On Aug 14, 8:55Â am, Robert Cohen
msn.com> wrote:> On Aug 14, 8:21Â am, Robert Cohen
msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> On Aug 14, 3:12Â am, Shrikeb...@
gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> On Aug 13, 8:42Â pm, Robert Cohen
msn.com> wrote:>
>>>> re: illusion of harmless illegalities
>
>>>> Please keeep in mind: We're discussing "philosophy," not defending (or
>>>> offending) ideology(ies)
>
>>>> The n.g. agenda is trying to determine what is truth  or reality
>
>>>> In this vein: The phenomena of  "crime w/o victim" is ambiguous
>>>> premise or phrase or at least ill-defined
>
>>>> Because:
>
>>>> If everything is relative, then there is no separate action or element
>>>> unto itself
>
>>>> The drinker, doper, gambler, has his/her relations to kin and others
>>>> "victims"
>
>>>> The community is "harmed" or victimized by irresponsible, imprudent
>>>> behavior
>
>>> Actually, assuming all of the above is true, even
>>> allegedly prudent and responsible behavior will
>>> have negative side-effects. Â If we get into the
>>> vagueness of potential effects, every action may
>>> as well be equivalent to another. Â For instance,
>>> a drunk driver may accidently kill a future mass
>>> murderer. Â A butterfly flapping its wings may
>>> ultimately cause a big wind in Chicago.
>
>>> In any chaotic system, the outcome of a small
>>> change is inherently unpredictable. Â Therefore,
>>> every act has potential victims and potential
>>> beneficiaries.
>
>>>> If ye smoke chains, then Medicare (national health insurance,
>>>> taxpayers, social security) may well eventually have to pick-up the
>>>> tres cher health problrems.
>
>>> Actually, there have been statistical analyses of the
>>> cost of smoking to the taxpayer, and may not be
>>> entirely clear, but it looks to be the case that the
>>> taxpayer saves money because of the smoker. Â Old
>>> age is one of the most expensive things the taxpayer
>>> has to fund. Â Everyone dies, some die faster than
>>> others, and get sick for longer. Â One in three smokers
>>> dies of cancer, a relatively quick death. Â This save
>>> Social Security as well as Medicare dollars.
>
>>> There are those who get chronic diseases from smoking
>>> too, which somewhat offsets the savings from the quicker
>>> deaths.
>
>>>> Though I certainly acknowledge so-called "crime" can also be
>>>> economically "beneficial" to community commerce through  medical
>>>> products and services
>
>>> That is the broken window fallacy, yes. Â But even for the most
>>> deadly vice of all, it appears there is less of a broken window.
>>> Old age and its chronic diseases are the most expensive broken
>>> window of all.
>
>>>> No person is an island unto him/her self, says John Donne
>>>> Sorry about that libertarian-objectivists, does not exactly say Don
>>>> Adams
>
>>> John Stuart Mill already dealt with this objection, anyway. Â The
>>> only effects we can really consider are direct effects. Â The indirect
>>> effects are really unpredictable. Â If an act doesn't have a victim as
>>> a
>>> direct result, anything else is idle speculation. Â After all, Karl
>>> Marx's
>>> speech could be considered the "cause" of tens of millions of murders.- Hide quoted text -
>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>
>> Just to let you know: I can appreciate  refutations, so I'll try to
>> address them
>
>> This is philosophy blah blah
>
>>  J S Mill, imho,  mankind is  interdependent and "indirect/direct" is
>> an artficial dichotomy & rationalism, though not mine
>
>> to be continued after oatmeal and english muffins- Hide quoted text -
>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> re: chronic smoking, Â drunkardness, bad behaviors
>
> Almost everybody  agrees there are some nasty personal habits that
> victimize others, true?
If there is a victimization, there is a direct behavior
which causes it. For example, one victimizes others
with cigarette smoke by forcing others to breathe it.
In that instance, the victimization is not a direct
consequence of smoking, but rather a direct
consequence of smoking indoors.
Or, for drinking, if an individual is (allegedly) driven to
violence by drinking, it is the violence that directly
causes the victimization, not the drinking per se.
I think you are getting at the concept of prior restraint.
Since drinking does not necessarily lead to violence
(for instance, I had four white russians one night, and
didn't hit anybody), you are using a slippery slope
argument if you claim my drinking should be prohbited
because John Q. Sixpack went on a killing spree when'
he was drunk.
> I myself am no doctrinaire puritan or paragon of good behavior, though
> this does not mean that I approve of uncivilized, irresponsibile, and
> the usual  anti-social, "overly-indulgent" stuff that we humans may
> enjoy
Define uncivilized, irresponsible, anti-social overindulgence. I
dare you. Do you consider this one of those "I can't define it, but
I know it when I see it" things?
> Â "common sense" & "normatives" ain't always wrong, as much as that
> rebel or non-conformist in each of us may sometimes think
The issue is that "common sense" is often used as a
cover for "common superstition." For instance, if
the parallel universe in Reefer Madness were the real
one, maybe banning cannabis would be justified, since
it would inevitably cause mayhem, with no slippery slope
required.
> yes, i am age 64, and an ole fukker
Good job lasting so long.
> to acknowledge:
>
> Milton Friedman & Ayn Rand & absolute, unlimited rights and personal
> freedoms are about terrific theoretical ideals though seeming to me to
> be  lacking  common cultural sense & community bourgeois normatives.
But why stick to the likes of Ayn Rand, when John Stuart
Mill was a _real_ philosopher. Nietzsche may have called
him a "blockhead," but there is a certain acknoledgement of
his status in that insult.
