[ExI] Same Sex Marriage (was Re: Call To Libertarians)

[Kelly Anderson]

2011/2/25 Darren Greer <darren.greer3 at gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>offered a few hundred dollars to any young lady that wished to be
> relieved of her reproductive capacity. <
>
> This seems reasonable, at first blush. The problem is, and I'm making this
> assumption based on your post, that you're speaking of drug addicts Cravings
> for certain types of drugs such as heroine and crystal meth and cocaine are
> so powerful and so dominate in the mid-brain--over-powering sex drive,
> hunger and even the instinct for self-preservation--that you can offer a
> drug addict money to do just about anything and they will likely do it.

The point of the exercise is not to protect the drug addict, but to
protect the potential child from the drug addict, and to protect
society from the burden of the potential child. A $500 investment
through this program saves society somewhere around $500,000+. That is
a good economic trade off. There is a moral question here too, of
course. That question is harder to answer, but I think it is
answerable.

>  People would, and gladly do, kill someone because they are offered a couple
> hundred dollars to do so. Granted there is at least one involuntary
> participant in this transaction.

The murder victim. The point of the program isn't to say "see you can
get people to do anything for money." The point is to prevent
suffering in the world. The suffering relieved is that of the child,
and that of the already overburdened taxpayer. Potentially, the
suffering of the drug addict now having to care for a baby is also
reduced... but that is of smaller consequence to me. The only condom a
drug addict is likely to buy is one containing crack. Handing out free
condoms is a reasonable program, but not as effective as voluntary
sterilization.

Reduction of overall suffering as the driving force is a tricky bit of
philosophy, but it is widely accepted by most people.

> But you could offer money or something else she really wanted or saw herself
> as needing to someone who was mentally challenged to have herself sterilized
> and perhaps convince her, because she didn't have the mental capacity to
> know what she was agreeing to.

One difference between the mentally ill and a drug addict is that the
mentally ill person (usually) didn't make a choice that led to their
being mentally ill. Most drug addicts made the choice to take that
first dose of their drug of choice. I believe that by making that
first choice, they may make all the subsequent choices. That is, they
give up future choices by making a limiting choice today. But that's
pretty universal. When I made the choice to marry my first wife, I
screwed my life up as much as I would have had I chosen heroin
instead. :-|  I have had to live with the consequences of that choice
(99% bad 1% very good) for the rest of my life. I think drug addicts
are the same. Equating drug addicts to the mentally disabled
disregards this first choice.

> Drug addicts in the throes of their
> addictions need to be treated the same way, as if they have a disability.

Why? What is the moral basis of that statement? I know it's the
politically correct position, but is it philosophically correct?

> A more complex but equally cost-effective solution would be to get that person
> in treatment and clean, where they could make better decisions about
> reproduction and everything else. But then again, here treatment is covered
> by the state, and I know in some places it is not. About ten percent of
> entrants get clean, which is a pretty low rate. But it saves the state and
> individuals an enormous amount of money in the end, for it is not just drug
> babies that are expensive. Drug adults are too -- hospitals and detoxes,
> shelters and foodbanks, welfare and crime.

I separate the drug addict and how we should treat her from the child
of the drug addict and how we should treat him. I have eight children
who were children of a drug addict prior to being my children. They
have suffered substantially from the poor choices of their mothers.
Society is paying a high price for their "reproductive rights." As a
libertarian, I like that the mothers had a choice, but I don't like
that the state takes care of the mess afterwords.

If someone wants to pay to try and get someone off of drugs, more
power to them. It should be their choice. Paying taxes is not a
choice. So using government money to cure addicts is theft in my book.
Using private funds to do so is entirely permissible of course. The
average bill for a month in rehab is what? Thousands? Only one in ten
is cured... Economically, is that a good way to spend money? It may
be, but it isn't as economically profitable as the pay for
sterilization program. The government would never make this deal. It
is left to individuals to be that efficient.

> And the war on drugs is useless, as all wars ultimately are. As Dr. Terry
> Tafoya said, "'Just say no' to a drug addict is as about as useful as 'have
> a nice day' is to a manic depressive."

Good one Darren. :-)

Would you be happier with the program if it included a month of rehab
and counseling prior to the sterilization?

-Kelly