sans tape recorder

i really do wish that the kid and i had been taping our debate, we've been arguing back and forth for ages and i know i'm going to leave out a lot of the better points. its an argument for basic human rights with a primary focus on drugs as an easy-to-see example.

this conversation is a continuation of a previous post

acceptable laws

the jump point: no man or government is in any position to pass laws to prevent people from causing harm to themselves in any way. while it is legitimate to pass laws to prevent people from causing harm to others, you cannot stop selling sharp objects because they can be used as weapons. you can only outlaw the use of sharp objects as weapons and punish anybody caught doing so.

taking risks is important for progress
this is a general rule that drills down into the deepest level of what it means to be alive. aside from making life fun and interesting we have to take risks, and we have to let other people take risks, in order to develop and learn. the less risk we take the further back towards primordial soup we slide. nobody wants to be a human being in potentia.

darwinism and social ego
holding back everyone to protect the weak is not the same as helping the weak.
conversely, not pre-emptively protecting the weak from themselves is not the same as weeding them out. every person is accountable for himself and his behaviour, and especially as we're in a situation of over-population we need to protect the strong... which can only be done by not protecting him.

if a man slips on the edge of a bridge, one extends a hand to help him up. if a man jumps off the same bridge, one lets him fall. just as everyone has the right to life, everyone has an equal right to not live.
don't tear down the bridge because it's a health hazard.

if a man jumps out a fifth-floor window and dies, we do not demand that all buildings shall rise no higher than a safe flight of stairs.

we're only human. we can be so much more if we could just stop trying to be perfect according to the norms and rules of a society that we made up. the only rules that truly matter have to do with not harming other people, as for the rest we each make up our own as we go along by learning from our mistakes or simply teach others by not surviving them.

democracy, meritocracy
smart and capable people either go after the cash or give up politics because it's not worth it for them to enter a world of corruption and idiocy - a realm almost exclusively reserved for people with expensive bad taste and a desire to remain with way too much time on their hands.
the people who really care about their constituents or their environment ("the issues") don't often have the patience to play silly-buggers and stick it out the way the monkeys do - and those who do get sent packing by the dumb and bored... bill clinton comes to mind.

statistics, lobbies, biased advisors, the media and a deep sense of penis envy are often the only tools that these politicans have to make decisions with, none of which are reliable when it comes to managing a population. it's an extremely small percentage of these people who possess the intelligence, wisdom, foresight and extensive understanding of the human psyche that is required to make blanket decisions for such large groups of people, the rest barely have the capability to make decisions for themselves.
the latter are usually the most vocal.

i personally feel the failure of democracy: i've never found a group with a platform that reasonably represents me, and i often vote for the lesser of the evils. as for the heads of state, i couldn't feel more disconnected from them. i really don't feel that i have a voice, i constantly watch absolute imbeciles and completely unqualified chimps entering office, and i wonder if implementing more of a meritocracy would really help, or if the system needs to be swapped out for a new one.

if only we were smart enough to come up with one.

or maybe, just maybe, everything i've just written is completely and utterly wrong, and i really and truly am alone in my opinions. i do find it difficult to believe that i'm one of such a select humanist mentality. maybe we simply are as stupid as this as a species, in which case we probably don't deserve personal freedom anyway.

freedom and responsibility
with freedom comes responsibility. that freedom that we fight for, that we demand, specifically and necessarily includes the freedom to take control of one's destiny. the ability to judge for ourselves which risks are worth taking and which aren't.

our responsibility is to our environment - within reason - and we need to accept the consequences of our actions. our "nanny" governments teach us to let the group take care of our individual actions and to point fingers elsewhere when we screw up. each individual needs to learn to take stock of himself and his situation, to mature and grow and develop, and by learning to make decisions without thinking of the consequences we destroy our potential for progression.

prohibition lessons
regarding drugs and all sorts of other bad habits... nothing proves the government's attitude off the mark better than the dry law:

When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.

there is no reason why alcohol is any different from other drugs, save that its use has historically always been more prevalent. any demand will be filled, by hook or by crook.

a side-issue: social security
social security is the biggest economic disaster institutionalized that i can think of... to take money from the current generation to support the previous does two things:
(a) removes the incentive to really pay attention to one's future
(b) places a huge burden on the current working generation
(c) cannot be removed because from the perspective of those being supported they have already paid the cash in advance - these people cannot be paid out from government coffers because the money never existed in the first place

(a) is relevant to our conversation because it's an incentive for people to stay off the drugs if they want a comfortable old age, due to concern that people could spend so much money on drugs that they wouldn't be able to save up for retirement.

aside from being just another method employed by our governments that teaches people to let the institution do its thinking and planning for them, it's irrelevant to the debate because if the government oversees the supply then not only is the quality reliable but the prices drop to less than people pay for dangerous and stupid drugs like cigarettes.

a final note
no apologies to the arab nations upon whom this summary is based.

those who have lost the war on personal freedom in ages gone by have become primitive, uninspired, angry and violent people. there lack of forms of escapism remove their ability to find personal meaning outside of the prescribed, these people will stop at nothing to conquer those of us who still value our perceived freedom and prevent us from developing any further as a species.

then again, if i was forced to live in a world with no alcohol, women, or any form of escape i'd be a suicidal nutjob too. instead of fighting with us, they could be fighting their religious leadership... and having a jolly good time consuming what they produce.

any and all arguments for or against welcome. questions too.