Forcing an individual to help themselves

Dean Wrote:

Now here's the contradiction: you say that you are not consensual, and then you, out of your own free will, go and buy it and use it. Multiple personality disorder? Dissociative personality disorder? You think the drive for the destructive drug is not you, but your rational drive to live and enjoy your life is you? That's bogus. You are both.

It certainly is a contradiction - sort of. You desire something destructive. Why? Well, that's complicated I guess. You can desire to live and desire to be destructive at the same time. It is not impossible to desire both, ask any addict. As an addict, the short term outweighs the long term and they make the short term gain decision.

Yes you can buy it out your own free will, but the choice is not rational. Being rational now is difficult or impossible. Claiming that the entire resposibility lies with the consumer in the face of addiction is as foolish and irrational as claiming that the consumer has no responsibility. It is most clearly shared.

Bob

Post 41

Friday, March 3, 2006 - 12:41pm

We start out life as incontinent infants, and too often are not taught proper hygiene by our parents, government schools, churches, media and political leaders, et. We for the most part are taught intinsicist and subjectivist morality. Not merely "told", but rewarded and punished, if not overtly, than by neglect, for being "deviant" and non-conforming. Inculcation is brainwashing, mind-control. We all grow up in a cult of force.

So when smoking, binge-drinking, and other forms of stupidity are inculcated, its time to sue! Sue our parents, our government schools;

(If you throw a party and drugs are used, the government holds you responsible for your guests. I demand the same standard for government schools!)

Sue the clergy (for inculcating unquestioned obedience to authority) sue the media (for constantly referring to polls as if they were ethical motives) sue the politicians (for modeling corruption and evasion).

And finally, ourselves.

Scott

Post 42

Friday, March 3, 2006 - 12:42pm

First of all let me make it clear that I am not arguing against either the nature of addiction or the horrors of the addiction in the first post on the subject or this one; my argument is totally against holding the manufacturers or sellers responsible unless they are using some sort of false advertising to entice you to buy.

If a cigarette manufacturer were to market it's product under the pretext of it being non-addictive then I would be in agreement of there being a liability claim. Same for alcohol. prescription painkillers, food or whatever someones addiction may be.

Anecdotal case in point: I was a district manager for Dairy queen and in one store we had a lady customer who was so large that she had let her seat back(so it looked) as far as possible and her stomach still pushed up against the steering wheel so hard that flesh actually curled around it; yet hardly a day went by that she did not come through the drive-in window and order a Hot Fudge Brownie Delight with both double fudge and double brownies on it. We could hardly get the top on the container when it was made. Now without trying to make fun of her and her apparent problem, you could see her as she circled the building shoveling in the food just as fast as her hands would allow and all the time trying to drive.

Now you can call this what you wish. but I would call that a type of addiction, and my point is if she had a wreck while driving and eating or fell dead from problems related to obesity, should we have been held liable for selling her what I knew was not good for her health. How about the manufacturer of the brownies. fudge, nuts, or whipped cream which we put on it.

The idea of addiction to alcohol, drugs, or cigarettes is not a new or novel thing, so to act as if we had no idea of the possible consequences when we first lit up, or took a drink is nothing more than a cop-out for our own choices which came back to bite us.

Post 43

Friday, March 3, 2006 - 1:04pm

There's a difference with food. Food is necessary for life. Other drugs have little or no benefit, while others have lots of benefit. Alcohol even, in moderation, can have benefits. Tobacco smoke has none. My main point is, again in another way, is that responsibility for addictions (and feeding the addiction) is on a continuum from 100% consumer responsibility to 100% supplier, depending on circumstances. It is just not as simple as "it's your own damn fault" all of the time.

Bob

Post 44

Friday, March 3, 2006 - 1:43pm

Bob said:

There's a difference with food. Food is necessary for life. Other drugs have little or no benefit, while others have lots of benefit. Alcohol even, in moderation, can have benefits. Tobacco smoke has none. My main point is, again in another way, is that responsibility for addictions (and feeding the addiction) is on a continuum from 100% consumer responsibility to 100% supplier, depending on circumstances. It is just not as simple as "it's your own damn fault" all of the time.

Bob

If you abuse something Bob, you still abuse it. Although I agree you cannot totally abstain from food, this still does not alleviate the fact that it can be abused. In fact simply because of the fact that you have to continue eating could make breaking an addiction to food even harder to accomplish.

I was simply using the story of the obese lady as an illustration of how easy it is to carry this product liability to all kinds of extremes.

Without trying to use the word"fault', I am stating that somewhere in our past we made a choice with alcohol or tobacco of whether to use it or not use it and if we are now addicted, it stands to reason we must have made the choice in favor of it. If the companies can be found to be liable for making fraudulent claims as to the addictive/non-addictive nature then I am with you, but I remember no such claims being made when I grew up.

L W

Post 45

Friday, March 3, 2006 - 2:54pm

Also, keep in mind that regardless of addiction, there are thousands of people who, every day, give up an addiction. Therefore, it is not only possible to break an addiction, but it is an every-day occurance. That means that ultimately it indeed is the individual's responsibility to do so, and I don't wish the government to use force to prevent people from trading something they both desire to buy and sell, regardless of whether or not that something is good for them.

Post 46

Friday, March 3, 2006 - 3:21pm

Your points (Kurt and LW) have merit, and I agree to some extent. However, I do not see it as black and white and it's too easy to throw the blame on the consumer as long as no fraud has occured. I see this as not necessarily wrong, but incomplete reasoning.

I'll try a little different approach.

It is generally agreed that predatory behaviour is usually immoral in the objectivist sense. Perhaps that is an oversimplification, but I think you know what I mean. To exploit someone's addiction and resulting irrationality and diminished reasoning ability, to me at least, is clearly and undeniably predatory and therefore immoral. It is basically cheating at trade with an unfair advantage - a diminished and irrational trading partner - easy to exploit.

Bob

Post 47

Friday, March 3, 2006 - 4:04pm

Bob, I agree that it may be despicable and immoral, but I do not agree that it is criminal or cheating.

Post 48

Friday, March 3, 2006 - 4:32pm

I don't even agree that it's immoral - think about it a wee more, breaking it into its constituent parts.....

Post 49

Saturday, March 4, 2006 - 4:38am

Dean Wrote:

Bob, I agree that it may be despicable and immoral, but I do not agree that it is criminal or cheating

Ok then, your position is more clear to me now and it seems the disagreement on this is much less than I originally thought.

Bob

Post 50

Saturday, March 4, 2006 - 4:41am

robert wrote:

I don't even agree that it's immoral - think about it a wee more, breaking it into its constituent parts...

As someone else on another forum wrote

"...the foundation of the Objectivist ethics is the idea that you must hold your life as your ultimate value; the good is that which supports and enhances your life, the evil is that which harms and destroys your life."

If you aid someone in their own evil for fun and profit, I cannot see how this could be anything but evil as well.

Bob

Post 51

Saturday, March 4, 2006 - 10:42pm

I think it's wrong to characterize a person who sells drugs as a drug "pusher" who encourages anyone to use drugs. If someone wants drugs, they will figure out who to buy them from. They will ask for connections, they will call this connection at all hours of the day, and they will buy drugs. I don't think I have ever been asked *once* if I wanted to buy drugs from someone. The person selling the drugs is providing a service just like someone selling liquor at a bar. It is also wrong to characterize anyone who is buying drugs as an "addict" - just buying and even using drugs does not make one an addict. Many people use drugs recreationally and may buy them monthly, weekly, several times a week but not be addicted to them. So is it the responsibility of the person selling the drugs to determine whether the person buying them is an addict or not?

I don't think we are in the position of deciding whether drugs are enhancing someone's life or not. I don't want other people deciding what may or may not "harm and destroy" my life.

Post 52

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 8:33am

Ashley Wrote:

I don't think we are in the position of deciding whether drugs are enhancing someone's life or not. I don't want other people deciding what may or may not "harm and destroy" my life.

I understand this position and I really don't have a problem with recreational drug use. However, I believe that this position is not a logically correct one.

The problem is that we have drugs that range from high value with little or no harm, to extreme harm with little or no value and everywhere in between. We also have a full spectrum of people, from young children, to adults with addictive personalities, to perfectly rational beings - like here :-) Applying the same approach/laws to the entire range of people and drugs, in my estimation, is not logical. Although the child protection thing seems to be agreed upon by most it seems.

The position though of "I don't want anyone else deciding what's good or bad for me...." is rooted in an emotional anti-authority, distrust of government thing. I understand this, but it's simply not always rational. Limiting government power is fine (and necessary) but let's hope you never get into a situation when you lose control. Using force against you to quit might just be the only thing that could save your life.

What about drugs that have no objective value to begin with and are overwhelmingly harmful? I agree that throwing the user behind bars usually makes little sense, but it is completely illogical that this type of product would be legal in the first place. What if a company made a car that had a risk of spontaneously exploding? Well in a perfect capitalist economy, the consumer would not buy the car - problem solved. Addiction though forces people into the car, and it kills. Suppliers know this and are therefore in many cases partially responsible for deaths and other harm. This is where laws make sense. This does not absolve the consumer. I just have an objection to the categorical rejection of supplier responsibility.

Without addiction, the problem is eliminated or drastically reduced.

I am not talking about a socialistic nanny-state thing. I simply assert that is not logical to legalize and allow using the force of addiction for the sole purpose of willful harm of other people for profit with substances with no benefit.

Bob

Post 53

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 10:55am

I am deleting this post because I need to think about how much I really want to have posted on the internet. Sorry.
(Edited by Ashley Frazier on 3/05, 10:57am)

Post 54

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 11:22am

Ashley,

That's a wise decision. People who disagree with you tend to use self-disclosures as arguments for sneering when they have nothing better to argue with - and the crowd will always use them gratuitously when it gets whipped up.

I made my own decision on this (meaning I knew exactly what was coming - been there) when I came out on my prior addictions. On a parallel case, the homosexuality dispute that raged for a long time on the old SoloHQ is another example.

As unsolicited advice, I suggest you ask yourself what you wish to accomplish and if the price of sporadic and inevitable public derision is worth the cost. It will come.

In my particular case, the wish to let other addicts know that there is a way to deal with their problem without dumping Objectivist considerations during the clean-up process, thus abandoning them to predominantly religious based programs, outweighed the bickering I saw in my future. What has gone on backstage has made this cost a real bargain.

However, there are other private matters I prefer not to share because of ill-willed people and the crowd mentality. From what I have observed, learning Objectivism is not very effective in correcting this negative aspect of human nature. (I am working on thoughts about the causes of this at the present.)

Michael

Post 55

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 11:35am

MSK Wrote:

That's a wise decision. People who disagree with you tend to use self-disclosures as arguments for sneering when they have nothing better to argue with - and the crowd will always use them gratuitously when it gets whipped up.

As it seems right now that I'm the one disagreeing with her, I hope you're not implying that I would do this? I might use self-disclosure, but almost always as an admission of bias.

Bob

Post 56

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 11:48am

I seriously doubt anything Ashley wished or found useful to reveal would be used against her here. She's very well liked and admired, for obvious reasons (scrupulous honesty, for one). I can't say that about everyone, however.

Post 57

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 1:59pm

Bob,

In no way did I mean to imply you. Sorry if you got that impression. That's one of the problems of Internet posting.

No. The people who appeal to this kind of rhetoric usually do not have anything near intelligent arguments to offer (unless they are repeating Objectivist jargon without much thought). That's why they do it. And they show no wish to discuss and understand. Checking their own premises is nonexistent. They have other priorities.

I haven't followed your discussion here all that closely, but it does seem in earnest and intelligent. I intend to go back and read the posts in more depth.

Michael

Post 58

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 2:33pm

Hi guys:

I actually am only thinking that when you google my name it is often SOLOHQ posts that appear, and since I work with children I don't necessarily want tons of personal disclosures indexed on search engines. Although it is probably much too late for that. I don't really worry that people engaged in debate with me would use those things, because it wouldn't bother me. I am who I am.

I think most people who have known me here for a while know my issues, and they definitely inform how I think about things like addiction, homosexuality, child abuse, and mental illness. What I also hope they know is that I am a joyfully passionate, ambitious, productive, and benevolent person. I hope they know I don't subscribe to a victim mentality, that I practice and preach self-reliance, integrity, and taking responsibility for one's actions and thoughts. I consider personal disclosures a way to illustrate where I am coming from and why I think the way I do. I often find that others help me think about them in a new way, and that is also valuable to me. In my real life I am fairly open and honest about my experiences and lifestyle, and I have never had it used against me. However, in real life people also have more information about me and can make decisions with more accuracy. I will continue to consider this as it seems to become more important with every technological advancement.

Post 59

Monday, March 6, 2006 - 9:49am