[ExI] libertarians nominate none of these

[Kelly Anderson]

On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 9:29 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> For many years I shared the view that nobody should be able to tell me what I can put into my body, such as prescription drugs.  I changed my mind.
>

I'm open to having my mind changed with additional information.

> Consider just how news about drugs (prescription, OTC, illegal) travels the web.  Superstitions abound amid some probably good advice.  Add in that a significant portion of the population are mentally challenged, are psychotic, are just plain stupid, and you have a recipe for hundreds of thousands of people harming themselves and others (including their children) by taking prescription drugs they really have no idea how to use properly ("If I take two won't that work faster and better?").  Opiates will addict millions and many will die of overdoses.  You think it's bad now?
>

As a stoic, I don't see death as the worst thing in the world. As a
transhumanist, I also want radical life extension. So there is an
internal conflict there, to be sure.

> What this view of legalizing comes down to is Social Darwinism - "If you are stupid enough to take the drug you deserve the effects, including death."  You might swallow that line for adults (I don't), but what about the children who are dosed by parents (or peers- I assume no age limit for purchasing drugs)?
>

I'm pretty much there for adults. How does this differ from today's
situation in which an adult Jehovah's Witness can prevent their child
from having a life giving blood transfusion? Just because it's dressed
up as religion, it's still a pig. And I do support having different
rules for minors. While I support legalizing prostitution for adults,
I do not approve for minors because they are not at an age where they
can give informed consent. Same with drugs. If you're a minor, there
should be some limits.

> This is just unacceptable to me.  Sometimes we need a nanny state.  I have to accept that and the limitations it puts on me regardless of the fact that I am not stupid, psychotic, superstitious, and so on.  Making all drugs available to all people will create a nightmare.
>

I don't like the nanny state, at all. Period. If Darwinism isn't
allowed to get some of us, imagine what the human race might look like
in 1000 years?

> For the same reason I accept that we have to have traffic laws to help keep morons from killing themselves and other people.  No doubt you could think of more laws that protect people from themselves.
>

Those laws protect OTHER people from you being a moron. Driving drunk
being illegal isn't about protecting the drunk, but the public from
the drunk. I support that kind of law. Your right to swing your fists
ends where my nose begins, and perhaps some few centimeters in
addition.

> Yes, I am a libertarian, but some things are just not possible, given the mental limitations of many human beings.
>

So the next generation is to be made up completely of people who's
parents were too dumb to figure out how to use birth control? That
sounds like devolution to me, and it might not lead to a great world.
That being said, the next Carrington event will sort a bunch of that
out anyway.

> The Interstate Highway System was started because Eisenhower wanted it so the defense department could mobilize and get places faster in case of war/invasion.
>

Understood. But now it's to the point where we could choose to move
past that, if we wanted to. In it's time the current form of the
interstate highway system was justified for national defence which I
see as one of the few areas where governance is actually necessary.

Sorry for being so anti-government, but I've had a lot of negative
experiences interacting with the bastards.

-Kelly