usenet/Newt's_new_book.html
From our archives of Tom's USENET posts. Some of these posts are over a decade old. The author may have mellowed with age since these were written, but the basic views remain. (Please note that web links inside this document may be broken.)
<![CDATA[From tms Fri Aug 4 11:51:25 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Newt's new book
Summary:
Expires:
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950802190053.13363A-100000@helium.
gas.uug.arizona.edu> <3vpf19$6bs@shado.jaguNET.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
leebrown@[address elided] (Lee E. Brown) writes:
>
>And the death penalty is EXACTLY what you would receive if you tried to
>smuggle a large, commercial supply of alcohol into Saudi Arabia or any
>other strict Moslem nation. And they are perfectly within their "rights"
>as a sovereign nation.
No, because they violate the rights of their citizens. Did China, as a
sovereign nation, have the right to run over protesting citizens with
tanks?
> You seem to forget that law arises FROM social order, and their social
>order does not tolerate alcohol.
No, law arises from from the consent of the governed.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." - Declaration
of Independence
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"Life is a big wild crazy tossed salad, but you don't eat it, no sir! You
live it! Isn't it great?" -- _The Tick_
From tms Tue Aug 8 14:43:40 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Newt's new book
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3vpf19$6bs@shado.jaguNET.com> <3vtfoi$4rp@shemesh.
tis.com> <401ja4$8fc@shado.jaguNET.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
leebrown@[address elided] (Lee E. Brown) writes:
>You seem to be laboring with the delusion that the "rights" of a
>U.S. citzen should somehow apply to all citizens of all nations.
No, I am stating that natural human rights are possessed by all
people, regradless of citizenship, and regardless of whether governments
recognize them or not. You know, that bit about a self-evident truth that
all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights.
> Also,
>your claim suggests that the law in Saudi Arbia is at odds with the
>existing social order of the country. Do you know this to be true?
I do not understand your question. I didn't make any claim at all
about social order.
>>Did China, as a sovereign nation, have the right to run over protesting
>>citizens with tanks?
>
>You seem to have the desire to imbibe pegged as a "right" of equal importance
>with self-determination. Absurd comparisons will get you nowhere.
<begin quote>
THE EXTENDED ANALOGY
The fallacy of the Extended Analogy often occurs when some suggested
general rule is being argued over. The fallacy is to assume that
mentioning two different situations, in an argument about a general
rule, constitutes a claim that those situations are analogous to each
other.
This fallacy is best explained using a real example from a debate
about anti-cryptography legislation:
"I believe it is always wrong to oppose the law by breaking it."
"Such a position is odious: it implies that you would not have
supported Martin Luther King."
"Are you saying that cryptography legislation is as important as the
struggle for Black liberation? How dare you!"
<end quote>
- from the alt.atheism FAQ: Constructing a Logical Argument.
Anyway, the right to consume alcoholic beverages, or indeed any drug,
is part and parcel of the right to control one's own body - the most basic
form of self-determination available.
>> No, law arises from from the consent of the governed.
>>
>> "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
>>deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." - Declaration
>>of Independence
>
>Absolutely true. You seem to forget that I am one of the governed who
>gives rise to this consent. Is my consent somehow less than yours, by
>virtue of the fact that we disagree?
I have no idea what you mean. Please clarify.
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
The Peter Principle:
People are promoted until they reach their level of incompetence.
From tms Wed Aug 9 12:44:22 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Newt's new book
Summary:
Expires:
References: <401ja4$8fc@shado.jaguNET.com> <408bbm$pq8@shemesh.
tis.com> <409hfi$8ic@shado.jaguNET.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
leebrown@[address elided] (Lee E. Brown) writes:
>> No, I am stating that natural human rights are possessed by all
>>people, regradless of citizenship, and regardless of whether governments
>>recognize them or not. You know, that bit about a self-evident truth that
>>all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights.
>
>Which is, of course, what OUR constitution states. How can we impose our
>values on another nation without denying them their OWN self-determination?
So, to return to a previous question, you think we _should_ have made
no compaint when China ran over protesting students with tanks? That to do
so would interfere with China's self-determination?
The rights of individual humans take precedence over those of nations.
>Perhaps the people of Suadi Arbia DESIRE an alcohol free culture? If that is
>the case, then their laws concerning alcohol flow directly from their social
>order. Do you see what I mean?
If all the people of Saudi Arbia desire an alcohol free culture, there
would be no market for alcohol in Saudi Arbia, and thus no people smuggling
it in, and thus no need for such a law. Obviously, some people in Saudi
Arbia do desire alcohol.
>>>>Did China, as a sovereign nation, have the right to run over protesting
>>>>citizens with tanks?
>>>
>>>You seem to have the desire to imbibe pegged as a "right" of equal
>>>importance with self-determination. Absurd comparisons will get you
>>>nowhere.
>>
>><begin quote>
>[truncate quote]
>
>What part of the analogy did you NOT understand?
I understood it quite well, and recognized it as a fallacy. The issue
of whether these rights are of "equal importance", whatever that might
mean, is irrelevant.
>> Anyway, the right to consume alcoholic beverages, or indeed any drug,
>>is part and parcel of the right to control one's own body - the most basic
>>form of self-determination available.
>
>You keep talking about the self-determination of an individual - not the
>self-determination of and by a society.
And how can a society (in so far as that word has any meaning) have
any self-determination if the people that compose it do not?
> Liberty, freedom, and rights are
>totally meaningless outside of a social context.
That does not mean that they can be trampled to build such a context.
Any social context not firmly based on the recognition of individual
liberty is, in the end, doomed.
>Certainly. I involve myself in the process of government; I take an active
>role in it. I am concerned about individual rights and liberties - but I
>am also interested in the well-being of my community and of society as a
>whole.
What is the well-being of the "community" or "society"? It is just the
sum of the well-being of its members, and perhaps its projected future
members. Therefore any true interest in the well-being of your community
must start with concern for the individuals that compose it, and this must
include concerned about individual freedom. They are _not_ in opposition!
>This debate would certainly be clearer if we were discussing an ennumerated
>right. Our constitution has set aside certain rights - specifically, the
>first, second, fourth, fifth, ninth and tenth ammendments - rights that
>cannot be given away even if the majority wills it. Everything else are
>freedoms and liberties - which are subject to a balance between the good of
>the individual and the good of the society.
This opinion has no basis in the Constitution, and in fact is directly
contradicted by it.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Amendment
IX
>However, the recreational use of drugs is no more a "right" than the use of
>an automobile is a "right."
Control over one's own body is the most basic right of all. Any talk
of rights that does not acknowledge this is meaningless jaw-flapping.
>So where are we in all this, Tom? We are attempting to debate the balance
>of a specific liberty - recreational use of drugs.
There is no balance, and no question of balance, when it comes to the
right of a competent mature person to control their own body. It is absolute.
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child."
-- Former Vice President Dan Quayle
From tms Thu Aug 10 12:25:02 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Newt's new book
Summary:
Expires:
References: <409hfi$8ic@shado.jaguNET.com> <40aoo2$1ee@shemesh.
tis.com> <40bukg$et7@shado.jaguNET.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
leebrown@[address elided] (Lee E. Brown) writes:
>> If all the people of Saudi Arbia desire an alcohol free culture, there
>>would be no market for alcohol in Saudi Arbia, and thus no people smuggling
>>it in, and thus no need for such a law. Obviously, some people in Saudi
>>Arbia do desire alcohol.
>
>So are you arguing that every individual desire takes precedence over those
>of the society as a whole? Even if the society as a whole does not want
>that as part of their culture? And without regard to the detriment it may
>pose to the society as a whole?
I am arguing that individual _rights_ take preference over the
preferences of the majority.
"Society as a whole" is a sometimes-convenient fiction, nothing more;
it does not want or suffer detriment.
>> That does not mean that they can be trampled to build such a context.
>>Any social context not firmly based on the recognition of individual
>>liberty is, in the end, doomed.
>
>That's why we live in a Constitutional Democracy here in the U.S., Tom:
Constitution Democratic Republic, actually.
> We have a system which is based on the balance of indiviudul and social
>well-being.
No, it's built on the balance of well-being of individuals.
>> What is the well-being of the "community" or "society"? It is just the
>>sum of the well-being of its members, and perhaps its projected future
>>members. Therefore any true interest in the well-being of your community
>>must start with concern for the individuals that compose it, and this must
>>include concerned about individual freedom. They are _not_ in opposition!
>
>The well-being of a community is FAR more than the sum of the well-being of
>the individuals.
Then what else does it inlcude? Back up your assertation.
>Perhaps this excerpt (with Special Emphasis (tm) added) from one of your
>favorite documents might help clear things up:
>
>We the PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect UNION,
>establish JUSTICE, provide for the COMMON defense, promote the GENERAL
>WELFARE, and to secure the Blessings of Liberty to OURSELVES AND OUR
>POSTERITY, do ordain this Constitution for the United States of America.
"Ourselves" being the members of the "community" or "society", and
"our posterity" being its projected future members, and justice, defense,
general welfare, and liberty composing the well-being I spoke of before.
Nary a mention of "the good of society" apart from that of the individuals.
Sounds like perfect agreement with my previous statement. Thanks for
pointing that out.
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"Such a long, long time to be gone
And a short time to be there." - _Box Of Rain_, Grateful Dead
From tms Thu Aug 24 13:19:23 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Newt's new book
Summary:
Expires:
References: <41e140$5hd@skydiver.jaguNET.com> <41fhb7$9iq@knot.
queensu.ca> <41glrt$4g1@skydiver.jaguNET.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
leebrown@[address elided] (Lee E. Brown) writes:
>
>Completely untrue. Robbery, murder, overdue library books - these things will
>continue to exist in the complete absence of law. The law does not "cause"
>these things to happen.
The law can discourage them from occuring frequently.
It can also encourage them to occur more frequently.
If the law offered twenty dollars a head for shooting, say, brown eyed
people, would it not be reasonable to say that the law was a cause (not
_the_ cause, _a_ cause) of the occasional bullet whizzing by my head?
>Laws do not create criminals, Chris. Laws merely write the job description.
>People apply for the job through their own will.
Laws define acts that, if performed, make the performer a
criminal. _If_ we assume that the act was committed entirely as a free will
choice, we could say that people "apply for the job" willingly. That's far
from a simple "if". Weren't you recently arguing that women who sell sex
generally aren't making a free choice? Or was that Barbara O'Brien?
Anyway, so what? Most, if not all, of us are criminals. Ever exceed
the speed limit? Drink a beer before you were of legal age? Did you report
that $20 your grandmother sent you for your birthday on your income taxes?
Have any sort of interesting sex in Maryland? Copy a computer program?
Photocopy a couple of pages from a book without permission? Tape a ballgame
without the express written consent of major league baseball? Welcome to
the criminal underworld.
>That's obvious! For some reason, you cannot see why Mr. Gansta should be
>held accountable for the choices he makes - no matter how many people he
>kills in the pursuit of profit. HE is responsible for his actions.
Wanting to reduce the incentive for "Mr. Gansta" to kill in the
pursuit of profit, and noting that the current legal situation provides
exactly such an incentive, is _not_ to claim that "Mr. Gansta" should be
excused for violent or fraudulent acts he is currently taking.
>Completely untrue. This is not talk.politics.drug.public-policy.
Politics implies public policy.
[on illegal consensual sex acts]
>>You didn't answer the question. Should people engage in these activities
>>prior to their removal? If they do so, are they acting immorally? What
>>if the majority upholds these laws, should everyone continue to obey them?
>
>Should or shouldn't doesn't matter to me - if they do it, they implicity
>accept the risk of the consequences - whether the law is silly or not. If
>the consequences matter to them, then they need to take some form of
>positive action. Ignoring it won't make it go away.
So let me put it to you this way: say that some sexual act that you
and your lover both enjoy, that is currently legal, is outlawed. Would you
obey that law or not?
Or, as I asked in a previous post, let's say practicing your chosen
religion was outlawed tommorrow, but you said, "I have freedom to worship
as I please, regardless of the acts of government." When they dragged you
in chains from your church/temple/synagogue on your next day of worship,
would you accept it gracefully since the possibility of being locked up was
known to you beforehand?
(And if you say "It can't happen here", just a few months ago some
pagans in Florida were busted for holding a circle in a member's back
yard.)
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"Such a long, long time to be gone
And a short time to be there." - _Box Of Rain_, Grateful Dead
]]>
3 days 22 hours ago
6 days 16 hours ago
1 week 8 hours ago
1 week 1 day ago
1 week 2 days ago
1 week 4 days ago
2 weeks 10 hours ago
2 weeks 11 hours ago
2 weeks 23 hours ago
2 weeks 2 days ago