznazz!". Anything which effects me, is my business. Since it has been utterly disproven that you can do drugs without generating an effect in others, who are you to say that your pot smoking doesn't effect others, and that it doesn't effect me? All drug use, alcohol, tobacco, pot, hard drugs, shrooms, perscription abuse, it ALL effects others. It effects our credibility, it effects the fact that we have to take random drug screenings at work, it effects the shape and nature of our society. It is one thing to argue that the effect is small, or that the effect is beneficial on the whole. I'm open to that argument. I'm open to the idea of medical necessity of drugs or what not. I knew a guy who had to take meth for ADD for example. But it is entirely another thing to say that you should be allowed to do something because "it only effects me" because that is entirely impossible, and is a very poor reason to do something. in consideration of conjecture 2 So lets make the assumption that we do live in some mystical non-causal universe, where it truly only does effect you to do drugs. Its shitty reasoning. "Its ok for me to do X because it only effects me" is not a good premise for finding good things to do. Its not OK to waste your life playing videogames because it "Only effects me." Why? Because you're still wasting your life. You can't justify something because it only effects me, because if that thing is fundamentally a bad idea, the fact that it only effects you doesn't make it a good idea. Leaping off a cliff attached to a questionable bungee chord isn't made into a good idea because it only effects you. Its still a really, really bad idea. so please, PLEASE, rethink your position if this is in your defense of libertarianism. It doesn't even have to be about the war on drugs, this is a bad argument ANYWHERE. If we want to advance the cause of Libertarian thought, and the NAP, you have to absolutely get rid of this idea that because something "only effects you, therefore x" because it doesn't only effect you and your arguments, but the legitimacy of the entire Libertarian position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribuck Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 ... the poor bastard that has to scrape your rotting carcass off the carpet ... I'm not discussing your main argument, but I should point out that no-one "has" to deal with the carcass. People may choose to do this so that they can put the building to better use, reduce the risk of a breakout of disease, etc. But the guy who died didn't force them to. It's 100% voluntary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cab21 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Who uses this argument of "it only effects me", I don't think I have seen it? I have seen, "the act is not violent and the act does not trespass against others", but i don't think i have seen that it does not effect others. i have seen people saying drug policy should be a private matter, and not a government matter, but i don't think i have seen arguments against private drug policies in libertarian thought or that "it only effects me". the libertarian thought i am more used to is if the act violates non-aggression or not, rather than who does it effect. the secret formula for a recipe effects me, that does not mean the company should be forced to give me the recipe. it would mean i am not allowed to break in and steal the recipe. someone starting a business effects me, that does not give me the right to demand that the business stops doing business because i would rather the business not start. i could give a proposal, but not force the business to stop. someone breathing has a effect on you, do you think that gives you the right to stop the person from breathing, to keep the person breathing, or overrule that persons choice to breath? Are you really the only one doing it? No. Actually, its pretty well proven that if you live in close proximity to someone doing drugs, you're very likely to wind up doing them yourself because it seems pretty normal, and its easy to access. This is why its so damn hard to quit smoking when one partner still does. So, if you're in an even remotely close relationship, its possible that by doing drugs you're actually encouraging it in others. there is monkey see monkey do, and there is humans see, humans choose to do or not do look at the NFL, stories of people surrounded by drug use, who chose not to use drugs, and now are professional football players. These players were effected by the drug use around them, and choose to take a different direction. the words "possible" and "encouraging" are not words of forced drug use. The presence of people not doing drugs is just as "possible" and just as "encouraging". By living in a causal universe, you simply cannot expect that your drug use only effects you. In fact drug use effects a large number of people, including parents, siblings, loved ones, wives, drug dealers, other drug users, and if you're into hard drugs, the poor bastard that has to scrape your rotting carcass off the carpet when you OD and no one notices for a week.Since there is no reasonable expectation of non-causality, you pretty much have to accept that other people will have opinions, and that they may not appreciate your drug use. Here's a good example: Little Johnny Pothead has no problem with pot. He's usually pretty good about his consumption, and yet one day he comes home having been kicked from the team for sluffing practice in favor of smoking weed. Johnny could have been a good wide reciever, except that now he's not on the team, and the team looses the big game. More importantly, Johnny wasted mom and dad's $300 in football fees that year. I think in this case, mom and dad are perfectly justified in being angry at Johnny and particularly frustrated that he decided to do pot and waste money and time smoking. In this scenario (which I don't expect is all that uncommon either) the argument that "johnny's drug use didn't hurt anyone" is ridiculous. It hurt feelings, hurt groups, and hurt Johnny himself. Self destructive behavior isn't never unhurtful to others especially. While the degree of hurt certainly is small, saying that there is NO hurt is absolutely unrealistic. This person has loved ones and noone notices for a week? Johnny's pot use. if the team had a drug policy, and johnny violated the policy, johnny breached the contract. one would look at what contracts johnny had and did not have. someone choosing to have hurt feelings is not a act of violence by itself on the part of the person doing the act. a person can choose to have hurt feelings because someone else is simply breathing and alive. there is a difference between using force against someone, and that someone having hurt feelings. choosing to end a relationship can hurt someones feelings, but i would hardly call it a act of violence to choose to end a relationship. And this brings me around to idea 3, that its "none yo biznazz!". Anything which effects me, is my business. Since it has been utterly disproven that you can do drugs without generating an effect in others, who are you to say that your pot smoking doesn't effect others, and that it doesn't effect me? All drug use, alcohol, tobacco, pot, hard drugs, shrooms, perscription abuse, it ALL effects others. It effects our credibility, it effects the fact that we have to take random drug screenings at work, it effects the shape and nature of our society. if "effect in others" means its your business, everything is your business. how much effort are you using to chase after everything that effects your business, vs some things that effect your business? why say "all drug use", then list forms of drug use? you already mentioned "all drug use". the argument is pretty much at "all" effects you. are you suggesting that you get to be the supreme dictator or try and police everything? there should be no limit of "our society", since "all" effects you and not just "our society". the nature of a galaxy far far away effects you and all the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Before a verbal lynch mob forms It is manipulative and disingenuous to frame a conversation as if dissent could be classified as personalized aggression. many libertarians, and pseudo libertarians justify certain behaviors as O.K. What does this mean? This is a poor method by which one determines the morality or immorality of a thing. Morality is derived from self-ownership. How can you say that violating property rights is a bad way to determine immorality when it is in fact the defining characteristic? Are you really the only one doing it? No. Actually, its pretty well proven that if you live in close proximity to someone doing drugs, you're very likely to wind up doing them yourself because it seems pretty normal, and its easy to access. Voodoo pharmacology. You're taking the free will of the 2nd actor out of the equation in an attempt to pass your claim off as causal. As far as I know, yawning (which is an involuntary action) is the only thing one person can do in front of another and cause them to do it also. In fact drug use effects a large number of people, including parents, siblings, loved ones, wives, drug dealers, other drug users, and if you're into hard drugs, the poor bastard that has to scrape your rotting carcass off the carpet when you OD and no one notices for a week. Effecting others is not the same as an immoral action. It only effects these others because of their voluntary proximity with the person. Also, "drug use," while it can be an unhealthy act, is not necessarily a preface to death. So you cannot use leaving a corpse as if it is immoral (barring suicide). it effects the fact that we have to take random drug screenings at work, it effects the shape and nature of our society. The drug screening would be an excellent argument if it didn't ignore an employer's free will decision to require drug screens. Also, you said "effects the nature," but if it's nature, it's there before effect. I knew a guy who had to take meth for ADD for example. There is no such things as ADD. It was concocted to mask parental abuse and "rent seek". It's inconsistent to be making the case for drugs as an immoral act against others and then excuse an example where drugs are in fact a vehicle for immoral violation of self-ownership. Also, wouldn't meth exacerbate the symptoms that get classified as ADD, not counteract them? it is entirely another thing to say that you should be allowed to do something I take issue with your use of the word "allowed." Negative obligations arise from the existence of other people. This is very different than making a claim for positive obligation based on the decisions of other people. Its not OK to waste your life playing videogames because it "Only effects me." Why? Because you're still wasting your life. Again, what does OK mean? Earlier, you spoke as if you subscribe to "libertarian thought," but here you are denying that a person owns his life and therefore can choose to waste it. if that thing is fundamentally a bad idea, the fact that it only effects you doesn't make it a good idea. From morality to "OK" to "good idea." I'm sorry, but it is unclear as to what you are trying to say. Could you clarify by reposting what you want to say in a concise, precise form? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeonicentity Posted January 31, 2014 Author Share Posted January 31, 2014 First I'd like to thank you for your post. I wish I could reply to all of it, but I can't. I did read all of it a couple of times though. Who uses this argument of "it only effects me", I don't think I have seen it? I have seen, "the act is not violent and the act does not trespass against others", but i don't think i have seen that it does not effect others. i have seen people saying drug policy should be a private matter, and not a government matter, but i don't think i have seen arguments against private drug policies in libertarian thought or that "it only effects me". ... if "effect in others" means its your business, everything is your business. how much effort are you using to chase after everything that effects your business, vs some things that effect your business? why say "all drug use", then list forms of drug use? you already mentioned "all drug use". the argument is pretty much at "all" effects you. are you suggesting that you get to be the supreme dictator or try and police everything? I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. What I am suggesting is that at the very least I can have an opinion about your drug use. I would also suggest that it may be within the rights of certain organizations (ones you join voluntarily) to enforce drug policy. And particularly the point I make is that the 'it only effects me argument' is a poor moral argument, since its resoundingly untrue, especially in the face of facts. If you want to make the argument that the effect drug use makes no NEGATIVE effect on me, fine, but you can't make the argument that it effects no one and therefore is morally justifiable. I'm not saying that drugs in particular are violent impositions on others (although there might be violent imposition on others placed through the utilization of drugs, especially hard drugs). What I am saying is that this particular defense is not a good one. There are indeed GOOD arguments for and against drug use, but that this particular one is NOT among them. If you've never heard this one, great! I have a hard time believing it since I run across so many libertarians who DO believe it (my boss among them) but if you haven't, more power to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 This seems like a restating of your initial post. Which would require ignoring that it was pointed out that nobody says that it doesn't EFFECT others, that good or bad decision has no bearing on the moral component you bring up, and that the only measure for morality is whether it violates the property rights of others. Is it that the input you're ignoring was faulty in some manner? If so, I think addressing that would be more productive than simply re-stating what the input refuted. Or is it that the input didn't conform to your input? Put another way, are you more interested in the truth or your position being true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cab21 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 "it only effects me" is a poor logical argument. what matters is if there is a violation of non-aggression. the moral argument could be " it is not a act of initiating aggression against others." a libertarian argument i think looks more at means than ends. it's not whether something causes a positive or negative effect, but whether it was a act of initiation of violence or a voluntary act. sure people can have opinions about it, though legal theory is more about law and than what people have opinions about. so someone saying that there should not be government drug policy, and that private drug policy is logical and correct, could be thinking in that legal framework of contracts. put your boss on here, it would be interesting to hear the argument from him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovePrevails Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 It is manipulative and disingenuous to frame a conversation as if dissent could be classified as personalized aggression. Not on this forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seleneccentric Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Edit — Removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifegoesonbrah Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Hello, I think your argument seems to be faulty, in that you are neglecting the truth that individuals are free to make up their own mind. If I am injecting a pint of heroin into my asshole every morning and then lounging around all day nodding in and out of consciousness, my friends have the choice of whether or not to join me in this endeavor. My actions are not forcing them to do the same. My actions would have an impact on anyone that I dealt with regularly as it would change my personality, but people are free to associate with whoever they like. You also assume that all drug use is bad. I smoke weed daily because it is enjoyable and beneficial to my mental well being. I smoke after work, then go on my daily dog walk and gym visit. I also take medicinal mushrooms once or twice a year by myself as a tool for self reflection which is a mentally healthy experience. It is the decisions that you make when you are on drugs, not the drugs themselves that are the problem. You can also demonize other decisions that may affect those around you. For example, someone that eats a lot of unhealthy foods (sugar and salt is more dangerous than a lot of drugs IMO) may be a bad influence for those around them, but it is ultimately each individuals decision as to whether or not they want to poison their bodies with these types of foods. I agree your decisions may influence those around you, but you cannot force others into behaviors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Exceptionalist Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Is it that the input you're ignoring was faulty in some manner? If so, I think addressing that would be more productive than simply re-stating what the input refuted. Or is it that the input didn't conform to your input? Put another way, are you more interested in the truth or your position being true? Is it that you cannot understand the first sentence of post #5 ? The answer is hidden in it. Or is it that that its content doesn't conform to the things you believe are true? It is manipulative and disingenuous to frame a conversation as if dissent could be classified as personalized aggression. Since when is an assumption manipulative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts