IRC log started Fri Sep 20 21:55 Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that all channel logs are the copyright of the channel owners: Pankaj Saxena and Tom Wright. Logs may not be redistributed in any form without the prior consent of the channel owners. Tonight's discussion is on Objectivist "Utopianism" and will be moderated by Tym Parsons. As usual, the discussion will be conducted in keyword-protected mode. If you see someone off-channel whom you think would like to join the discussion and would not be disruptive, please message me or Wright. The following paragraphs were sent to me by Tym for inclusion with the announcement. I found out this evening that most people never got my announcement. We had a disk crash at work the day I sent it, and that may have something to do with it. They're just two short paragraphs, so I'll paste them here. Objectivists have an abstract understanding of the benefits of a philosophy of reason, but often do not concretise what it would look like if implemented politically. Since such concretising provides the sort of emotional fuel that motivates, what has discouraged Objectivists from doing so? I say that it is due in part to the bad example of Libertarian utopianising. Libertariarians tend to rhapsodise endlessly about how wonderful laissez faire capitalism would be for virtually any agenda, no matter how irrational. What sorts of ends would be compatible with the standard of man's life, and just as importantly, what would an Objectivist "utopia" *look* like? Go ahead, Tym. :) OK, the floor's open for responses to the question just pasted. First question that is. y'know - I always think of the vision in "The Shape of Things to Come" as pretty much my idea - as far as appearance I like to characterize an ideal society as a "rational society", not an "Objectivist society" -- I think that latter starts with a fallacy -- the idea that a fully rational society is not available until or unless vast numbers claim to be Objectivist. You mean why don't Objectivists project what such a world would be like concretely? (pauldw@U) What would private roads be like? I think we would see the kind of economic explosion that we saw in the 19th century (or in the modern-day computer industry). Because a rational man's career is his predominant concern, business and achievments of science and technology would tend to dominate the culture, such as newspapers. The utopian impulse as source of emotional fuel properly comes through art. Perhaps few artists want to or can compete with ObjUtopia V1.0: Galt's Gulch. What sorts of ends would be compatible with the standard of man's life? People would have more options in life and less fear of and more respect for their fellow men. Betsy is absolutely right. There are so many impediments, both economic/political, and intellectual/philosophical, to production today. <> TomM was just lagged by about a minute I mean: what rational values could be attained under laissez faire that are not now? Politics would be VASTLY less important. Once one establishes a properly free system, there is not a great deal of effort needed at a political level to keep it going. There would be government administration, but it would tend to be just that: executive administration of the various branches. I'm looking for CONCRETES :) Tym: Quite a number of economic faire not available now...man's mind is the only limit. I think that point about fear was a good one. A lot of people waste much time thinking about how to cope with the irrationalities that affect them. Freedom from unnecessary restrictions and from drains on your assets. Betsy: what sorts of restrictions? [Jim_N] 30/Student of Objectivism and Programmer. Tym: I saw an article the other day about new vertical/horizontal elevators invented by Otis and which will appear in a few years. This would be *front page* news in a rational society. Taxes! Tym: Are you asking us to predict new inventions? Tom: no :) Restrictions like -- what kind of house you can build, what kind of things you can buy, advertise, use. Betsy: you mean government could be run for less? ;) Asking what would be in a utopia may be premature. We may need to ask first whether we really need such visions. I could plan my _own_ retirement. What would happen to the poor without a gvt. "safety net"? [philo2] Arrest the thieves of time ... Mencken: Having a goal is the first step toward achieving it. Tym: There would be far fewer of them ;) Mencken: as I observed in the intro: it provides emotional fuel. Tym, the poor would have to learn to survive or die. Tym: private charity! A great many people, myself included, would be far more willing to give money to help people become independent, if it weren't a matter of being forced to, or a moral imperative.. Todd: you mean people would DIE OFF in a laissez faire society? (pauldw@U) The poor would have a much better chance of becoming rich. I have to wonder whether this type of goal-making isn't more akin to fantasy. How can we imagine this in detail for a whole society? no! Tym: The poor could ask _nicely_ for voluntary assistance and be grateful to their benefactors. We can do so for particular areas or for those we care about, much more readily. Mencken: that's what I'm looking for: specifics. The "poor" wouldn't remain so for long, if they had any rational ambition at all. A few might, but the majority would do what is necessary to survive and more than that most people would strive for thier best. Tym: There would be very few "poor" people, in the sense of people who could not provide for themselves. Brad: howdoyafigure? How about focusing on the more positive aspects: A person could start up a business without spending half of his time on government red tape and extortion Tym: plus, there won't be any minimum wage, and there won't be nearly so many restrictions on the lifestyle of people. A bum in North America is often far better off than many people in third world countries -- this will stay the same, but more so.. Philo2, right. philo2: Or maybe even more: he wouldn't have to spend *any* time on government red-tape. If he owns the property, he could make contracts without even the *knowledge* of the Government, until it came such time to enforce them .. Bill Gates could create a company without having to worry after its successful that the government will force him to break it up ... One important principle of free markets, is that labor is the limiting resource. Virtually all other significant factors of production can be expanded (in the economic sense) -- human labor at a moment is sharply delimited, and its expansion is uneconomic. The concrete result?... More people? Sub why would there necessarily be a popualation boom? Kpart: I don't say there would be. i don't know. Productive immigrants would be able to come here without an infinite amount of gov't red tape ... with major influxes of ability Is that there would always be more companies trying to hire, than persons available to fill them. This dramatically changes the culture of labor, and would eliminate a lot of angst from persons who find it extremely difficult to find work in a repressed economy like today's Immigration would increase if the US went laissez-faire. And more importantly, the free economy can sustain more people. ah.. that would be a cause for it, then. "One mouth, two hands" as one economist put it one time (I don't know who) I think the main result would be a higher standard of living, a greater number of choices for everybody, benevolence and trust between people, and the kind of optimism about the future that people _used_ to have. phil: if we opened the floodgates of immigration, how would that affect the native underclass? Betsy: those aspects are due mostly to the prevailent philosophy. Of course, we have to have a philosofphic revolution before we get laizze-faire, anyhow. Tym: "Native underclass"? :) I don't understand Tym: The underclass would have to get it's class in gear. hahaha Let them eat cake. :) Tym: If you mean welfare recipients, what Betsy just said :) Another consequence of a rational society is a vibrant artistic and popular culture. There would be very many new plays, books, movies, and such, the general theme of which was always enobling or uplifting -- rational people don't give much regard to negatives, particularly artistically. Would this ideal be better reached overnight, by getting rid of the laws and redtape if possible or better if we weaned off the current system? phil: there's a widespread perception that black males have fared so badly in large part due to the competition for jobs by recently "emancipated" women, immigrants, etc. Betsy: :) Todd: It can't be done over night. The philosophy of reason must be accepted first. Tym: Black culture is going to have to change its negative attitudes about capitalism if its going to change TomM, of course. phil: yup. Tym: Shutting down welfare handouts would force people to take responsibility for their lives too Black males were doing pretty good up until the welfare programs of the 1960's. It devastated black culture and destroyed many black families. tom: Freer markets and a rational philosophy are powerful co-generators. As govt subsidy of bad ideas shrinks, and as the free market rewards generally rational products over irrational ones, the good people with good ideas will have vast leverage. Betsy: Harlem during the 1950s was much different than Harlem from the Sixties onward. Brad: My point is that we can't start with politics. why would the "majority" vote for capitalism in the current climate when they don't even know what it is? Betsy: I recently read an impassioned article by a black man against welfare. He cited it as basically destroying all the positive elements of American black culture, such as responsibility, commitment to one's family, etc. Tom Sowell noted that American blacks from the West Indies have a _higher_ standard of living than American whites. It's philosophy, not skin color. Tym: Right, there aren't any Flecther Hendersons these days. What it means I think is that "black culture" used to typical American middle class until gov't racism targeted blacks to=to be Tom: It is necessary to fight bad ideas wherever they occur. Reason and a rational approach to existence apply to every aspect of man's life, not just to man qua student of philosophy. What about the ENVIRONMENT? Wouldn't it suffer under laissez faire? Brad: You are missing the point again. This Utopia can not be made to come about simply by changing the politics, which can't be done right now anyhow. Tym: WHOSE environment? Ack. No more.. In fact, this is another powerful benefit of a rational society: it teaches the application of reason in *every* department of man's life, and thus makes the philospher's task vastly easier. When one asks him what he means by "reason" or "rational", all he need do is just point in any direction. Betsy: what would happen, say, to Yellowstone or Yosemite? Tym: The environment was constantly imporving (by man's life as the stadard) as cpaitalism imroved things for man. Tym: If I own a gold mine in the west -- and most land would be _privately_ owned, not by the gov't -- then I could dump my cyanide leaching solution onto it as long as it didn't affect other people's property. Etc. Sube: LOL Why, *our* environment, of course. The land, the rivers, the forests. Tym: Some companies would buy the national [parks and maintain them as wilderness resorts -- and make loads of money. Contrast with today, where phenomenon like coercive politics, mystic religion, subjectivist art, etc. are all epistemological pollutants. Rationally, if we trash the environment to the degree some ppl say we can, then industry wouldn't have much to work with. Lumber industry is constantly planting trees...otherwise they would have no business Tom: I don't believe I ever stated any of those things you mentioned. Certainly _ski_ resorts aren't hurting for money :) Betsy: but *sputter* wouldn't that turn our pristine parks into giant casinos and carnival parks? Tym: If they have _value_ as pristine places, then it _pays_ to keep them pristine. Would an Objectivist utopia have a government in any recognizable sense? Many anarchists have made hay about Galt's Gulch not seeming to have one. If enough people find trotting around in the wilderness while sleeping in nice accomodations a value, then the money is there to buy the land, keep it essentially the same except for nice lodges Tym: And if there is no value in pristineness, then pave the suckers! Menken: Gult's Gulch in _AS_ was not a covernment. Like Tym said. And what'll happen to the poor people who can't afford to pay the big bucks to private companies that own the parks? They'll take their vacations in a cardboard box in the sewers? enough :) "Yellowstone Parking and Casino" -- nice ring to it. oops government. Mencken, yes Betsy: actually, if you had rational pricing for pristine natural resources, they'd be a lot less crowded too....unlike the egalitarian artificial entrance fees that motivates the NPS today. TomM: I didn't say it was one, I said (and Galt was made to say) that it was a society that didn't have one. Not the same thing. Mencken: Depends on what kind of government you would "recognize". I'd imagine you would have very few dealings with the government. Mencken: I believe a rational government would have a voluntary and possibly restrictive franchise, and that the role of legislator would be a professional one, as are judges today. Also, the system would be vastly less dynamic than today. Let's see the land Clinton just dubbed a national monument auctioned off to the highest bidder for the coal -- _then_ we'll see how much it's really worth at the scale of The Gultch there wasn't THAT much need for a government (not to mention the hand picked nature of the gulch made much of gov's fucnts not very encessary) Mencken: GG did not need a government because it was all privately owned by one person. You only really need new laws as new aspects of property arise, or to possibly tweek old ones. Most of the action happens in the courts. Galt's Gulch was made up of _very_ few people compared to the USA. Everyone seemed to accept Galt's and Mulligan's word as law b/c the inhabitants were all rational men. The USA would _have_ to have a gov. to protect the people Brad: I'd imagine being a legislator would be a part-time job. The park rangers and Sierra club types would have to pay for their parks. Kpart: Well, can that utopia be scaled up? If everyone (who mattered) in society accepted Objectivist principles, would a society get along as well as that one did? Betsy: Yes ... why does a _rational_ society need people creating laws all the time Mencken: I doubt if all of the USA will accept Objectivism...and it is not necessary anyhow. Even in a society where all the people were rational there would still be a need for a government. Mencken: Rand made very clear she was not endorsing anarchy, in the scene where Judge Naragansett (sp?) is revising the American Constitution, prior to their reemergence. Clearly, the idea was to reastablish society, but on the proper grounds. yes it can but it was by invitation only recall (see MonyPenny's line) State legislators and Congressmen used to be part-time ... they actually went home to their districts, anyway, and their own businesses. I've even wondered if cops should only work part time as cops ... keep them better connected to the rest of society Does any one know when the "citizen legislator" was phased out. Pre or post new deal? BradA: Re-establish society? Wasn't Galt's Gulch a society? Phil: A Volunteer Police Department? Why do _rational_ men insist upon forcing their philosophy down the throats of the entire nation? Mencken: GG was a private party. Betsy: I've actually thought much legislative activity would be private, possibly conducted by a predominant political party in conjunction with industry/interest group input. Rather somewhat like standards bodies today. Then, they would propose their policy/statutes at elections. Galt's Gulch was a refuge from an irrational society. They hadn't given up their claim to the larger society around them. MoneyPenny, ???? Mony: Rational men don't. Philo, there are many ways (eg beat cops) where police are placed in touch w/ "the rest of society" Betsy: I don't know .. but at least considering the idea that being a cop exclusively tends to make them think as "them and us", in my observation Brad: I don't think so. a professional legislature would be necessary...along with a professional law enforcement body. Kpart: Mostly in negative terms ... their primary contact is with criminals Rand had Galt et al. "going back to the world," that's true. That tended to undercut her dramatizing of how well her politics would work _in_ the world. Phil: Long time ago when I was a kid cops were looked upon as friends of children and protectors of decent people. Mencken: Society in America. The members of GG were not running away, they were withdrawing their sanction. They did not give up on America, nor did they think they needed to shrink their world to a little valley. phil: some communities could afford to pay for better cops and taechers...if they didn't have to worry about the egalitarians. Phil, yup. hence the idea of bringing back the beat cop Betsy: Yes ... one of the sad changes that's happened I suppose. I've never lived where that attitude was prevalent I found that closing quasi-Platonist allusion (if they're not in the world, where are they?) amusing, given Rand's clear adherence to Aristotle. Betsy: it started in the 60s....even as a child I was startled when my friends would call cops "pigs" :/ Tym, yes and if they didnt have to worry about catching people for non objective laws. MoneyPenny: Actually, rational men keep asking the *irrational* ones that question. A free society does not involve coercing anyone. It is every variant of irrational society which involves coercion, and typically most directed at the most rational and productive. Mony: The rational would leave the irrational people alone. And the rational people wouldn't be forced to pay for the mistakes of the irrational.. Bottom line is the rational man would be free to live his *own* life. .... which from the perspective of the rational people would be unprecendented cruelty :-/ soory IRrational Tom: I have never stated that police would be unneccessary -- of course they are needed.At present, most of the legislative drafting is done by judicial departments anyway. The elected officials usually just set policy. The function of proposing measures and drafting them into relatively complete statutes could be done outside government. But basically, the irrational ppl run the nation. I imagine the scene of Hong Kong, a bustling, busy metropolis with mostly new buildings, multiplied by thousands in the U.S. The only way to achieve a Utopia would be to forcibly convert everyone When society becomes more rational, I think the first boon will be in the arts. Of course, there will also be many unprescedented technological advances as well. Mony: Why?? Mony, not true. Monypenny: that can't be done. In fact, I have the idea that rational men would more insist on knowing *exactly* what a party was planning. So my idea fulfills this: a party would be presenting not just vague half-baked promises, but complete proposed draft legislation. Talk about full disclosure! TomM: exactly my point heheh... Strap them to the machine and turn up the juice? hmmmm... OK, time to regroup here ...;) Tym's returning us to the next point, folks. :) Let's zero in on one thing at a time and chew it a bit... ...my next question is; Is there a sense in which the idea of "the greatest good for the greatest number" would be valid in a laissez faire society? Why or why not? Monypenny: It is not necessary for everyone to be rational, just that the rational man gains the upper hand--by being rational explicitly in all areas of human endeavor. Tym: Only very superficially. It may be the end result, but not the goal/. Tym are you moving to the utilitarian justification of capitalism? Tym: No. Numbers can't be used as a defense for denying anyone's rights. Tym: The guiding integrating principle of a free society is best expressed by Say's law and some of his other ideas: production creates it own demand; the interests of productive men are integrated and harmonious. TomM: How are you going to do that? That's what I'm asking. How? (pauldw@U) A rational society grants you the freedom to be irrational so long as you do not violate another's rights. No, it would always be a justification for doing away with individual rights. yes ...only in the sense that laissez faire is the greatest food for the greatest number. Tym: That would not be the literal standard, but the greatest number of people would probably be trying to maximize _their_own_ good. If lots of people want to do good for themselves by uniting in some action, fine. But not at the expense of violating any individual's rights. monypenny: Through Objectivism. Having Objectivism understood by the rational man gives him an incaculable advantage. So when you do something good, *for yourself*, it fundamentally IS something good for many others. And when everyone acts this way, the resulting society is a wonderful place to be. Brad: That is an aspect of free trade. TomM: that would take a looong time....but I guess it's a start It serves all the requirements of man's needs qua *individual*, yet offers him any benefit he may wish of cooperative, social existence. monypenny: Not just *a* start, but the only one. Brad: so yr saying that it turns out to actually be "the greatest good for the greatest number", rationally defined? "The Best Of Both Worlds" But hang on a minute: who would decide what the "greatest good" is? logic Mony: GOOD question. What I want answered here. Tym: I reject that as a standard. It would be the result, but not the justification. the justification is that an individual man has the right to live his own life. and mans life as the standard of value. Mony: Each man would decide what _his_ greatest good is. He knows better than anybody else, after all. For example, a rational man produces for *his* sake, both in the concrete sense, and in the more enobled "Roarkian" sense, of selfish creation and origination. I mean, I don't want anyone to tell me what my own good is [Madelaine] i'll take your wisdom...i'll turn you to dust. you fill my ashtray. Finn Bros. hello :) But when he produces, he makes himself a potential customer of many others, and from other's point of view, he becomes a tremendous potential value, for he has made something they have not. "The greatest good of the greatest number" can't be used to justify legislation or any legal action. The law upholds individual rights, and that alone. Other than that, people may use that justification for whatever actions they please, -,+. Tym: Is that making sense? Tom: but it wouldn't make for a *practical* economic system if it didn't in fact best meet the nneds of most people, right? Tym: The moral *is* the practical. Why aren't more Objectivist utopias recognized in art? Others do exist, especially in SF, but they're ruled out by the stricture Tym posed at the start. Other people are irrelevant, and need to be kept that way politically. Subetai: The crucial thing about individual rights, is that it is the *only* circumstance actually compatible with the achievment of values in a social context. So the entire notion of a dichotomy here is a floating abstraction. TomM: yup! What I'm asking is: what concrete form would that take in a laissez faire society? Mencken: Objectivism is a brand new philosophy. there is no art based on it except Rand's at present. Mencken: what stricture? Rational ends? Mencken: It takes a deep understanding of the value of a rational society to project one well. Not many people -- let alone fiction writers -- have that understanding. Tym: A rational man would be free to life his life; pursuing his own selfish values unimpeaded by others. Most people need to eat -- should the gov. provide food? Most people need shelter -- should the gov. provide housing? The *practical* government should only be based on protecting individual freedom Tom: None? Kay Nolte Smith? Erika Holzer? I'd even include Neil Smith, but he falls under that stricture: he identifies his alternate universe not as Objectivist, but as libertarian. Brad: I'm not talking about a dichotomy. I'm talking about two non-equivalent statements. And then I'm saying that one of them is proper as a foundation for law, and the other isn't. It is like saying, "But what if good nutrition, exercise and regular checkups are actually bad for people -- which should we choose?" :) Mencken: I don't include any of the above. BradA: PREFECT :) perfect rather One thing commonly forgotten too is that consequences cause other consequences -- the _cumulative_ result of years of rationality are impossible to adequately predict. We're already suffering from generations of welfare statism -- generations of a fully free society would be staggering and unpredictable -- but good <> Tym thinks BradA got it right on the money. <> Odegard looks at philo2's statement, and then at TomM Mencken: SF Utopias tend to always be anarchistic. So many authors are like this, especially Heinlein, the most famous. Phil: Take the 19th century sense of life and add 20th century technology. That should give you some idea of what it would be like. Mencken: or William Gibson for that matter. Betsy: Yes ... I've always been interested in private space development, I think that will be very exciting when it happens, though I probably won't live to see it blossom Some are socialist anarchists. BradA: Does that rule them out? Galt's Gulch was an anarchy. Galt's Gulch was not an anarchy. It just wasn't a democracy. Mencken: did it really seem that archaic to you? Mencken: No, it wasan't an anarchy. It was private property owned by Mulligan. Okay, I have a question. In a Utopia, what would happen to education? Public schools would probably not exist, but how would people who couldn't afford private school get an education? Mencken: GG wasn't even a society. It was private property. It needed a govt as much as my house does. MonyPenny: how do you get an education? how do you get an *actual* education? Of all the computer geeks I know, their education by FAR is not in the classroom. monypenny: How did America achieve the highest stanedard of education before the public education dumbed them down? It had no state. And, responding to Betsy, many people had houses. MonyPenny: my entire philosophical knowledge never came from a classroom. Mony: The same way they did in the past -- scholarships and "working their way through college." Mony...as with all trade there would be more schools on the private level and in turn would be less expensive and with an increasing wealth level due to the free system there wouldnt be much of a problem there. Mencken: Bigger hunk of private property, but the same principle. Galt's Gulch had an absence of government, but not an absence of law (rules that people must obey or be kicked out). All true...all true Mony: Right now Marva Collins gives poor black kids a superior education in her private schools for 1/3 the cost of public education. (in a rational world, Speed Racer would not have to endorse WV) <> Tym_ is thru "moderating" for the evening...go play in traffic, kiddies! ;) Sprintlink/USWest's connection from Colorado to the rest of the world slowed down. Clients didn't return server pings in time. So they pinged out. <> TomM looks out for the trucks.... Thanks Tym:) I stated that education would be better, cheaper, and more varied in a free society, and that even the worst off there would be better off than even the wealthy today, because the entire industry is so horribly polluted today. Thanks, Tym. :) cussion, Tym. <> BradA thanks Tym for a stimulating topic. Nice discussion, Tym. "Now you see Tym, that's another thing about an Objectivist society. Children would not be prevented from playing in the street. Thanks all. Nice to meet you Tym .list U [#GeekSpeak@U] HAL9001 X LurchGS Marker_ Subetai pauldw Can I ask a question, along to a similar sort of line as was discussed? Kpart *laugh* Except slightly more technical in nature .. Sure (Sorry, Tym couldn;t resist that one) please do <> Tym_ hands the "Ernie" nick to Kpart. Ok. Right now the FDA currently regulates all new 'prescription' drugs in the United States. Surely, while this function is necessary, it should be a matter of private choice. Mark: feel free to say anything i was wondering about roads, what would it be like if they were privatized? What sort of system would there be? What sort of laws, surrounding it? UL Labs for drugs. Why is the function necessary? Madelaine: They'd have far fewer pot holes ;) would there be toll booths everywhere? Mark: Sure, it is called the free market. Physicians and medical professionals would review new drugs and their studies, and would make recommendations. Just like industry pundits do now in the computer business, regarding new systems, technologies, products, etc. no.. only where tht would make good money Madelaine: are they very convenient? Madelaine: Probably free streets with billboards -- like free TV with commercials. Mark, the free market would regulate it...if a company puts out a drug that kills people they wont be in business long. BradA: how would dangerous drugs, or drugs that harms people? How would the issue of suing be taken care of? Madelaine: Those wouldn't be necessary. Probably, local groups of retailers would pay a road rent fee for the roads leading to their establishment. oh, betsy, i never thought of that some areas eg residential areas could have subscriptioons for example Mark: well, I don't think "rational" men would go out and overdose on Pepcid Remember, there is no *universally objective* standard of value for all men. And in something as contentious as medical treaments and drug efficacy or indication, there is much room for disagreement and debate. Having a single govt entity making such decisions is the very essence of evil. Mark: Rational liability standards rather than liability by the standard of omniscience or wishful thinking. That's the great thing about a _free_ society -- people are free to think up strange and clever ways to do things Mark, if a company knowingly puts out a drug that would hurt people then criminal action shuld be taken. MonyPenny: I'm thinking of more dangerous drugs. How about those silicon (sp?) breast implants, that eventually started causing cancer? Something along that line. It enshrines a completely alien notion of value into law -- that of *intrinsicism*. MarkES: Silicone. Mencken: thanks. MarkEs: Well, for one thing, such claims would have to be proven. Mark: Drug manufacturers would publish the results of the tests they did. Some private body like the AMA might give them their approval if they thought the tests were satisfactory. TomM: Yes.. so, quite literally, for as long as companies never knowingly produce or sell harmful drugs, they would never be liable for the dangers involved .. ? Mark: All the scientific finding prove that silicone implants were TOTALLY safe. There was NO evidence that they harmed anybody. Really! <> Wright points out, although it isn't all that relevant, that there is no scientific proof of those implant claims Mark: the breast implant issue was a sham. look up recent articles on the subject. Discovering that a drug "causes cancer" 20 years down the road would _not_ be grounds for a lawsuit in a rational society -- if the company knew nothing about it in the first place Betsy: I do believe you. :) Saying "Who's the final authority in drugs?" is the same as "Who's the final authority in ethics?" You could avoid using a company's drugs or sue them for misrepresentation. Other than that, you're on your own. Mark: What is a dangerous drug? Dangerous... for what purpose, under what conditions? ALL drugs have indications and toxicity. This is vastly dependent on context. Some drugs turn out to be poor for their original intended purpose, but then are great for something else. MarkEs: Well, they would still be held responsible for actual harm, if they didn't provide an adequate warning. Without regulation common law and legal precedent would take care of any disputes. What about the doctors who recommended the drugs? TomM: That is *precisely* what I'm referring to. Adequate warning? But, adequate warning, *only* if they know of something to warn of.. yes? Mony: You would have to be careful inselecting your doctor -- as I hope you are already. Monypenny: They would be responsible for promoting a drug. Doctors who recommend drugs would base that recommendation upon their judgement and the company's claims. They can only be responsible for what they claim to know. Mrk: Sure. Roads are a utility. The monopoly theory of utilities is wrong, period. It is the most mystic dogmatic tripe I know of in economics. It is more like a religion than anything else, and its adherents lobby fiercely for government coercion to maintain and enforce monopolies on utilities, because their religion says they are monopolies. <> BradA is behind... speaking of drugs, medical marijuana is on the CA ballot, prop 215 Thanks all ... The current FDA drug-approval scheme is a mess. Subetai: yes, the FDA would be banned in a free society ;) It takes so long to get a drug approved that it's becoming un-economical to spend much money in research. Unless it's an AIDS drug. Madeleine: It is obscene that people can't even get it medicinally. A fellow here in Canada, who actually has a permit to use it, was recently busted for cultivation! How the hell is the guy supposed to *get* it? :) Which is why Europe came out with 41 approved new drugs last year while the US only had 23. Used to be the opposite a few years ago. <> Coastie slaps bazyar around a bit with a large trout brad: who's supposed to grow it? Tom: Yes, it would be declared a serious health hazard and shut down. Maybe we can all line up and sue as well. :) I need to go get my e-mail...see you later... Also, restrictions on animal research are moving much of the work out of this country. Specially primate research. The 7 people in the U.S. who get pot legally are given pot from a government patch. The CA initiative would allow self-growing. That fellow in BC is quite a character -- his Hemp BC business sells seeds and growing equipment through retail and mail order. When he was busted, he put police testimonials of the potency of his product into his next catalog. WHat a character! He even advertised on the radio here in TO. BradA: I've heard and read about him. He'd be hired by a Rearden in a minute. menken, do you happen to know for what ilnesses it would be prescribed for? What initiative! Madeline: It is used for glaucoma, and also as an anti-nauseant for chemotherapy. Madelaine: Anyone could make a conclusive defense, if arrested for pot possession, that they had a prescription to grow it from a licensed physician. It may also have some psychological benefits for some. Some have said that this opens the gates to anyone growing it. Good! All right, I have to go. This was really great, and I hope I can do it again sometime brad: i know the benefits, i was asking what the law would allow Madeleine: Ah. In a free society, drug use would be legal -- and very people would be stupid enough to waste their lives that way very few <> BradA will not be drawn into another discussion of drugs i'm building a miny greenhouse...waiting to see what i will be able to grow in it :) Cannabis is no worse than tobacco, in many ways less harmful. gotta build a little cement ramp for the madre first, though, to fund the greenhouse project Potheads are lazy slackers. I wouldn't hire one philo2: How about tobacco chain smokers? :) Any more than I would knowingly hire an alchoholic philo2: That statement is an utterly false, and loaded, generalization. Mencken: As you know, tobacco's effects are nothing like pot's Brad: That statement is based on personal empirical observation, so I know that it is _not_ false phil, pot's like alcohol, there are those that can enjoy the ocational social usage and those that can't philo2: I agree. In many ways cannabis is less harmful. I have known many people who smoked marijuana occassionally, and were not in the least lazy or otherwise deficient. Brad: A pothead is a chronic pot smoker <> BradA feels himself getting drawn it. Fewer days lost for sick leave. That ought to make a difference to your company's medical plan. Brad: Someone who smoked it every 2 weeks would not fit the definition philo: Ah, well then we are into the territory of any unhealthy overindulgence. please excuse my spelling No calls for take-out pizza at this firm! That would drive away many programmers I know of. :) Brad: Many pot smokers do just that -- again, in my observation The most brilliant programmer I ever met turned into a pothead. Totally went to hell <> BradA doesn't consume any intoxicants stronger than coffee anymore. :) Madelaine: As Ed Locke pointed out, any "recreational drug" has the bad effect of giving the user pleasure without the natural intermediate of actually earning the pleasure (to that effect). Pseudo-happiness Madeleing: Well, I do get a bit out of hand after a fourth cup. :) Rand might have been with us today if she'd been a little more circumspect about her smoking. I still cringe at those passages of _AS_. true, phil, but does that mean we should never enjoy a beer? Madelaine: No. Quantity and frequency do have some bearing. Also, the context is important Mencken: It was a different culture. Things like that are philosophically irrelevant. It was an instance of some cultural practice she admired, in her context. besides, how do you *earn* the pleasure of a roller coaster ride? it's just plain fun, not meant to be any sort of long term happiness It's context, like Phil said. I agree with Phil, that in a free society, use of intoxicants would be highly marginal. I don't think they would be an aspect of popular culture, though that is speculation. Madelaine: You're in focus while enjoying it Primarily I meant that if addicts try to use drugs as a substitute for general happiness, they're really badly off. Happiness is a long term emotional state that isn't easy to actually achieve An occasional use of moderate amounts of alcohol is often relaxing, after hard work. Not an escape from work or thinking, but rather an aid to relaxation so you can refresh your energy. Subetai: Agreed Well, you're in focus when you are on cocaine too. But Ed Locke's observation is correct -- in fact heroine and cocaine are each powerfully addictive, in their respective ways, because of the direct psychological pleasure or well-being they induce, absent the normal content and context which engenders such types of response. I would tend to say that in reason, a context where a beer would be appropriate might be appropriate for smoking pot. Both ought to be infrequency enjoyments and both can be abused Brad: Exactly quantity and frequency determine whether it's recreational usage or abuse Madelaine: And certain drugs are simply, in reason, too damaging to take at all I tend to "reward" myself with a drink occasionally, after I think I've done a good day's work. I don't touch it when I'm frustrated or angry or feeling any emotion from which I'd like to "escape" I am speaking now as though they were legal Even Roark has an occasional drink, with Mike ;) IRC log ended Fri Sep 20 23:28