The "Legalized Weed = Jobs & Wealth" Argument

[ZetaMan]

Guys, I need your help.

This argument makes my head spin and thus incapable of processing any thought for an uncomfortable length of time. What I despise more than a good argument made by authority is a bad argument made by those who are supposed to be confronting authority - and the suggestion that making the growth and sale of marijuana legal will end the economic devastation by creating jobs is a really bad argument. And yet people, for some reason (probably excessive THC levels), accept this without question.

 

I'm pretty sure someone on the FDR forum could language this one for me. How do you explain this to the well-meaning dimwit?

 

I tried broaching this before in the company of 4 stoners after one of them had thrown it around. I asked where the money is coming from. "People will get jobs on the farms", the Alpha answered. Where will the farmers get that money? "From selling the weed", the Alpha answered once again. I thought to myself, "Yes! Just two more questions away from blowing some minds here", but by time I could finish asking where the people buying the weed would get this money from, one of them said something inanely stupid.

 

It's pretty common for people who've bought into the State-controlled society as-is to hold ideas contrary to simple logic - is this one of those cases?

[dsayers]

the suggestion that making the growth and sale of marijuana legal will end the economic devastation by creating jobs is a really bad argument.

 

I've never heard this argument.

 

I won't address the claim directly. I post only to say that coercive restriction/regulation/bans puts a negative into the economy in general.

 

The quote is a bad argument primarily because it make a utilitarian claim instead of focusing on the more important moral consideration.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Just to emphasize on what dsayers said, of course legalizing weed would create more jobs. Any time you take government coercion out of the mix you're going to get increased economic productivity.

 

However, would legalization of weed end economic devastation? Uh... no. Bit more complicated than that.

[cab21]

and the suggestion that making the growth and sale of marijuana legal will end the economic devastation by creating jobs is a really bad argument.

 

what is meant by  "economic devastation"?

[ZetaMan]

Just to emphasize on what dsayers said, of course legalizing weed would create more jobs. Any time you take government coercion out of the mix you're going to get increased economic productivity.

Of course, but without more wealth in the hands of the "middle class" more jobs simply means less money changing hands more often. Right?

 

what is meant by  "economic devastation"?

What's going on outside our windows right now in most places. World economy is looking pretty bummy right now. This argument sprung into existence only a few years ago when people started feeling the crunch, and it's always been used as "This is our answer to the economic downturn". It even made it's way into a press release by the politician who proposed a revised bill on marijuana here in Ireland. I'm honestly not surprised it wasn't taken at all seriously.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Of course, but without more wealth in the hands of the "middle class" more jobs simply means less money changing hands more often. Right?

 

 

Wouldn't the providing of jobs in the creation of the new businesses create new members of the middle class?

[_LiveFree_]

Guys, I need your help.This argument makes my head spin and thus incapable of processing any thought for an uncomfortable length of time.

That is a pretty intense emotional reaction. Why do you think you feel so strongly about this? 

What I despise more than a good argument made by authority is a bad argument made by those who are supposed to be confronting authority

This kinda answers my first question, but could you expand on it? 

- and the suggestion that making the growth and sale of marijuana legal will end the economic devastation by creating jobs is a really bad argument. And yet people, for some reason (probably excessive THC levels), accept this without question. I'm pretty sure someone on the FDR forum could language this one for me. How do you explain this to the well-meaning dimwit? I tried broaching this before in the company of 4 stoners after one of them had thrown it around. I asked where the money is coming from. "People will get jobs on the farms", the Alpha answered. Where will the farmers get that money? "From selling the weed", the Alpha answered once again. I thought to myself, "Yes! Just two more questions away from blowing some minds here", but by time I could finish asking where the people buying the weed would get this money from, one of them said something inanely stupid. It's pretty common for people who've bought into the State-controlled society as-is to hold ideas contrary to simple logic - is this one of those cases?

 

I'm actually not following your logic here. Not that you're wrong, but if you could talk some more about your reasoning that would help. I will say that having such a strong reaction to this is an indicator of past experiences intruding on the present. What is obvious from your post is that you don't respect these people with which you are trying to debate. 1) Why are you debating them? 2) Why are you spending time with them at all if you have such intense disdain for them?

[dayna j.]

Seems to me like the same copy and paste argument people make for everything they want the government to do.  "If the government does X, they will create jobs and stimulate the economy."  This particular manifestation of it is no better or worse than any other.  I  agree with the previous posters that it entirely misses the moral dimension of the argument, which is the most compelling reason for decriminalization.  As an individual who enjoys cannabis, I do cringe a bit when I hear people make poor arguments in support of it's legalization. 

[ZetaMan]

Wouldn't the providing of jobs in the creation of the new businesses create new members of the middle class?

Yeah. Generally. But under this economy it wouldn't. In a system where everyone is owing more of an increasingly scarce and inflating currency no amount of jobs will do anything to bring more money into that closed system. If we minted our own coins, then maybe. But for now it's like throwing seed onto malnourished soil in the hopes it will rejuvenate all by itself and grow those seeds.... if ya get me.

 

Seems to me like the same copy and paste argument people make for everything they want the government to do.  "If the government does X, they will create jobs and stimulate the economy."  This particular manifestation of it is no better or worse than any other.  I  agree with the previous posters that it entirely misses the moral dimension of the argument, which is the most compelling reason for decriminalization.  As an individual who enjoys cannabis, I do cringe a bit when I hear people make poor arguments in support of it's legalization. 

Thank you. At the very least cringe-worthy.

It misses the moral argument and every other Human concern in the same way that when arguing for fathers to be part of the home again we're liable to pull out the statistic that says the children derail and become criminal. F*ck that. I just want my daddy/son/daughter and a nice huge bowl to make that interaction all the more entertaining.

 

That is a pretty intense emotional reaction. Why do you think you feel so strongly about this? 

This kinda answers my first question, but could you expand on it? 

 

I'm actually not following your logic here. Not that you're wrong, but if you could talk some more about your reasoning that would help. I will say that having such a strong reaction to this is an indicator of past experiences intruding on the present. What is obvious from your post is that you don't respect these people with which you are trying to debate. 1) Why are you debating them? 2) Why are you spending time with them at all if you have such intense disdain for them?

Oh come on, man. What is the point?

1) Never tried debating them, never did, never saw the point in "debating" someone. They said something incredibly fucking stupid worthy of having their brains scooped out and given to needy children and I had a perfectly normal and Human response - what else do you want out of this situation? Is there some great Holy Grail truth we're being led to here?

2) I'm not spending time with them. They were at my home that time for a "business meeting". I do not go searching for their company. However, once a year or so one person I do respect brings them into my social sphere.

 

Shall I reach for the ol' DSM IV?

[cab21]

well if the argument is that ending  government infringement on free markets will lead to jobs and wealth, that seems reasonable.

with that, it's about a principle

[ZetaMan]

well if the argument is that ending  government infringement on free markets will lead to jobs and wealth, that seems reasonable.

with that, it's about a principle

Yeah. It's a perfectly valid principal. Except if you want to go that route then you have to go all the way. Perhaps the situation backfires and then Libertarianism gets a bad rap in public consciousness for another 50 years. A Libertarian model inside a Statist model is destined to fail.

I'm strangely reminded of Mike Judge's "Idiocracy" where the protagonist from the past in a future populated solely by idiots with a pro-wrestler as U.S. President was given the authority to solve all their problems. When he suggested homes and crop fields should be supplied with water and not the world's famous energy drink, the Corporation making the energy drink that currently employed 90% of America went bankrupt. The populace reacted violently, not leaving enough time for the crops to start growing again and the economy to recover before deciding the guy with all the answers was wrong. That's what we're dealing with: people who can't see beyond the next 5 minutes and want change without their precious lives being disturbed. Worth keeping in mind.

[cab21]

going the full way is the thought

changing how people think is part of it.

[_LiveFree_]

Oh come on, man. What is the point?

1) Never tried debating them, never did, never saw the point in "debating" someone. They said something incredibly fucking stupid worthy of having their brains scooped out and given to needy children and I had a perfectly normal and Human response - what else do you want out of this situation? Is there some great Holy Grail truth we're being led to here?

2) I'm not spending time with them. They were at my home that time for a "business meeting". I do not go searching for their company. However, once a year or so one person I do respect brings them into my social sphere.

 

Shall I reach for the ol' DSM IV?

 

lol, ok

 

What do I want out of the situation? Nothing. I'm not in the situation. But now I have to ask you, what do you want out of it? 

 

If these are just strangers passing in the night (meaning people of little or no consequence in your life), why would you even care? Let them transact their "business" and then be on their way. In fact, if it is just a "business" relationship, why jeopardize that by telling someone how stupid they are? Exchange product and money and be done with it. Trying to correct every stupid person on the planet is a quick ticket to crazyville. Don't go!  

Yeah. It's a perfectly valid principal. Except if you want to go that route then you have to go all the way. Perhaps the situation backfires and then Libertarianism gets a bad rap in public consciousness for another 50 years. A Libertarian model inside a Statist model is destined to fail.

I'm strangely reminded of Mike Judge's "Idiocracy" where the protagonist from the past in a future populated solely by idiots with a pro-wrestler as U.S. President was given the authority to solve all their problems. When he suggested homes and crop fields should be supplied with water and not the world's famous energy drink, the Corporation making the energy drink that currently employed 90% of America went bankrupt. The populace reacted violently, not leaving enough time for the crops to start growing again and the economy to recover before deciding the guy with all the answers was wrong. That's what we're dealing with: people who can't see beyond the next 5 minutes and want change without their precious lives being disturbed. Worth keeping in mind.

 

It's irrational to argue with irrational people. It is not irrational to engage in a free market exchange of goods with irrational people.

[ZetaMan]

Yeah, you're right, it's not someplace I want to be having seen other more tender people go down there. 

It's a fact of life, though. These people do exist out there. I don't particularly care to endanger a business relationship over something that probably wont be understood, or even worse, may be understood just enough to be insulting (lol)

However... chances are likely that I will be spending time with someone I enjoy and have faith in, and they might come out with this nonsensical propaganda. Not necessarily because they're stupid, but perhaps stupid people told them this. It wouldn't surprise me considering how little knowledge of economics people generally have (even here in this uber Libertarian forum) that someone who is intelligent and lovable in other ways might just believe it because it sounds good.

 

And when I referred to "the situation" I was referring to this conversation between us. It kinda creeped me out until just now.

[_LiveFree_]

Yeah, you're right, it's not someplace I want to be having seen other more tender people go down there. 

It's a fact of life, though. These people do exist out there. I don't particularly care to endanger a business relationship over something that probably wont be understood, or even worse, may be understood just enough to be insulting (lol)

However... chances are likely that I will be spending time with someone I enjoy and have faith in, and they might come out with this nonsensical propaganda. Not necessarily because they're stupid, but perhaps stupid people told them this. It wouldn't surprise me considering how little knowledge of economics people generally have (even here in this uber Libertarian forum) that someone who is intelligent and lovable in other ways might just believe it because it sounds good.

 

And when I referred to "the situation" I was referring to this conversation between us. It kinda creeped me out until just now.

 

Great honest response! Well done  (honesty and curiosity are creepy as hell until you embrace them.)

 

How you do you correct someone you like??? Well i just showed ya!

 

Step 0: Don't think of it as correcting. Think of it as an exploration.

Step 1: Listen intently

Step 2: Show them you are listening intently by having eye contact, open body language, head gestures, and most important by asking pertinent questions to clarify their position in your mind. Don't assume you know everything about them already.

Step 3: When you respond, don't give them your conclusion right away. 

Step 4: Step them through your logic on why you see it differently. (Maybe they will follow you and agree once you get to the end! No need for correcting, they just didn't know how to get where you were.)

Step 5: Always maintain a gentle and warm attitude. A lot of errors in thought are brought about by psychological defenses. This is what you are navigating around, not the logic itself. 

Step 6: Be open yourself to corrections in your logic. If the person you are talking to feels like you are open to them, they will more than likely open to you. If they are not open you can't change their mind.

Step 7: Before doing this with anyone else, do it with yourself, first. 

 

It makes sense now why there appeared to be urgency around your initial post. You don't care about these guys conducting business, you worry what will happen when you encounter flawed thinking in a relationship you do care about. I worry about the same thing! And in fact, until I found FDR I kept making the same mistakes over and over, which basically came down to me saying "You're wrong, here's why." This approach really turned people off, but it was scary not to do it because it meant that I would be undefended if attacked, and then it became like a drug (it was a way to keep people at a distance while I continued being "active" in a relationship). In truth, it was a way for me to avoid real connection with people. It had nothing to do with what was right, only "how do I not feel the anxiety around intimacy in relationships".

 

When you do the above process with yourself first, you gain the necessary knowledge to defend yourself, which results in; first by being able to take harder hits, second by being able to dodge the hits, and third by being able to diffuse the hits before they come. And fourth, ceasing your involvement in relationships where hits are given. 

 

 

One of the most important lessons I've learned in the last year is that not everyone in your life deserves full honesty. Honesty in a relationship is earned, and it's earned by being honest little by little. I work with some very religious and violent people. If I was 100% honest with them, I'd be out of a job because i'd be hated. I'm not there for friendships or romance. I'm there for money. (Luckily I do have an actual friend who works there so it's not all bad.) Timing and circumstance make a huge difference. A particular move in chess in one setup may be masterful, but in another may be a blunder. A note sung perfectly in tune but at the wrong time is still a wrong note. 

 

What: Truth

How: the above process

When: trust your gut (this comes from doing the above process with yourself)

 

You've already got the "What" and "How". So now it's all about practicing on yourself before employing it on others. Then you'll begin to see the types of relationships you have and how they play out begin to change. And your worry about caring about someone who says something stupid will vanish. 

 

 

Tell me what you think. Do I seem full of s***? lol

[ZetaMan]

No, not full of shit. That's actually how I learned to interact with clients in psychotherapy. It never occurred to me to apply that in personal relationships. If I had to do that for a friend I'd want €60 by the end of it. That's partly why I'm not with my wife anymore. Got sick of the guy who had to be 100% diplomatic and assuage her issues.

 

Your kind of curiosity (and I hope I don't come across badly here) is creepy because I suspect a judgement behind it. Why should anyone welcome criticism of themselves that will inevitably leave out compassion and experience in it's objective nature?

[dsayers]

Why should anyone welcome criticism of themselves that will inevitably leave out compassion and experience in it's objective nature?

 

Why should anybody reject accurate criticism for reasons that have no impact on personal growth?

 

Earlier, Mr. Diehl made a post my way that was incredibly hostile. Amid it, he made a fantastic point that was a very valuable criticism of me. Something I understand even better given one of his posts here. If I used the hostility I observed as reason to reject the criticism, I'd only be hurting myself. What do you think about this?

[_LiveFree_]

No, not full of shit. That's actually how I learned to interact with clients in psychotherapy. It never occurred to me to apply that in personal relationships. If I had to do that for a friend I'd want €60 by the end of it. That's partly why I'm not with my wife anymore. Got sick of the guy who had to be 100% diplomatic and assuage her issues.

 

Your kind of curiosity (and I hope I don't come across badly here) is creepy because I suspect a judgement behind it. Why should anyone welcome criticism of themselves that will inevitably leave out compassion and experience in it's objective nature?

 

 

lol! Well, I didn't have $60 to pay my therapist this week so I got nothing for you

 

So sorry to hear about you and your wife.  I feel it would be inappropriate to ask you anything about that considering we've just begun talking and this is public. 

 

How long have you been a psychotherapist? Do you enjoy it?

 

With the therapist/client relationship, there isn't any reciprocity with curiosity and empathy. The client is basically paying you for re-parenting. In a balanced friendship, there should be equal curiosity, empathy, and honesty from both partners. Give what you want and if the other person reciprocates then the relationship can grow. The problem I've struggled with in relationships my whole adult life is searching out people who need "fixing" (which always meant me offering up my empathetic ear and gobs of time), and then ignoring the fact that I was getting nothing in return. As long as I felt useful then I must be wanted, right? Of course, this just lead me to awful relationship one after the other. 

 

Your last point about my creepy curiosity brought up a bit of anxiety for me. Would you mind expanding on that a little? I'm interested to know what seemed creepy to you when you read it and also, why did the creepiness go away with my last post? My gut tells me you may have a perspective there that might be eye opening for me. 

 

Thanks!

Why should anybody reject accurate criticism for reasons that have no impact on personal growth?

 

Earlier, Mr. Diehl made a post my way that was incredibly hostile. Amid it, he made a fantastic point that was a very valuable criticism of me. Something I understand even better given one of his posts here. If I used the hostility I observed as reason to reject the criticism, I'd only be hurting myself. What do you think about this?

 

Not to derail the thread, but I just wanted to apologize for being hostile. I've been thinking about that interaction and haven't been able to put together a response. I think you made good points about me. I'll respond in that thread further once I've got my thoughts together.

 

Thanks, Dsayers

[ZetaMan]

Why should anybody reject accurate criticism for reasons that have no impact on personal growth?

 

Earlier, Mr. Diehl made a post my way that was incredibly hostile. Amid it, he made a fantastic point that was a very valuable criticism of me. Something I understand even better given one of his posts here. If I used the hostility I observed as reason to reject the criticism, I'd only be hurting myself. What do you think about this?

What do you mean 'what do I think about this'? It's pristine logic."The bigger man" isn't a slave to his emotions.

I don't think you know what it is I meant by what you quoted. "Accurate" criticism? That was me pretty much saying that any such criticism wouldn't be accurate! Call it what you want, but a criticism devoid of compassion and valuing experience is hardly accurate. Irregardless of your rationalizing it through logic and pop-psychology (not suggesting you employed any pop-psychology here).

 

Your last point about my creepy curiosity brought up a bit of anxiety for me. Would you mind expanding on that a little? I'm interested to know what seemed creepy to you when you read it and also, why did the creepiness go away with my last post? My gut tells me you may have a perspective there that might be eye opening for me. 

 

Thanks!

 

Not to derail the thread, but I just wanted to apologize for being hostile. I've been thinking about that interaction and haven't been able to put together a response. I think you made good points about me. I'll respond in that thread further once I've got my thoughts together.

 

Thanks, Dsayers

Hey, look, I'm an open book. Pry away. Maybe I can find a way to repair my marriage before we apply for divorce in 4 years.

I called her a b*tch and a c*nt via email for leaving me with the lease on the house and taking all the food out of the kitchen. So I'd imagine repairing the marriage would be a long-shot.

 

In my years before getting a life I've spent many hours on communities built around forums so I have a high degree of desensitization to hostility in written form. So I haven't a clue what you're on about!

 

I've done very little practice as a psychotherapist (since 2004) and found myself lending more time to troubled youth I would meet during my mid-20s. People in particular situations in life (e.g. disenfranchized male in a feminized/emasculated world) are lost in a thunderstorm of unfairness. Before they get the chance to make independent choices about their lives it seems they've already made the wrong decisions or are simply defective from word-go. It's very fulfilling to give people counsel. Primarily I undertook that line of study to expand my knowledge of myself... boy did I get what I paid for!

You could call psychotherapy reparenting. It's an interesting name to give to it. But beyond that you're not entirely correct as there are many schools of psychotherapy that do involve a proactive interaction. For example: that list you made of how to approach another person is essentially how Cognitive Behavioral Therapists would approach you. I'm on the other side of the fence in psychological theory, but I do recognise the need for those kinds of conversations where the therapist unties all those knotted up misconceptions.

 

On the subject of relationships: I found myself looking for "projects" too. Shit. Psychotherapy - what's that? The belief you are charged with the duty of fixing other people (regardless of how fucked up your life might be). I could never figure out whether I wanted to fix myself vicariously through fixing other people or it was a simple case of just wanting to feel useful, as you suggested yourself.

The wife who just walked out on me last Wednesday (which feels like forever ago) was the first woman in my life who wasn't a "project". That took years of learning about myself and loads of psychedelic drugs to help me along the way. This woman who now hates me is still in my book the only real woman I know. 

 

As for your creepiness: I'm a psychologist and an existential philosopher before anything else. I find logic and rationality has a drop-off point and that's where Human sensitivities and private beliefs should pick up. A radio broadcaster I look up to as a God and male role model once said that the one thing you cannot question in another man is the very thoughts he has about himself. To go treading about in there uninvited will without a doubt cause hostility. If it doesn't, the victim of the trespass becomes desensitized to people criticizing him at every level... for good or for bad, is up to you, but I would say bad.

So what else should I react with? I'm being infringed upon. It's like making eye contact with a lady across the room and assuming because she was transfixed in your gaze for 2 seconds she wants you to undress her. That's rape. Both of these interactions are intimate and to be shared when two people are entering that space with enthusiasm... I just showed up here in a forum. 

We may share our stances in philosophy, epistemology, economics, etc. but until the appropriate relationship is built between us it is improper to go about questioning the psychological basis of those beliefs the other holds. Who told you that you were allowed to do that? Isn't that a kind of Ad Hominem attack? Either a stance or a point of reference stands or it doesn't.

Trust other men to learn new things and then go off privately to face reality and change their minds. No man likes to be robbed of his position on the social web by being proven fundamentally wrong as a person.

 

Realize that my intention isn't to reprimand here. Just being completely honest.

[_LiveFree_]

Holy shit, man. My deepest sympathies for the situation with your marriage. I'm totally unqualified to give any perspective on that whatsoever. All I'll say is that Stefan has a wonderful book titled "Real Time Relationships". It is one of the most important books I've ever read. I really hope things work out with you two. Those deep intimate connections can bring the greatest joy and the deepest anguish. The latter emotion being a real bitch. I wouldn't wish that on the evilest of enemies. 

 

That critique didn't come across like a reprimand at all. In fact it was very enlightening. I'm making the right move, but I'm making it too early! I don't ask these types of questions with everyone. With you my gut said "go", so I did. So I should balance that out with better timing. Thank you for the feedback!

 

 

So, wow, do you think there is an opportunity to approach your wife in the manner we talked about? Do you think she would be receptive to that? How would you feel being completely vulnerable to her?  (don't answer any of that if you don't want to. I really don't mean to pry. Also, I mistook you coming on the forum and posting as enthusiasm )

[ZetaMan]

....... Also, I mistook you coming on the forum and posting as enthusiasm )

Touché!

 

She's across the ocean in New York. In some respects it makes it easier and in others it makes it harder. One disadvantage is not being able to hold a space of open communication. Skype and emails just wont cut it.

I just sent her an email there. She explicitly suggested last week that we have no more contact until we can divorce, and then suggested I should go get my head examined. So... uh... if she comes back at me with anything (ideally with an update on herself) that means it's a slim possibility and if she doesn't come back, then fuck her. I can understand being hostile, but remaining hostile kinda shows you don't have any regret - right?

[_LiveFree_]

Touché!

 

She's across the ocean in New York. In some respects it makes it easier and in others it makes it harder. One disadvantage is not being able to hold a space of open communication. Skype and emails just wont cut it.

I just sent her an email there. She explicitly suggested last week that we have no more contact until we can divorce, and then suggested I should go get my head examined. So... uh... if she comes back at me with anything (ideally with an update on herself) that means it's a slim possibility and if she doesn't come back, then fuck her. I can understand being hostile, but remaining hostile kinda shows you don't have any regret - right?

 

Well, what do you truly want? Do you want to reconcile and remain married?

[ZetaMan]

Yes. But in practical terms that's contingent upon certain some personal growth on her part as well as mine. Otherwise it wont work. 

I don't know yet - essentially.

I've been with her long enough to love her nearly as much as my family members. I told her I would be there for her in sickness and in health, till death do we part in front of my family. That shit just can't be canceled for me.

[dsayers]

That was me pretty much saying that any such criticism wouldn't be accurate!

 

Let's suppose that is the case. Wouldn't that make the criticism LESS accurate? Which would of course mean less valuable. Which would make the answer to:

 

Why should anyone welcome criticism of themselves that will inevitably leave out compassion and experience in it's objective nature?

 

To be able to make use of the parts that do provide value even if part of it does not. The point I made that I was asking your thoughts about was that to summarily reject that which does have SOME value only serves to shortchange yourself. I feel this is a fair answer to your question, which is why I solicited your thoughts.

 

A radio broadcaster I look up to as a God and male role model once said that the one thing you cannot question in another man is the very thoughts he has about himself. To go treading about in there uninvited will without a doubt cause hostility.

 

As a matter of a lesser point: Isn't that first sentence a vague appeal to authority? How do you know that the claim is true?

 

The larger point: It's not possible to tread about in somebody's mind uninvited. If you and I never encountered one another, you wouldn't be able to think or say anything about me. If we crossed paths in the same room, you would only be able to think or say something about my appearance. When I speak, it is then that you have the capability of thinking or saying something in regards to my thoughts, biases, motivations as you perceive them.

 

If somebody asks you a question after you have presented yourself in front of them, you cannot say that the act of asking is an invasion. "Can I come in?" is not a home invasion. I would argue that its being formed as a request is an acknowledgement that they are not entitled to it and an acceptance that you are not obligated to provide it.

 

Finally, I wanted to share that I think the viewpoint you offered is utterly unsustainable. How could we ever interact with anybody if interaction were by invitation only? For the very act of extending an invitation would be an invasion according to that paradigm.

[_LiveFree_]

Yes. But in practical terms that's contingent upon certain some personal growth on her part as well as mine. Otherwise it wont work. 

I don't know yet - essentially.

I've been with her long enough to love her nearly as much as my family members. I told her I would be there for her in sickness and in health, till death do we part in front of my family. That shit just can't be canceled for me.

 

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - Nietzsche 

 

Really it just comes down to how much you really want her. If you aren't sure about that, then there really isn't a point in taking any action toward her I suppose. Also, any voluntary contract can be canceled. I know there is a religious aspect to it for you, but if two people shouldn't be together then staying together can be hell. My father was a baptist preacher who later came out as gay. If he and my mom had stayed married it would have been awful. Besides both of them being abusive neglectful parents and immature human beings, there was no affection and no love there. On the other hand, my best friend's first year of marriage didn't go so well, but he and his wife went through therapy together (and separately) and were able to work through it all. They are so much better off now and very happy. 

 

I would definitely caution against staying for reasons that are societal. Talking with a professional about it should most definitely be on your to do list. Again, man I'm really sorry you're going through. Reach out to people near you, don't let the ease of internet relationships gloss over what can really help you right now. 

[ZetaMan]

Let's suppose that is the case.......

Hey, look, I could say some shitty things here, but I'll limit it to this: there is gross misunderstanding on both our parts and I don't consider this interaction to be worth the time. Either you're over-intellectualizing a very simple thing or the fluids streaming out of my head due to an infection is making my thinking sluggish... or maybe both!

 

Re: Vague appeal to authority

No. Appeals to Authority can only really exist when there's an argument. And what's the most chilling about that not-so-serious accusation is that the offending sentence was backed up by facts understood by multiple schools of psychology. If you can't handle someone referencing another Human Being for wisdom received, then I would suggest you're intellectually feeble. You could only really apply that fallacy to a level of aversion/diversion like this: "My Daddy said X is true and Y is a lie, and that's that". Authority is a genetic impulse that has it's problems and it's benefits, you can't reasonably suggest abolishing it.

 

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - Nietzsche 

 

..................

 

I would definitely caution against staying for reasons that are societal. Talking with a professional about it should most definitely be on your to do list. Again, man I'm really sorry you're going through. Reach out to people near you, don't let the ease of internet relationships gloss over what can really help you right now. 

Yup. I proposed a conflict resolutions officer that I know. She didn't show any interest and never considered outside help either. I'd say that speaks to her desire for the relationship.

Thanks for the solid advice. Thing is, I was swamped with love and genuine attention over the past week. I couldn't tell my ass from my elbow, so I took yesterday out and suddenly got ill. 

One thing I've learned in the past week is that Humanity certainly is Kind.

[dsayers]

what's the most chilling about that not-so-serious accusation is that the offending sentence was backed up by facts understood by multiple schools of psychology.

 

I made a very strong case against the claim. It shouldn't be difficult refute if this quote here is true.

 

Which, how could saying that a matter of opinion could not be questioned ever be described as factual?

 

Plus I clarified my reply to your question earlier, which also went unanswered.

 

Oh and pardon me, but fluids coming out of the head means what exactly? I'm still in the congestion phase of a head cold, have a toothache that has me taking double doses of Ibuprofen to curb the swelling, along with frequent applications of liquid maximum strength Orajel to numb the pain and discomfort, and have been averaging about 4 hours of sleep a night for a week now, including being up 24 hrs straight after only 3 hrs of sleep just yesterday. If I felt that using this as an excuse was an option, I would be engaging in manipulative behavior if I put myself out there, inviting the very conversation I was using an ailment to duck out of.

 

That ties nicely into the strong case I made in my last post.

[cab21]

We may share our stances in philosophy, epistemology, economics, etc. but until the appropriate relationship is built between us it is improper to go about questioning the psychological basis of those beliefs the other holds.

 

so what are your epistemology stances?

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Holy crap. I turn around for five minutes and the thread goes crazy. I'm... just going to stick with what was quoted from me.

 

Yeah. Generally. But under this economy it wouldn't. In a system where everyone is owing more of an increasingly scarce and inflating currency no amount of jobs will do anything to bring more money into that closed system. If we minted our own coins, then maybe. But for now it's like throwing seed onto malnourished soil in the hopes it will rejuvenate all by itself and grow those seeds.... if ya get me.

 

I don't mean to sound like I'm implying that the legalization of weed in the current economic climate would be anything more than a drop in the ocean of economic recovery, but you can still create jobs and middle class people in a system where everyone is owing more of an increasingly scare and inflating currency.

 

I'm living in Washington (recent "legalization" state) and two of my buddies decided they were going to make a producing and processing business, and they drafted me into it because I have a chemistry degree and they need to show the Liquor Control Board here that they have professional people on their team. From what we've been able to plan out so far, at least five of us (the board of directors) and going to start off with a salary well into the middle class.

 

As the plan stands now, we will probably be operating entirely without bank loans. I point this out because this means we won't be creating money via the fractional banking system. However, we've located commercial property and have gotten the owner to finance us and we're looking at having the greenhouse-building company finance us with the greenhouse as well. These don't create money, but they create credit. Thus we're able to go into business to move toward middle class while the other parties are (hopefully) able to maintain middle class living standards. Same goes for the people who will be installing our heating system and those who financed us the building we ordered from Pennsylvania.

 

We're going to be getting investors to invest in the business, which means that we'll probably be freeing up money that would have otherwise rotted in bank accounts at 0.000000135% interest, or whatever it is these days. This facilitated money will also be going to the 20ish employees we'll be needing at start-up, and from what we've seen we'll be paying them more than the median for the area. Whether or not it will be enough to lift them into middle class will remain to be seen, but it will at least get some people closer to being out of poverty.

 

So yes, I do believe that the legalization of weed would aid in increasing numbers of the middle class. Enough to reverse economic blackholism? Not in the slightest. But this looks to me like a case of less violence = better economics.

 

-Dylan

[cab21]

 

I don't mean to sound like I'm implying that the legalization of weed in the current economic climate would be anything more than a drop in the ocean of economic recovery, but you can still create jobs and middle class people in a system where everyone is owing more of an increasingly scare and inflating currency.

 

I'm living in Washington (recent "legalization" state) and two of my buddies decided they were going to make a producing and processing business, and they drafted me into it because I have a chemistry degree and they need to show the Liquor Control Board here that they have professional people on their team. From what we've been able to plan out so far, at least five of us (the board of directors) and going to start off with a salary well into the middle class.

 

As the plan stands now, we will probably be operating entirely without bank loans. I point this out because this means we won't be creating money via the fractional banking system. However, we've located commercial property and have gotten the owner to finance us and we're looking at having the greenhouse-building company finance us with the greenhouse as well. These don't create money, but they create credit. Thus we're able to go into business to move toward middle class while the other parties are (hopefully) able to maintain middle class living standards. Same goes for the people who will be installing our heating system and those who financed us the building we ordered from Pennsylvania.

 

We're going to be getting investors to invest in the business, which means that we'll probably be freeing up money that would have otherwise rotted in bank accounts at 0.000000135% interest, or whatever it is these days. This facilitated money will also be going to the 20ish employees we'll be needing at start-up, and from what we've seen we'll be paying them more than the median for the area. Whether or not it will be enough to lift them into middle class will remain to be seen, but it will at least get some people closer to being out of poverty.

 

So yes, I do believe that the legalization of weed would aid in increasing numbers of the middle class. Enough to reverse economic blackholism? Not in the slightest. But this looks to me like a case of less violence = better economics.

 

-Dylan

 

 

 

i thought i saw in the news that the state government is drafting legislation that would kill business ideas like this? what is the legal environment for such a business now and in the future?

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

i thought i saw in the news that the state government is drafting legislation that would kill business ideas like this? what is the legal environment for such a business now and in the future?

 

My buddy is the one doing most of the interacting with the state government (mainly the Liquor Control Board and the Department of Ecology), and from what he's told me, they're really excited about our plan and totally for it. The only thing the state has done recently that I know of is drop the maximum allowable canopy space by 30% (10,000 sq. ft. to 7,000 sq. ft.), which didn't change a thing about our plans.

[ZetaMan]

Oh and pardon me, but fluids coming out of the head means what exactly? I'm still in the congestion phase of a head cold, have a toothache that has me taking double doses of Ibuprofen to curb the swelling, along with frequent applications of liquid maximum strength Orajel to numb the pain and discomfort, and have been averaging about 4 hours of sleep a night for a week now, including being up 24 hrs straight after only 3 hrs of sleep just yesterday. If I felt that using this as an excuse was an option, I would be engaging in manipulative behavior if I put myself out there, inviting the very conversation I was using an ailment to duck out of.

Oh, you're a cracker, you are (Irish colloquialism). Projecting hostility, much?

 

so what are your epistemology stances?

In respect to what? I was having a conversation with someone else at the time. You're going to have to put your own context into that quote.

 

So yes, I do believe that the legalization of weed would aid in increasing numbers of the middle class. Enough to reverse economic blackholism? Not in the slightest. But this looks to me like a case of less violence = better economics.

 

-Dylan

yay! Someone said something related to the subject of the thread, and what's more, they made sense!

I see now what you mean. The garden variety stoner who'll repeat the soundbyte that legalization will improve the economy wouldn't be able to see that far, but I guess they'd be right.

 

Thanks Dylan!

[cab21]

In respect to what? I was having a conversation with someone else at the time. You're going to have to put your own context into that quote.

 

perhaps as to how human knoledge will enable less violence from the state getting out of controlling weed meaning better economics

 

such as showing how legalization of weed( or the separation of state from economy)  will create a better economy base on a epistemology foundation

[ZetaMan]

perhaps as to how human knoledge will enable less violence from the state getting out of controlling weed meaning better economics

 

such as showing how legalization of weed( or the separation of state from economy)  will create a better economy base on a epistemology foundation

huh?

[cab21]

say producing and selling weed becomes legal

job creation in general creates a better economy.

if there is a market for weed, people will sell and buy it

if weed increases health or productivity, that can lead to people doing more work, or inventing ways to increase productivity

increased productivity will increase wealth

increased wealth will increase the economy

 

will it somehow end all economic problems? no

is it part of a economic law that allows increased growth? i think yes.