At the present, only in degree and style. America is becoming a totalitarian state as a fascist government under socialist slogans, ie., your life is yours but the for the good of society we will tell you what to think, how to live, and what to do.
The government should NOT come between us and our doctors. If my doctor believes I am in pain enough to require medication I should get it. No politician should enter into the equation
Oh, come on. We send (and regularly replace) our delegates in Congress. And they don't have to clap their hands raw when the President walks into the room for fear of being shot. No one tells you what job to take, what hobby to pursue, what church to attend or avoid, or what to say or not say on this very forum.
I don't think we're morally twisted. We believe in self-preservation and the preservation of our communities. So I'm confiscating your meth. (Yes, forcibly if necessary.) Sorry. If you don't like it, work to change the law or to make the constitution more explicit. I'll respect the majority's decision. But for the time being, I'm right and you're wrong, as a matter of law.
Really? I never saw that in the constitution, the Bible, the Bill of Rights, or any other source of law. You have the prerogative to try, of course, but it isn't a "right," not in the USA anyway. So it you step up onto the edge of that bridge, I'm forcing you down off of it. i may even con you into it. Are you going to sue me? Go ahead. I'll win, and you'll lose.
It's a lust for life over death. You're more than an individual with a bundle of rights, (death and suicide not being one of them, by the way). You're a member of the community, which also has rights. And you have responsibilities to us and we to you. Yes, that's (those are) the moral principle(s) I embrace.
If there's a good medical and scientific consensus backing that up, then sure. Anyway, you know, we're often attempting to combat personal issues through negative reinforcement in this arena, and that is unfortunate. It might be compared to the gun control situation, where we are looking at taking away the guns rather than having good health care (including mental health) available to ensure that people who are at risk of destructive behavior get good preemptive help. Would there be such a drug problem if society were more caring? Would we have as many mass shootings? Got to wonder.
That is a selfish, not to say depressing, attitude. Obviously if you are dying of cancer I won't argue. But that's a special situation. If you can posit a "right" to die, out of thin air, I can posit a "right" to stop you, in the name of our community and the happiness of those who know and care about you. Let me ask you this: if you have small children, do you have the absolute right to kill yourself? Assume that your neighbors and/or child protective services will be promptly alerted to the exercise of your having invoked your "right" to die and will make sure they are fed and clothed.
In the world I want, a world of free men, no gun will ever be pointed at you; in your world, the world as it is now, to get your way, you have to point a gun my head for my own good. I don’t have the right to end my life, but the do-gooders, the enforces of the common good, the boot heal face stompers of society’s welfare, they will. How unjust. How immoral. How ironic.
We are on the road. Not there yet, but unless the human soul returns to the principles of the Enlightenment, the principle of Individual Rights, of reason, of capitalism, and embraces Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, it won’t be too long before we do. “A statist system—whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or “welfare” type—is based on the . . . government’s unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. The differences among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same. Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims. Nothing can ever justify so monstrously evil a theory. Nothing can justify the horror, the brutality, the plunder, the destruction, the starvation, the slave-labor camps, the torture chambers, the wholesale slaughter of statist dictatorships. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/statism.html
How (and who?) is trying to "end your life" by taking away your meth? The trend of the "do gooders" is to reduce penalties (for users), guarantee you access to treatment if you want it, and even legalize marijuana! Ayn Rand was, in my opinion, a ridiculous paranoid whose acolytes are more brainwashed and rigid than I am. How you endured that final speech (30 pages?) is beyond me. I gave up after about 8, though I did read up to the beginning off the speech. Please respond to the question of suicide by parents of small children if you haven't already done so. Warning: It's a trap.
You are reading too much Ayn Rand. Way too much. This constitutional republic that you deride helped to destroy Nazism, fascism, and communism. Not with pamphlets or novels, mind you, but with blood, guts, bullets and democratic ideals. A little respect, please.
Time will tell as to who is right. How far is it from “you may not use drugs” to “you may not abort a Down syndrome baby.” Oh, wait. That day is already here. Furthermore, for all the horror, death, and destruction of WWII in the defense of liberty, why was more of worlds population living under a dictatorship then before. Other than France and Japan, what other countries did we liberate from tyranny? Additionally, disparaging Ayn Rand and her makes neither wrong, but does suggest something about your character. As to how I made it through John Galt’s speech... the same way I made it through Howard Rosk’s speech at his trail—standing up and cheering.
First, I don't understand the question the first question. Second, I would say offhand that the allies liberated France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Austria, Japan, the Philippines, Malaysia, part of Korea, and Indonesia. Not bad. The reaction by objectivists to criticism of Ayn Rand is interesting. I don't know why it is so verboten, but it suggests that what she established was a cult, not a serious political theory.
What you may not do is kill yourself or poison the community. Get the law changed and I'll support the first one, but never the second one. One way or the other, I and my neighbors will interfere with your right to sell drugs in this neighborhood. That's been the case for decades. Tell me this, do you have any objection to my selling meth in your neighborhood? To children? You going to point a gun at my head and stop me from selling meth-laced candy to children? How about 16 year olds? Why or why not?
As before, so speaks the soul of a tyrant...my street, my neighborhood, my community, my state, all backed by the power of the government’s gun. I know best for yo, so as I say die, and to hell with...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As to the rest of your nonsense, it’s too stupid and pointless to argue with except to say...16 year olds? Children? That’s your justification for violating the individual rights of adults. They don’t apply to kids? Maybe in some concrete bound bizarro world. LOL
Just as freedom of religion also means freedom from religion; the right to life implies your right to end it. It does not spring forth from thin air. Simple put, because I’m not a slave, no one owns my life and I can continue it or end it as I see fit. And your rebuttal is: No, your life belongs to the community, and if you try to end it, then we will kill you. Where’s the morality in that? Where’s the logic? Talk about irony, or better yet, insanity. Again, your children arguement is nothing more than straw man.
Yes, that's the question, "stupid" as it may be. What's your answer? Does the meth dealer have the same right to "live as he chooses" as do you and Howard Roark?
But your life doesn't exist in a vacuum and neither do the lives of every other person that becomes addicted to hard drugs. This isn't the United States of You. It's not the United States of Anybody. You and the rest of your libertarian anarchic brethren have got to open your eyes and realize that whether you like it or not, whether you agree or not, you live within a society and a country and your actions affect those around you. The actions of drug addicts affect those around us all. Do you know who else fails to understand this, albeit with a realistic excuse(age)? Children. That is why we parents are supposed to teach responsibility. If you want to achieve the vacuum you think you currently live in, you're going to have to go find an area far far away from anybody else, disconnected from society, reliant upon only what you yourself can acquire or build on your own.