19
May
Why Opposing Slavery And Supporting Drug Criminalization Is Both Morally & Logically Mutually Exclusive
Submitted by Pete on Mon, 05/19/2008 - 09:23.
After a fair bit of reflection I've developed a new argument that forms the basis of my moral 'thinking', a single logically sound (if not, leave a comment so I can improve upon it) argument that is overwhelmingly simple yet carries far reaching conclusions. Think of this as a teaser, a first post to test the logic as I refine the reasoning.
So lets get started, and think about a topic that most people think is inherently evil, a concept that civilized society has long considered morally unjustifiable.
This is slavery, the idea that a human can 'own' another person and use them like property, something that great leaders like Abraham Lincoln amongst many others have fought very hard to abolish here in the west. Slavery being the whole or part ownership of one person by another person, group of persons or legal entity.
So let me ask you this; who owns you? Does anyone own you? Can anyone own you?
Sure, its a pretty stupid question, of course no one owns you! you are yourself, its impossible for anyone to 'own' you in whole or in part.. or is it?
Lets abstract for a moment and think about this; if I own a block of land, you can't tell me what I can or can't do on that block of land unless my actions affect you or your property.. fairly simple isn't it?
If we've both got co-ownership of that land, then we can both exert some control over that land, but how about people?
If you can't 'own' a person in whole or in part, then you have absolutely no control over them; your only right to interfere with them occurs if their actions affect you.
In the sense that you have unlimited freedom to swing your fists around, until the moment that fist makes contact with my face; infringing on my freedom to remain uninjured.
It's so simple, straight forward and crystal clear; unless you 'own' someone OR their action infringes on your freedom you have no right whatsoever to impose limits or rules on their conduct.
Whether you steal a number of natives from Africa and force them to work on your cotton plantation or you exert your ownership over someone by disallowing them to do something that doesn't affect you its still slavery.
Stealing is stealing whether its a watch or a Lamborghini just like slavery is slavery whether you keep people in chains or you stop them from injecting a substance into their body.
So how about drug control? Simple. If I choose to inject a substance into my body you have no inherent rights to stop me from doing that unless I intended to inject those drugs into your body since you do not own me. Well.. that sure cleared up a lot of bullshit debating.
Gay marriage? Same thing; some number of gay men or women have chosen to 'marry', and as you do not own them they can do whatever the hell they want.
Violent movies, video games, pornography and censorship in general.. same principle, unless you are forced to participate in or watch any of the above, you have no ownership over someone that chooses to.
Same with prostitution.. one party wants sex, while the other is willing to provide the service all in discrete privacy at a private establishment for money. Again, if you do not own the location where the act is taking place, or any of the individuals involved any attempt to stop this is akin to slavery.
Sex slavery and 'pimping' is a very real and morally unjustifiable reality in many countries, and the cause of it is equally unethical governments creating black markets by imposing themselves on peoples free right to commerce.
A man and a woman may freely contract over sexual services providing they both agree to the terms, while a man may not contract out a woman to another man against the will of the woman. A free market leads to the former, a black market leads to the later.
My stance here is simple, it doesn't matter whether you agree with something or not, if two parties agree to something that doesn't affect you, you have no rights to interfere.
And at the end of the day, what's morally worse; claiming you 'own' other human beings, or engaging in a mutually beneficial contract with an agreeing party for sex in exchange for money.
Disclaimer: I do not take, intent to take or have ever taken any illicit drugs. I simply believe that liberty includes the freedom to do and say things that you personally don't agree with; and because of this I feel compelled to stand up for the certain moral principles such as the complete abolishment of slavery in every sense.
So lets get started, and think about a topic that most people think is inherently evil, a concept that civilized society has long considered morally unjustifiable.
This is slavery, the idea that a human can 'own' another person and use them like property, something that great leaders like Abraham Lincoln amongst many others have fought very hard to abolish here in the west. Slavery being the whole or part ownership of one person by another person, group of persons or legal entity.
So let me ask you this; who owns you? Does anyone own you? Can anyone own you?
Sure, its a pretty stupid question, of course no one owns you! you are yourself, its impossible for anyone to 'own' you in whole or in part.. or is it?
Lets abstract for a moment and think about this; if I own a block of land, you can't tell me what I can or can't do on that block of land unless my actions affect you or your property.. fairly simple isn't it?
If we've both got co-ownership of that land, then we can both exert some control over that land, but how about people?
If you can't 'own' a person in whole or in part, then you have absolutely no control over them; your only right to interfere with them occurs if their actions affect you.
In the sense that you have unlimited freedom to swing your fists around, until the moment that fist makes contact with my face; infringing on my freedom to remain uninjured.
It's so simple, straight forward and crystal clear; unless you 'own' someone OR their action infringes on your freedom you have no right whatsoever to impose limits or rules on their conduct.
Whether you steal a number of natives from Africa and force them to work on your cotton plantation or you exert your ownership over someone by disallowing them to do something that doesn't affect you its still slavery.
Stealing is stealing whether its a watch or a Lamborghini just like slavery is slavery whether you keep people in chains or you stop them from injecting a substance into their body.
So how about drug control? Simple. If I choose to inject a substance into my body you have no inherent rights to stop me from doing that unless I intended to inject those drugs into your body since you do not own me. Well.. that sure cleared up a lot of bullshit debating.
Gay marriage? Same thing; some number of gay men or women have chosen to 'marry', and as you do not own them they can do whatever the hell they want.
Violent movies, video games, pornography and censorship in general.. same principle, unless you are forced to participate in or watch any of the above, you have no ownership over someone that chooses to.
Same with prostitution.. one party wants sex, while the other is willing to provide the service all in discrete privacy at a private establishment for money. Again, if you do not own the location where the act is taking place, or any of the individuals involved any attempt to stop this is akin to slavery.
Sex slavery and 'pimping' is a very real and morally unjustifiable reality in many countries, and the cause of it is equally unethical governments creating black markets by imposing themselves on peoples free right to commerce.
A man and a woman may freely contract over sexual services providing they both agree to the terms, while a man may not contract out a woman to another man against the will of the woman. A free market leads to the former, a black market leads to the later.
My stance here is simple, it doesn't matter whether you agree with something or not, if two parties agree to something that doesn't affect you, you have no rights to interfere.
And at the end of the day, what's morally worse; claiming you 'own' other human beings, or engaging in a mutually beneficial contract with an agreeing party for sex in exchange for money.
Disclaimer: I do not take, intent to take or have ever taken any illicit drugs. I simply believe that liberty includes the freedom to do and say things that you personally don't agree with; and because of this I feel compelled to stand up for the certain moral principles such as the complete abolishment of slavery in every sense.
Post new comment