On Aug 14, 2:27Â pm, Shrikeb...@
gmail.com wrote:
> 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. Â 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. Â I
> dare you. Â 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." Â 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. Â Nietzsche may have called
> him a "blockhead," but there is a certain acknoledgement of
> his status in that insult.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Says Socrates: Be moderate in all thing
A drunk whom fails in the responsibilities of daily life would
probably be considred by a judge and jury as harmful to family and
society whatever the laws are
I do not pretend to be a judge and jury.
This is not about technical definitions nor legalistic crapola nor
academic constructs nor grandiose b.s.
And I duly respect John Stewart Mill as an articulate Utilitarian and
so is Jeremy Bentham a great
Nevertheless: We're herein debating a fairly simple question about
"what is reality"
An alcoholic's inherent problems are individual and often social
"diseases"
Has there really ever been anybody dead or alive whom does not
concur ?
Drinking can certainly become in the ordinary world harmful to others
besides the drinker
If Mill dismisses this as speculative amateurish monkey-typing &
putrid bull drek, then he's allowed to fantasize with his brilliant
insights, but i still can hardly see what his/your argument is
