then he's concerned about his legacy. and one sentence out of his mouth would dispel all doubt as to his moral fiber
or lack thereof
i understand that thailand is going through problems. if the king does not speak now, then when does he ever speak? and if he doesn't speak, even now, of what value is he to his country at all?
everyone loves him? ok. then he's not a human being in the eyes of the thai people. he's just an abstract symbol, not a real person. as the thai people have decided. as he has agreed to. what kind of relationship is this?
if i were him, i would yearn mightily to speak up, and identify the real breathing human being and his real feelings underneath all the layers of inhuman symbolism that the thai people have burdened him with without his permission
and in the name of the country he is supposed to love, he does not speak? that's not love
what kind of love says nothing to what it is supposed to love, and what he is supposed to be loved by speaks of him as if he isn't even there?
it's absurd. love a rock. love a fish. love a durian. same kind of relationship: no response, and no permission needed to speak of your object of love as if it didn't matter what that object thought. it's inhuman
if the thai king is a real human being, let us see him act like one, and let us see the thai people receive him as such. all other realities are dysfunctional, and hurt the country of thailand in the long run
the status of the relationship of the thai king and his people is poisonous to thailand, and part of thailand's problems. that the thai people accept this lame status quo is a sign of how deep thailand's problems are. it's just very sad to me. let the king speak. any feeling against that impulse, on the part of the thai people or the thai king, is the root of the problems with thailand
are you honestly going to say a monarchy is better?
for example, china is better off as a democracy. getting there of course will involve pains. is your argument then that china is better as it is now and should never improve its sorry political status quo? of course not, unless you're an idiot or an asshole
capture if possible was a mission parameter. consult your news sources again
not that they probably tried very hard. not that i hold that against them. because unlike you i realize the difficulties of the situation they were under, and that their target was intent on making himself a martyr. capture was a vanishing slim possibility. not because of the usa, but because of bin laden. you do realize that right?
the problem with people like you is you don't have high standards. you have ridiculous standards. you think your high holy indignation from these ridiculous lofty standards are supposed to mean anything. well it does mean something: you like to tweak your ego from on yonder high, content with yourself in your knowledge you would do things so much better. yes, you would, if the real world allowed your ridiculous standards to ever be achieved or adhered to
why don't you try delivering your easy armchair ego-tweaking judgments in the land of the living someday, rather than from your ivory tower of superiority that no one, not even you, if you had any intellectual honesty about you, can adhere to
thank you for passing judgment which serves nothing but your own smug self-satisfaction. it certainly doesn't have any real world value, to anyone with an intellectually honest grasp on the reality of the situation of bin laden's hideout
you are assuming that taking bin laden alive was ever an option. not by what the usa wants, but by what osama bin laden wants. you assume the usa is 100% in control of the means and manner of his apprehension. if it cannot bring him in to try him, then the usa will kill him. or would you prefer letting him continue his murderous ways because apprehending him is not 100% certain? i am telling you: try to apprehend him, and if you can't, kill him. because trying him is not an option ACCORDING TO OSAMA BIN LADEN'S WISHES. osama bin laden facing apprehension will do what? quietly acquiesce? are you that fucking stupid?
osama bin laden is dead rather than being tried. ok. why do you think this state of reality is 100% the responsibility of the usa? why do you not see osama bin laden's choices in this reality? why do you blame the usa for what a murderous asshole chooses? what the hell is wrong with you? why are you unable to understand the nature of a man like osama bin laden? are you naive or stupid or both?
a president is elected by the people. that makes him a legitimate representation of the people's will. a monarchy has no such legitimacy. monarchies are illegitimate outdated expensive and pointless in the modern era. of any country. to hell with all monarchies, may they all end ASAP
if your name is fred quimby, and you are a nobody, and people start setting houses on fire, and they say "we're doing this in the name of fred quimby", if you have any morality about you, you say "if you really are doing that in my name, please stop, as i don't want you to."
it's an observation beyond the legality of the monarchy, it's about basic morality. if something wrong is done in your name, you make sure to say that your name has nothing to do with it
osama bin laden chose war on civilians in peacetime. why do you wish to grant to him a courtesy he denies the thousands he murdered? what purpose do you think is served?
exactly, we're not talking about a religious icon here, we're talking about a living human being. if transgressions are being committed in his name, he has the authority and the moral responsibility to say "if this is done in my name, stop doing it"
it's not retarded logic if you were able to understand the unique challenges of nuclear power. if i were talking about building a hydroelectric dam, and its capacity to break, it would be retarded of me to say those words above. however, i'm not talking about hydroelectric dam, am i? you are. the failure of logic here is in your inability to see i am only talking about nuclear power specifically, not all technological advance. but please, by all means, call me the retarded one if it pumps up your ego
namely, when all hell breaks loose, it really breaks loose. to the tune of centuries of irradiation. that's the problem with nuclear power
frankly, we're not mature enough as a species to use nuclear. true maturity is knowing your limits. immaturity, as you demonstrate, is a swashbucking attitude of "i can handle anything", even as you fail. which, when it comes to nuclear power, is a fitting description of all the technological hubris you see in all these comments in this thread
i don't see wisdom in the comments in this mocking thread. i see immature teenagers who don't know what limits are
all the posts belittling the supposedly uneducated sheep who condemn nuclear power. all i see are socially inpet criticizing those who have a better grasp of human nature and how it does, and always will, interact with nuclear power
technological overconfidence. an inflated sense of technological familiarity, technophilia, deriving much personal worth and smug satisfaction from one's one personal mastery of technology, and from mankind's mastery of technology in general, etc.: it's all blind, ignorant hubris
the problem is, accidents happen. they always do. no long winded speech on safety will alter the inevitable. corners are cut, economic considerations bypass longterm challenges, things break and fall apart over time. eventually, you have a nuclear accident
and with nuclear power, when you have an accident, it stays with you for centuries. that's the big problem with nuclear power
nuclear power presents longterm effects outside of the realm of mankind's normal psychological considerations. mankind, in a way, isn't built to handle nuclear power safely. and i'm glad you, slashdot user xyz, can understand the longterm implications. the point is, in the normal psychological continuum, it is accurate to say that average human nature doesn't. and so an intelligent person makes decisions not based on the intellect of a select rare few, but on the average scale of intellect (not being able to understand this point, btw, means you probably aren't within the realm of intellect of those select few, at least when it comes to social intelligence)
i'm not saying we have better alternatives. and nuclear is great, when it works. and it works 99% of the time. but the problem with nuclear, when it doesn't work that 1% of the time?
unlike every other power source, really terrible consequences stay with you for centuries. and so that 1% changes everything about nuclear power in ways that any conscientious person finds very troubling and sobering
nuclear is a wonderful source of power... except when all hell breaks loose. and even though when all hell breaks loose is very rare, the huge consequences of all hell breaking loose simply means nuclear power (specifically, fusion, not fission) is going to go extinct. and should go extinct
because management and engineering failures are always going to happen
the absurdity is not in condemning the entire concept of nuclear power, the absurdity is believing nuclear power can ever be handled with foolproof management and engineering in human society
in other words, other people skip right by condemning only management and engineering failures, and go right on to condemn the entire concept of nuclear power. and this is logical and correct, since management and engineering failures are ubiquitous and always will be
Amazon - Be cloudy. Slashdot - Be a dupe. Yahoo - Be mediocre. Slashdot - Be a dupe. Wikipedia - Be {citation needed}. Ebay - Be A+++++. Youtube - Be dat vid suked ur gay u faget. Craigslist - Be a prostitute. RIM - Be outdated. Verizon - Be abusive. T-Mobile - Wear a sun dress. AT&T - Be... [carrier lost]
if you were to analyze anonymous's larger domain of overlapping grievances, you would characterize what anonymous is about. and you would also describe the motivation that brings people together under the banner of anonymous. this list of grievances can accurately described as internet freedoms
so, for example, anonymous has nothing to do with islamic militant fundamentalism, which, like anonymous, is also largely organic in nature and self-organizing around a set of grievances. now let's say, just for the cachet, some islamic militants started calling themselves anonymous. would you agree that that was still anonymous? of course it isn't the same anonymous: islamic fundamentalism, ANY religious fundamentalism, is no friend of internet freedoms
therefore, the definition of anonymous as put forth in this article is wrong. it is not true that anyone can call themselves anonymous. only those working within the larger agenda of internet freedom. for scattershot, random short term purposes, yes, but you have to be motivated by the idea of internet freedoms to claim the true mantle of anonymous
"If drugs were legal, quality-controlled, and plentiful enough to be cheap or free.."
why would you want that done with a substance that destroys free will?
in such a world, the government is the most orwellian freedom destroying slave holding entity possible. you want the government to be a pusher of the most highly addictive substances known to man?
why do you want that?
you DO understand what addiction is, right?
"How many slashdotters maintain physical addictions to caffeine?"
draw a graph: inebriation and versus addiction. some points: nicotine is more addictive than heroin, but not inebriating. you can still hold a job and a relationship. lsd is highly inebriating but not addictive: you can stop taking it at will. alcohol, marijuana, caffeine: middling amounts of addiction and inebriation. work and relationships can still proceed while using these drugs occasionally
but heroin? meth? cocaine? highly addictive and highly inebriating. meaning what? meaning you can't keep a job or a relationship, because the drug blots out your ability to remain focused with the high inebriation, then with the overwhelming addiction, forces yyou to do nothing but seek it out
"Your prejudices are showing with words like 'zombie' and 'dead weight'."
you do understand what heroin, cocaine, and meth do to people, right? am i demonstrating prejudice? or am i demonstrating more real world knowledge of what these drugs actually do to your free will and your ability hold a job/ relationship?
like i said, a person can do whatever they want to do with their bodies that doesn't infringe on anyone else's freedoms. if i blast my stereo at 3 am, i am exercising a freedom. however, i am impinging on my neighbor's freedom to sleep. the truth is, governments are less of an imposition on your natural freedoms than how your natural freedoms exist in tension with other people's natural freedoms. if there were no government, your freedom is still limited by other people around you. as it should be: i should let you get a good night's sleep. freedom goes hand in hand with responsibility. where there is no responsibility, there is no freedom
likewise, if i turn myself into a drug zombie by taking a highly addictive substance, i become someone who will not feed himself nor house himself. a drug addict does not have the mental composure to handle a job or maintain a relationship. i am dead weight that needs to be supported by society. in the name of everyone else's freedom, i must restrain myself form destroying my free will by becoming a drug addict. there is a straight line between the use of highly addictive substances and the destruction of your own freedom, and the freedom of those around the addicts in society. we who are free do not want to have drug zombies without free will breaking into our houses to steal our stuff to support a habit that only symbolizes the death of freedom
where did i make an appeal to the government? my argument needs no reference to government. i am simply trying to get your mind to understand my thoughts according to your preconceptions (which naturally is anti-government according to your stereotypical thinking)
i am simply saying that government is not the only way your freedom can be limited
for example, with simple logic, with no need to reference government: a chemical substance that takes a free human mind, and causes the mind into a permanent interrupt cycle "must get more of that drug, must get more of that drug" renders a mind that could be pursuing other things according to free will, into a cycle of depravity, into pursuits that have nothing to do with freedom, and everything to do with dependence and need on an external factor. addiction to a chemical substance removes free will
your problem is that you see only government as a source of freedom limitation. you haven't given the subject matter of free will enough thought. you do not see that government is not the only way your freedom can be limited. a highly addictive chemical substance can also limit your freedom. the prison bars in the mind that highly addictive drugs create is worse than any government humanly possible. well, that's not entirely true: the most orwellian freedom destroying government possible would be one that freely handed out morphine, to make the mass of humanity into drug zombie slaves, that care about nothing else except more drugs, and will do anything that government asks of them to get more of the precious drug. you do understand how addiction works, right?
it just always amazes me how some who claim personal freedom as the issue of greatest import should champion drug use, which is the most potent personal freedom destroyer ever discovered by mankind. very bizarre
this would be assuming that the withholding of highly addictive drugs is some sort of punishment. withholding something that destroys your freedom is an odd way to think of a punishment
i do not believe the un declaration of universal human rights includes a right to highly addictive drugs. it might be valid to add to the universal declaration of human rights the right to freedom from addiction though. don't you agree, in the name of freedom from the most freedom destroying thing known to mankind?
i agree 100% that there should absolutely be no limitations on anything people want to do in their own homes that affects no one but themselves
this is where i add that addict populations have a significant negative impact on their societies in terms of crime
this is where you trot out the hypothetical man-god who can take heroin/ meth/ coke and has no problem taking care of themselves
this is where i point out that addictive drugs, in reality, destroy lives and render people unable to care for themselves, and they'll do anything for another fix
i would also like to add that it is very confusing to see a proponent of personal freedom champion the greatest destroyer of personal freedom in the history of mankind. no, the greatest destroyer of freedom in all of history is not oppressive governments. it is drug addiction
Slashdot Mirror
then he's concerned about his legacy. and one sentence out of his mouth would dispel all doubt as to his moral fiber
or lack thereof
i understand that thailand is going through problems. if the king does not speak now, then when does he ever speak? and if he doesn't speak, even now, of what value is he to his country at all?
everyone loves him? ok. then he's not a human being in the eyes of the thai people. he's just an abstract symbol, not a real person. as the thai people have decided. as he has agreed to. what kind of relationship is this?
if i were him, i would yearn mightily to speak up, and identify the real breathing human being and his real feelings underneath all the layers of inhuman symbolism that the thai people have burdened him with without his permission
and in the name of the country he is supposed to love, he does not speak? that's not love
what kind of love says nothing to what it is supposed to love, and what he is supposed to be loved by speaks of him as if he isn't even there?
it's absurd. love a rock. love a fish. love a durian. same kind of relationship: no response, and no permission needed to speak of your object of love as if it didn't matter what that object thought. it's inhuman
if the thai king is a real human being, let us see him act like one, and let us see the thai people receive him as such. all other realities are dysfunctional, and hurt the country of thailand in the long run
the status of the relationship of the thai king and his people is poisonous to thailand, and part of thailand's problems. that the thai people accept this lame status quo is a sign of how deep thailand's problems are. it's just very sad to me. let the king speak. any feeling against that impulse, on the part of the thai people or the thai king, is the root of the problems with thailand
its called growing pains
are you honestly going to say a monarchy is better?
for example, china is better off as a democracy. getting there of course will involve pains. is your argument then that china is better as it is now and should never improve its sorry political status quo? of course not, unless you're an idiot or an asshole
capture if possible was a mission parameter. consult your news sources again
not that they probably tried very hard. not that i hold that against them. because unlike you i realize the difficulties of the situation they were under, and that their target was intent on making himself a martyr. capture was a vanishing slim possibility. not because of the usa, but because of bin laden. you do realize that right?
the problem with people like you is you don't have high standards. you have ridiculous standards. you think your high holy indignation from these ridiculous lofty standards are supposed to mean anything. well it does mean something: you like to tweak your ego from on yonder high, content with yourself in your knowledge you would do things so much better. yes, you would, if the real world allowed your ridiculous standards to ever be achieved or adhered to
why don't you try delivering your easy armchair ego-tweaking judgments in the land of the living someday, rather than from your ivory tower of superiority that no one, not even you, if you had any intellectual honesty about you, can adhere to
thank you for passing judgment which serves nothing but your own smug self-satisfaction. it certainly doesn't have any real world value, to anyone with an intellectually honest grasp on the reality of the situation of bin laden's hideout
you are assuming that taking bin laden alive was ever an option. not by what the usa wants, but by what osama bin laden wants. you assume the usa is 100% in control of the means and manner of his apprehension. if it cannot bring him in to try him, then the usa will kill him. or would you prefer letting him continue his murderous ways because apprehending him is not 100% certain? i am telling you: try to apprehend him, and if you can't, kill him. because trying him is not an option ACCORDING TO OSAMA BIN LADEN'S WISHES. osama bin laden facing apprehension will do what? quietly acquiesce? are you that fucking stupid?
osama bin laden is dead rather than being tried. ok. why do you think this state of reality is 100% the responsibility of the usa? why do you not see osama bin laden's choices in this reality? why do you blame the usa for what a murderous asshole chooses? what the hell is wrong with you? why are you unable to understand the nature of a man like osama bin laden? are you naive or stupid or both?
a president is elected by the people. that makes him a legitimate representation of the people's will. a monarchy has no such legitimacy. monarchies are illegitimate outdated expensive and pointless in the modern era. of any country. to hell with all monarchies, may they all end ASAP
if your name is fred quimby, and you are a nobody, and people start setting houses on fire, and they say "we're doing this in the name of fred quimby", if you have any morality about you, you say "if you really are doing that in my name, please stop, as i don't want you to."
it's an observation beyond the legality of the monarchy, it's about basic morality. if something wrong is done in your name, you make sure to say that your name has nothing to do with it
osama bin laden chose war on civilians in peacetime. why do you wish to grant to him a courtesy he denies the thousands he murdered? what purpose do you think is served?
or you can abide by the rules of civil justice
you can't have it both ways
as symbols of a nation, they can be replaced with a statue or a park
monarchies are antiquated nonsense that symbolize a nondemocratic impulse in general society that needs to go away
the french, the russians, the nepalese, they had the right idea
death to the queen of england
death to the emperor of japan
death to the king of thailiand
exactly, we're not talking about a religious icon here, we're talking about a living human being. if transgressions are being committed in his name, he has the authority and the moral responsibility to say "if this is done in my name, stop doing it"
no one cares about your exacting standards on throwaway whimsical things
you also fail to see that taking this so seriously is the problem. your problem
the enemy of your enjoyment of silly things is you
the top level subject, wild geeky thinking, meant to inspire just a smile
and the dismissive comments, taking deeply seriously the silliest of things
shut up and laugh, and get the stick out of your ass
than the matrix reloaded
there "reloaded" titles don't have a good track record
it's not retarded logic if you were able to understand the unique challenges of nuclear power. if i were talking about building a hydroelectric dam, and its capacity to break, it would be retarded of me to say those words above. however, i'm not talking about hydroelectric dam, am i? you are. the failure of logic here is in your inability to see i am only talking about nuclear power specifically, not all technological advance. but please, by all means, call me the retarded one if it pumps up your ego
namely, when all hell breaks loose, it really breaks loose. to the tune of centuries of irradiation. that's the problem with nuclear power
frankly, we're not mature enough as a species to use nuclear. true maturity is knowing your limits. immaturity, as you demonstrate, is a swashbucking attitude of "i can handle anything", even as you fail. which, when it comes to nuclear power, is a fitting description of all the technological hubris you see in all these comments in this thread
i don't see wisdom in the comments in this mocking thread. i see immature teenagers who don't know what limits are
all the posts belittling the supposedly uneducated sheep who condemn nuclear power. all i see are socially inpet criticizing those who have a better grasp of human nature and how it does, and always will, interact with nuclear power
technological overconfidence. an inflated sense of technological familiarity, technophilia, deriving much personal worth and smug satisfaction from one's one personal mastery of technology, and from mankind's mastery of technology in general, etc.: it's all blind, ignorant hubris
the problem is, accidents happen. they always do. no long winded speech on safety will alter the inevitable. corners are cut, economic considerations bypass longterm challenges, things break and fall apart over time. eventually, you have a nuclear accident
and with nuclear power, when you have an accident, it stays with you for centuries. that's the big problem with nuclear power
nuclear power presents longterm effects outside of the realm of mankind's normal psychological considerations. mankind, in a way, isn't built to handle nuclear power safely. and i'm glad you, slashdot user xyz, can understand the longterm implications. the point is, in the normal psychological continuum, it is accurate to say that average human nature doesn't. and so an intelligent person makes decisions not based on the intellect of a select rare few, but on the average scale of intellect (not being able to understand this point, btw, means you probably aren't within the realm of intellect of those select few, at least when it comes to social intelligence)
i'm not saying we have better alternatives. and nuclear is great, when it works. and it works 99% of the time. but the problem with nuclear, when it doesn't work that 1% of the time?
unlike every other power source, really terrible consequences stay with you for centuries. and so that 1% changes everything about nuclear power in ways that any conscientious person finds very troubling and sobering
nuclear is a wonderful source of power... except when all hell breaks loose. and even though when all hell breaks loose is very rare, the huge consequences of all hell breaking loose simply means nuclear power (specifically, fusion, not fission) is going to go extinct. and should go extinct
sorry, deal with it
because management and engineering failures are always going to happen
the absurdity is not in condemning the entire concept of nuclear power, the absurdity is believing nuclear power can ever be handled with foolproof management and engineering in human society
in other words, other people skip right by condemning only management and engineering failures, and go right on to condemn the entire concept of nuclear power. and this is logical and correct, since management and engineering failures are ubiquitous and always will be
Amazon - Be cloudy.
Slashdot - Be a dupe.
Yahoo - Be mediocre.
Slashdot - Be a dupe.
Wikipedia - Be {citation needed}.
Ebay - Be A+++++.
Youtube - Be dat vid suked ur gay u faget.
Craigslist - Be a prostitute.
RIM - Be outdated.
Verizon - Be abusive.
T-Mobile - Wear a sun dress.
AT&T - Be... [carrier lost]
As a way of deflecting criticism, it is the first bit of rhetoric we all learn in our lives.
And it apparently works in kindergarten, national politics, and corporate PR warfare.
if you were to analyze anonymous's larger domain of overlapping grievances, you would characterize what anonymous is about. and you would also describe the motivation that brings people together under the banner of anonymous. this list of grievances can accurately described as internet freedoms
so, for example, anonymous has nothing to do with islamic militant fundamentalism, which, like anonymous, is also largely organic in nature and self-organizing around a set of grievances. now let's say, just for the cachet, some islamic militants started calling themselves anonymous. would you agree that that was still anonymous? of course it isn't the same anonymous: islamic fundamentalism, ANY religious fundamentalism, is no friend of internet freedoms
therefore, the definition of anonymous as put forth in this article is wrong. it is not true that anyone can call themselves anonymous. only those working within the larger agenda of internet freedom. for scattershot, random short term purposes, yes, but you have to be motivated by the idea of internet freedoms to claim the true mantle of anonymous
"When various governments are actually what is protecting these gas companies from lawsuit damages."
right, aka anti-regulation. the government has to police corporations, not be in their pocket. your definition of regulation is odd
"If drugs were legal, quality-controlled, and plentiful enough to be cheap or free.."
why would you want that done with a substance that destroys free will?
in such a world, the government is the most orwellian freedom destroying slave holding entity possible. you want the government to be a pusher of the most highly addictive substances known to man?
why do you want that?
you DO understand what addiction is, right?
"How many slashdotters maintain physical addictions to caffeine?"
draw a graph: inebriation and versus addiction. some points: nicotine is more addictive than heroin, but not inebriating. you can still hold a job and a relationship. lsd is highly inebriating but not addictive: you can stop taking it at will. alcohol, marijuana, caffeine: middling amounts of addiction and inebriation. work and relationships can still proceed while using these drugs occasionally
but heroin? meth? cocaine? highly addictive and highly inebriating. meaning what? meaning you can't keep a job or a relationship, because the drug blots out your ability to remain focused with the high inebriation, then with the overwhelming addiction, forces yyou to do nothing but seek it out
"Your prejudices are showing with words like 'zombie' and 'dead weight'."
you do understand what heroin, cocaine, and meth do to people, right? am i demonstrating prejudice? or am i demonstrating more real world knowledge of what these drugs actually do to your free will and your ability hold a job/ relationship?
like i said, a person can do whatever they want to do with their bodies that doesn't infringe on anyone else's freedoms. if i blast my stereo at 3 am, i am exercising a freedom. however, i am impinging on my neighbor's freedom to sleep. the truth is, governments are less of an imposition on your natural freedoms than how your natural freedoms exist in tension with other people's natural freedoms. if there were no government, your freedom is still limited by other people around you. as it should be: i should let you get a good night's sleep. freedom goes hand in hand with responsibility. where there is no responsibility, there is no freedom
likewise, if i turn myself into a drug zombie by taking a highly addictive substance, i become someone who will not feed himself nor house himself. a drug addict does not have the mental composure to handle a job or maintain a relationship. i am dead weight that needs to be supported by society. in the name of everyone else's freedom, i must restrain myself form destroying my free will by becoming a drug addict. there is a straight line between the use of highly addictive substances and the destruction of your own freedom, and the freedom of those around the addicts in society. we who are free do not want to have drug zombies without free will breaking into our houses to steal our stuff to support a habit that only symbolizes the death of freedom
where did i make an appeal to the government? my argument needs no reference to government. i am simply trying to get your mind to understand my thoughts according to your preconceptions (which naturally is anti-government according to your stereotypical thinking)
i am simply saying that government is not the only way your freedom can be limited
for example, with simple logic, with no need to reference government: a chemical substance that takes a free human mind, and causes the mind into a permanent interrupt cycle "must get more of that drug, must get more of that drug" renders a mind that could be pursuing other things according to free will, into a cycle of depravity, into pursuits that have nothing to do with freedom, and everything to do with dependence and need on an external factor. addiction to a chemical substance removes free will
your problem is that you see only government as a source of freedom limitation. you haven't given the subject matter of free will enough thought. you do not see that government is not the only way your freedom can be limited. a highly addictive chemical substance can also limit your freedom. the prison bars in the mind that highly addictive drugs create is worse than any government humanly possible. well, that's not entirely true: the most orwellian freedom destroying government possible would be one that freely handed out morphine, to make the mass of humanity into drug zombie slaves, that care about nothing else except more drugs, and will do anything that government asks of them to get more of the precious drug. you do understand how addiction works, right?
it just always amazes me how some who claim personal freedom as the issue of greatest import should champion drug use, which is the most potent personal freedom destroyer ever discovered by mankind. very bizarre
this would be assuming that the withholding of highly addictive drugs is some sort of punishment. withholding something that destroys your freedom is an odd way to think of a punishment
i do not believe the un declaration of universal human rights includes a right to highly addictive drugs. it might be valid to add to the universal declaration of human rights the right to freedom from addiction though. don't you agree, in the name of freedom from the most freedom destroying thing known to mankind?
i agree 100% that there should absolutely be no limitations on anything people want to do in their own homes that affects no one but themselves
this is where i add that addict populations have a significant negative impact on their societies in terms of crime
this is where you trot out the hypothetical man-god who can take heroin/ meth/ coke and has no problem taking care of themselves
this is where i point out that addictive drugs, in reality, destroy lives and render people unable to care for themselves, and they'll do anything for another fix
i would also like to add that it is very confusing to see a proponent of personal freedom champion the greatest destroyer of personal freedom in the history of mankind. no, the greatest destroyer of freedom in all of history is not oppressive governments. it is drug addiction