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

Darren Greer darren.greer3 at gmail.com
Sat Feb 26 05:21:23 UTC 2011

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com>wrote:

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

I think I'd be happier with the program if it targeted men instead of women.
For a couple of reasons. One, if you wanted to reduce the number of unwanted
and/or drug addicted children coming into the world, wouldn't men be the
obvious choice? Women get pregnant and they're out of commission
reproduction-wise for the gestation period. While the man that impregnated
her can go out impregnate a dozen more in that time. From a pure numbers
stand-point (and I dislike talking about people in such terms, but will for
the sake of this discussion) such a program would make more sense if it used
money to entice men to have vasectomys rather than women to have their tubes
tied. Secondly, if a man does get clean and regrets the poor decisions he
made during his drug using period, and becomes a responsible member of
society and is willing to take on the burden of having children, he can have
his procedure reversed. A woman currently can't.


> 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+.

And yes, that is where it is reasonable. But there may be another hidden
cost that you may not have considered. I'm not a lawyer, but I think one
could make a reasonably good argument in a courtroom that offering a
drug-addicted woman money for sterilization was coercion. Especially if that
woman had cleaned up, got her life together, and decided that she was ready
to have children and couldn't. Also, if she got religion, which is likely
given the nature of most twelve step programs, someone might really be in
trouble. Justice may be blind, but God can make the blind see again.

> Most drug addicts made the choice to take that
> first dose of their drug of choice.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. And even if they do, does that one
choice alone damn them to their fate? Have you ever chosen to take a drink
of alcohol? If so( and nearly everyone has) than an alcoholic who has made
the same choice of you and whose body and mind somehow reacts differently
than yours is at fault for making the same choice that you did? Yet in your
case your not an alcoholic (I presume :) ) and in his case he is. So is it
the choice that condemns him or the predisposition to the condition?

> > 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?

There is good medical evidence for it. There is an identifiable symptom list
of drug addiction. There are stages for relapse that are remarkably similar
in each person. (Read Dr. Terrance Gorsky) It is listed in the compendium of
psychiatric illnesses as a bona-fide disease. There seems to be some genetic
link, as it often runs in families. And I think the real indicator is that
there seems to be no environmental, cultural and racial factors that
predispose a person to it: it runs across all sectors of society.

> 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.

But using private funds is as damaging as using public. Imagine if all the
money that currently goes to help untreated drug addicts living on the
street was invested into the economy. Or paid in taxes. Or even kept in low
interest bank accounts. But the big pay-off for getting drug addicts
treatment is in lowering crime rates. And not just drug addicts. People who
use illicit drugs period. For every gram of cocaine you hold in your hand,
someone has likely been killed to get it there. Organized crime and biker
gangs thrive on it and cost societies billions each year. Rescuing babies or
limiting their births is an easy sell compared to getting the adults help,
but it makes sound economic sense to do so.

>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.<

I read all your posts related to this, and recognized that you have good
reason for supporting this program. I would probably support it too, if I
were in your position. I was careful to criticize the program as
respectfully as I could without criticizing you for supporting it.

I went to a boxing match with my Dad tonight. It was the gold medal round
for the Canadian Games and since I had never been to a live blood-sport
before, I was curious. Some guy was getting his face pummeled in the ring
and I was busy trying to list in my head all the English language turns of
phrase and cliches associated with the sport (I came up with about seven.)
Incidental aside. But I was also thinking about your post. And how I would
respond when you responded, as I knew you would. I recognized your very
intense personal involvement with the issue. And I was thinking that for me
at least there is an emotional under-current, some kernel of experience that
cannot be analyzed or intellectualized, that is the foundation upon which I
build much of my theory and base my positions. I think that is true for many
of us.

So, to give you my example, and not that it makes my argument any more
cogent or relevant, because it doesn't, I was at the age of twenty-seven
addicted to morphine and cocaine. At the age of twenty-eight I cleaned up.
Now, some fifteen years later, and I have a rich, varied life, the career I
always wanted and give back to society as much or perhaps more than it has
ever given me. But then I was living in a homeless shelter and I did things
for money for drugs that I still firmly regret. However, none of my actions
were irreversible. I was able to get it all back. When I read your post I
thought of my own experience, and how someone in my position might feel if
they gave up their ability to reproduce for a hit of crack and then
rediscovered the world as I have.

That's why I kept my response as logical and rational as possible, because I
have such a close emotional attachment to it.

Thanks for posting Kelly.


*There is no history, only biography.*
*-Ralph Waldo Emerson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110226/56f4ac5b/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list