More things being prohibited does not necessarily make a country less free, if the freedom you're concerned with is freedom from other people's actions. A country where it's permitted for me to beat you into the ground over any perceived slight has less legally prohibited than America, but it's hardly more free for you, the victim, who is then subject to my will.
If you want to make money off your property, sell it. You don't get to continually get income just from owning something and never actually have to give up your property in return.
I'm not arguing about what's a good or bad system here, just terminology. (On which note, "socialism" is not synonymous with "command economy" either).
A mixed economy by definition mixes capitalist and socialist elements, so "a mixed economy, as capitalist as possible" is a mix of 100% capitalism and 0% socialism, or in other words, just capitalism, which is not a new thing.
The socialist elements added to capitalism, to produce today's mixed economies, were the new thing, and promoting them was, at that time, progressive.
Wanting to keep more or less what we have now (mixed economies) is the definition of conservative, which is not an insult, just a description.
Wanting to continue to add more socialist elements that are new to our economy is still progressive, which is not a compliment, just a description.
Wanting to eliminate socialist elements that are already established now and go back to a more-capitalist state is reactionary or regressive; again, just a description.
It's really simple. Were things (here in the relevant polity under discussion) better in the past? Then you're a regressive or a reactionary. Are the more or less fine right now? You're a conservative. Are they still not good enough and should continue to change? You're a progressive. Are we doing everything completely wrong and need to scrap it for something else entirely new? You're a radical.
What things fall into what categories depends on when and where you are. At one time, free market capitalism was radical, then as things shifted it became eventually merely progressive and then conservative and now by itself unmodified is regressive. At a later time socialism of any kind was radical, then it became progressive, and some elements of it are now conservative (to different degrees in different places), while others are still progressive and still others still radical. In some places, like former communist countries, some socialist policies became conservative as they were entrenched are now regressive that people there have moved past them, like the command economies you speak of. It's all contextual.
Looking at history overall, socialism came after capitalism was already well-established, so those wanting to keep things capitalistic are conservative and those trying to make it more socialistic are progressive. With no value attached to those words, just describing whether someone is in favor of or against new things.
Those who want to get rid of now-already-established socialist elements are furthermore reactionary or regressive, as would be someone wanting to roll back the free market elements of capitalism and return to mercantilism or feudalism.
No, because presumably whoever wrote that is not in a position to blow up the White House, unless that's some foreign military commander or known terrorist at large.
If it had been something like "you know just because Flight 93 never reached its target doesn't mean everyone should give up on that mission forever" then yeah, that would sound like calling for terrorists to blow up the White House and would be terribly distasteful.
The "2nd Amendment" comment is still even worse than either of my hypothetical examples though, because there's no reason to think that terrorists with the means to try another Flight 93 would listen to some random American angry at their country's political events, or in the earlier example that some arsonist-at-large would listen to you at a public hearing about your neighbor's building permits. But there's good reason to think that lots of "2nd amendment people" might listen to the leading Republican candidate.
I'm curious, how would you separate them? Does it have to be essentialist to be racist? Is mere prejudice not enough? (Either case would involve discrimination though, just different reasoning behind it).
Would you say "I'm not saying you're necessarily a bad person on account of being black, I'm just assuming you're probably a bad person because black people usually are, but maybe you're an exception who's outgrown you're race's dominant culture, though I'm not risking anything on that chance" is racist or not?
Statistically, if you don't want to be poor do 3 things: 1) graduate high school 2) get a full time job 3) get married before you have kids
Those may be necessary conditions but they are far from sufficient conditions. You can graduate high school, get a full time job, never have kids, and easily still be making barely over half the median wage, which itself is half again the mean wage, which is still barely enough to save enough in a lifetime not to die in the street when you're old.
There's a difference between an overt threat and the indirect suggestion that maybe someone somewhere should maybe do something violent to you. Like if you told your neighbor at a public hearing about a structure he wants to build, "if they let you get away with building that monstrosity our neighborhood is just screwed, it's over, there's nothing we can do, unless I guess, maybe, well, that arsonist is still at large...". Presuming you're not actually connected to said arsonist, that's not actually a threat because you don't have the means and opportunity, but you're still publicly suggesting it might be nice if someone who did have the means should avail themselves of any opportunities they might find...
But they are economically in favor of preserving older capitalist modes of production instead of progressing on to newer socialist ones, which makes them economically conservative. (Though not as economically conservative as the mercantilists and feudal lords who preceded them).
I suspect GP's question was about how the "social justice warriors [...] oppose social equality for labour (they don't want to end the exploitation, they want to become the exploiters." I'm curious what you mean by that too.
I think "center of the local universe" is going a bit far. To use a metaphor I used in another post further down, it's more like they've found the top of the nearest "hilltop" in the "rolling hilly countryside" that is the curvature of spacetime. The Shapley Attractor would similarly be the bottom of the nearest "valley". Both "hilltop" and "valley" in the sense that if you trace the lines that "water would flow" (to use the bit of good analogy the article does employ), they converge in a place downhill (the valley) and a place uphill (the hilltop). The Shapley Attractor is as much the "center of the local universe" as this "repulsor" is. They're just where the, what you might call them, "field lines of gravity" converge in the local gravity field.
The "repulsor" is where something with negative gravity would float up to eventually, the same way that a hilltop is where a ball that rolled uphill would roll to.
I think the (mildly) interesting thing here is hidden behind all the bad analogies, but they actually do mention a tiny bit of a good analogy.
Say you're a ball on a hill in a rolling hilly countryside, and so under gravity you're rolling downhill. You can easily calculate where you will eventually settle, when you reach some local elevation minimum too deep for your kinetic energy to escape you from. You can find those minima by "seeing where water would flow", which is the tiny bit of good analogy they touch on a little bit.
It sounds like what they've done is traced those "water flow paths" through the "rolling countryside" that is the curvature of spacetime, and followed the path that runs through our galaxy backwards until it converges with a bunch of other paths at the local "elevation" minimum. This gives you, in this better analogy, the analogue of the nearest hilltop, from which everything rolls away.
But not because hilltops repel things. Just because they are uphill, and things naturally roll downhill. But still, kinda interesting to know where the nearest "hilltop" in space is, I guess?
"I have to eat a pile of shit, but I get to pick which one? Fuck it, I'll eat the grossest steaming hot AIDS-infested one just out of spite, instead of the dry cow patty that's the only alternative..."
I get to choose what goes into it and I have every right to use any means up to and including violence, including state violence if available, to prevent other people from putting things into my body that I don't want there.
So keep your fucking drugs inside your own body and we're fine. Start putting them in the common air and thus into my body and we've got a problem, and either the state will do something about it for me, or I'll do it myself.
I'm curious about the story behind that. Were the garbage men smoking? (Seems like too many butts for a few guys on one smoke break). Or were you picking up garbage before the garbage men came, and the butts were from... neighbors? Strangers? Who always stood around the front of your property smoking? Or pedestrians walking by? (Did neighboring properties have as many butts along their edges?)
Well let's just think this through shall we? Let's start with the general case.
What would you call something like a government that didn't have the legitimated use of force at its disposal as real governments do? An incorporated body of people in big one organization, without owners, not driven by a profit motive but instead by some kind of charter (or constitution, if you will) to serve a public good? That'd be a non-profit organization.
And without that use of force at its disposal, how would such an organization go about collecting money from the economy at large, so as to provide its services at no cost (or at least, at subsidized rates on a sliding scale to provide equal access to people of all income levels)? Well, it would have to have some kind of passive income, like from owning a bunch of stock. If it needs some percent of the GDP in order to fund those public goods it provides, then it would need to own a large enough percent of the productive capital -- enough stock, etc -- to provide that kind of passive income. In fact real non-profit organizations often have associated "Foundations" that are enormous investments like that, donating their proceeds to the non-profit proper to fund their work.
So a government that didn't use force to raise taxes would look like an enormous non-profit organization with an enormous diversified stock portfolio funding it.
How to set such a thing up in the first place is a hard question, but consider that the question of how to set any government up in the first place is a hard one. You had to get a bunch of people to contribute a bunch of time and resources like money to get the thing rolling in the first place. If you're trying to set up a liberal, democratic government, then those people are going to be donating all that time and money for nothing in return but the society they're building, which is a big thing to ask of enough people, which is why setting up good governments is hard -- much easier for powerful people who want something in return to put their power into making a government that enriches them personally and gives them a more direct return on that investment. So it makes sense that putting together an even better government that doesn't rely on force to raise revenue would be even harder; you'd have to get large swathes of society, including those already in power, to come together and donate a lot of resources to create the investment that would go on to fund the services provided to society at large.
Of course in real history, good governments, liberal democratic ones, didn't just get built from scratch out of nothing by donations of time and money from common people out of the good of their hearts. There was usually already a big powerful organization with tons of resources at its disposal pre-existing, one that acquired those resources and that power through illegitimate, violent means over a long period of time -- the previous, usually monarchic or feudal, government. The better-hearted liberal democrats then took over that enormous machine and used its ill-gotten goods and status to build a better government to replace it. So why not use that same kind of mechanism to set up a better, tax-independent government out of the ones we've already got? Use its existing illegitimate source of revenue, taxation, to slowly build up that investment portfolio that will then in turn accelerate the revenue available to grow it and in time reduce the tax burden on the people. At the very least, something like corporate welfare could be restructured such that whenever the government pays out money to some company, it gets stock ownership in return. (Which it can then trade away for more general, diversified holdings; the point isn't to own a controlling interest in any particular company or meddle at all in their day-to-day operations).
Although in the particular example case you give, the solution is much simpler. Roads are a network, and we already monitor and charge for access to that network (you and your vehicle must b
What makes an imperative into a law is the threat of force behind it. Actual literal physical violent force. A law saying "do this" really means "do this or else pay us money or else pay us more money or else go sit in this jail cell or else we'll drag you into that jail cell ourselves or else, if somehow we can't manage to do that, we'll shoot you." Without the last bits there, it's just a suggestion. If you can not do something you've been told to do, and all that will happen in response is they tell you to do something else or in addition, but you can choose to continue ignoring those commands indefinitely and never suffer consequences for it, then it's not really a law.
I sometimes think there should be two sets of law books to placate the people who fail to think that through. One of them is a body of unenforced law, which is basically a list of things that people demanded that politicians publicly denounce as bad things you shouldn't do, but not things worth stopping at the point of a gun. The second is the actual law in the normal sense, backed by violence like real laws are, which ought to be much smaller, limited to the set of things it's really worth backing up with violence, which is basically only prohibitions on violence itself.
A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned.
The warlords in Somalia are the government, and the money they demand you pay them (or else) is consequently a tax.
Taxes are just what we call theft by government. Good governments will put the money toward public goods, and there are practical arguments to be made about the necessity of those public goods and how else one might or might not fund those public goods without tax money, but the provision of public goods in return is not a requirement for the money collected to count as a tax. When a monarch demands money from his peasants so that he can continue paying his knights to defend his power, including the power to demand money from the peasants, that's still a tax even though the peasants don't get anything for it and didn't do anything to deserve it.
If you are guaranteed something in return and the loss of that something is the only consequence suffered for not paying, then it's not a tax, it's a fee, like you'd pay any private merchant. If you can avoid having to pay it by avoiding certain behaviors designated 'bad', then it's not a tax, it's a fine. If you have to pay it, no matter what you do, no matter what you want in return, no matter what, period, or else, then it's a tax. Or if someone besides a government is demanding it, just plain theft.
Make it absurdly inconvenient, difficult, and expensive to smoke in public places where other people are affected by it -- and then let smokers hide out in private places if they really really want to continue smoking, and don't bother trying to stop them there. Problem solved.
If the only thing prohibited during Prohibition was public drunkenness, there wouldn't have been a problem. (Well, except inasmuch as prohibiting something harmless like that is a problem in itself, but none of the subsequent problems of fueling a black market and crime and such).
I can't tell you what the rest of the world would do, but I for one would be thrilled and have no problem with it. I don't care if people eat THC butter brownies even though I hate marijuana smoke as much as cigarette smoke. I don't care if people pop pills or shoot themselves up (though I might care about some of the behavior that might be likely to cause, but the behavior is the problem, not the drugs themselves). Keep it to yourself and you're fine by me, just don't force me to participate.
Yeah! Fuck those fucking smokers who put their goddamn drugs into the common air and thereby force me to do their drugs with them whether I want to or not!
Slashdot Mirror
More things being prohibited does not necessarily make a country less free, if the freedom you're concerned with is freedom from other people's actions. A country where it's permitted for me to beat you into the ground over any perceived slight has less legally prohibited than America, but it's hardly more free for you, the victim, who is then subject to my will.
If you want to make money off your property, sell it. You don't get to continually get income just from owning something and never actually have to give up your property in return.
Vanguard invented index funds, and GP is suggesting people look into Vanguard funds, so you're both recommending the same thing.
I'm not arguing about what's a good or bad system here, just terminology. (On which note, "socialism" is not synonymous with "command economy" either).
A mixed economy by definition mixes capitalist and socialist elements, so "a mixed economy, as capitalist as possible" is a mix of 100% capitalism and 0% socialism, or in other words, just capitalism, which is not a new thing.
The socialist elements added to capitalism, to produce today's mixed economies, were the new thing, and promoting them was, at that time, progressive.
Wanting to keep more or less what we have now (mixed economies) is the definition of conservative, which is not an insult, just a description.
Wanting to continue to add more socialist elements that are new to our economy is still progressive, which is not a compliment, just a description.
Wanting to eliminate socialist elements that are already established now and go back to a more-capitalist state is reactionary or regressive; again, just a description.
It's really simple. Were things (here in the relevant polity under discussion) better in the past? Then you're a regressive or a reactionary. Are the more or less fine right now? You're a conservative. Are they still not good enough and should continue to change? You're a progressive. Are we doing everything completely wrong and need to scrap it for something else entirely new? You're a radical.
What things fall into what categories depends on when and where you are. At one time, free market capitalism was radical, then as things shifted it became eventually merely progressive and then conservative and now by itself unmodified is regressive. At a later time socialism of any kind was radical, then it became progressive, and some elements of it are now conservative (to different degrees in different places), while others are still progressive and still others still radical. In some places, like former communist countries, some socialist policies became conservative as they were entrenched are now regressive that people there have moved past them, like the command economies you speak of. It's all contextual.
Looking at history overall, socialism came after capitalism was already well-established, so those wanting to keep things capitalistic are conservative and those trying to make it more socialistic are progressive. With no value attached to those words, just describing whether someone is in favor of or against new things.
Those who want to get rid of now-already-established socialist elements are furthermore reactionary or regressive, as would be someone wanting to roll back the free market elements of capitalism and return to mercantilism or feudalism.
Is a "Muslim hoard" a place where someone keeps all their Muslims and won't share them with anyone?
No, because presumably whoever wrote that is not in a position to blow up the White House, unless that's some foreign military commander or known terrorist at large.
If it had been something like "you know just because Flight 93 never reached its target doesn't mean everyone should give up on that mission forever" then yeah, that would sound like calling for terrorists to blow up the White House and would be terribly distasteful.
The "2nd Amendment" comment is still even worse than either of my hypothetical examples though, because there's no reason to think that terrorists with the means to try another Flight 93 would listen to some random American angry at their country's political events, or in the earlier example that some arsonist-at-large would listen to you at a public hearing about your neighbor's building permits. But there's good reason to think that lots of "2nd amendment people" might listen to the leading Republican candidate.
I'm curious, how would you separate them? Does it have to be essentialist to be racist? Is mere prejudice not enough? (Either case would involve discrimination though, just different reasoning behind it).
Would you say "I'm not saying you're necessarily a bad person on account of being black, I'm just assuming you're probably a bad person because black people usually are, but maybe you're an exception who's outgrown you're race's dominant culture, though I'm not risking anything on that chance" is racist or not?
Thank you. I did appreciate your bicycle analogy too, and didn't mean to put it down at all, just the "center of the universe" bit.
Statistically, if you don't want to be poor do 3 things:
1) graduate high school
2) get a full time job
3) get married before you have kids
Those may be necessary conditions but they are far from sufficient conditions. You can graduate high school, get a full time job, never have kids, and easily still be making barely over half the median wage, which itself is half again the mean wage, which is still barely enough to save enough in a lifetime not to die in the street when you're old.
There's a difference between an overt threat and the indirect suggestion that maybe someone somewhere should maybe do something violent to you. Like if you told your neighbor at a public hearing about a structure he wants to build, "if they let you get away with building that monstrosity our neighborhood is just screwed, it's over, there's nothing we can do, unless I guess, maybe, well, that arsonist is still at large...". Presuming you're not actually connected to said arsonist, that's not actually a threat because you don't have the means and opportunity, but you're still publicly suggesting it might be nice if someone who did have the means should avail themselves of any opportunities they might find...
But they are economically in favor of preserving older capitalist modes of production instead of progressing on to newer socialist ones, which makes them economically conservative. (Though not as economically conservative as the mercantilists and feudal lords who preceded them).
I suspect GP's question was about how the "social justice warriors [...] oppose social equality for labour (they don't want to end the exploitation, they want to become the exploiters." I'm curious what you mean by that too.
"genderqueer", whatever that is
"Genderqueer" just means "doesn't fit neatly into any other gender categories", "queer" being in the older sense of "weird".
I think "center of the local universe" is going a bit far. To use a metaphor I used in another post further down, it's more like they've found the top of the nearest "hilltop" in the "rolling hilly countryside" that is the curvature of spacetime. The Shapley Attractor would similarly be the bottom of the nearest "valley". Both "hilltop" and "valley" in the sense that if you trace the lines that "water would flow" (to use the bit of good analogy the article does employ), they converge in a place downhill (the valley) and a place uphill (the hilltop). The Shapley Attractor is as much the "center of the local universe" as this "repulsor" is. They're just where the, what you might call them, "field lines of gravity" converge in the local gravity field.
The "repulsor" is where something with negative gravity would float up to eventually, the same way that a hilltop is where a ball that rolled uphill would roll to.
I think the (mildly) interesting thing here is hidden behind all the bad analogies, but they actually do mention a tiny bit of a good analogy.
Say you're a ball on a hill in a rolling hilly countryside, and so under gravity you're rolling downhill. You can easily calculate where you will eventually settle, when you reach some local elevation minimum too deep for your kinetic energy to escape you from. You can find those minima by "seeing where water would flow", which is the tiny bit of good analogy they touch on a little bit.
It sounds like what they've done is traced those "water flow paths" through the "rolling countryside" that is the curvature of spacetime, and followed the path that runs through our galaxy backwards until it converges with a bunch of other paths at the local "elevation" minimum. This gives you, in this better analogy, the analogue of the nearest hilltop, from which everything rolls away.
But not because hilltops repel things. Just because they are uphill, and things naturally roll downhill. But still, kinda interesting to know where the nearest "hilltop" in space is, I guess?
"I have to eat a pile of shit, but I get to pick which one? Fuck it, I'll eat the grossest steaming hot AIDS-infested one just out of spite, instead of the dry cow patty that's the only alternative..."
I own my own body.
I get to choose what goes into it and I have every right to use any means up to and including violence, including state violence if available, to prevent other people from putting things into my body that I don't want there.
So keep your fucking drugs inside your own body and we're fine. Start putting them in the common air and thus into my body and we've got a problem, and either the state will do something about it for me, or I'll do it myself.
I'm curious about the story behind that. Were the garbage men smoking? (Seems like too many butts for a few guys on one smoke break). Or were you picking up garbage before the garbage men came, and the butts were from... neighbors? Strangers? Who always stood around the front of your property smoking? Or pedestrians walking by? (Did neighboring properties have as many butts along their edges?)
Well let's just think this through shall we? Let's start with the general case.
What would you call something like a government that didn't have the legitimated use of force at its disposal as real governments do? An incorporated body of people in big one organization, without owners, not driven by a profit motive but instead by some kind of charter (or constitution, if you will) to serve a public good? That'd be a non-profit organization.
And without that use of force at its disposal, how would such an organization go about collecting money from the economy at large, so as to provide its services at no cost (or at least, at subsidized rates on a sliding scale to provide equal access to people of all income levels)? Well, it would have to have some kind of passive income, like from owning a bunch of stock. If it needs some percent of the GDP in order to fund those public goods it provides, then it would need to own a large enough percent of the productive capital -- enough stock, etc -- to provide that kind of passive income. In fact real non-profit organizations often have associated "Foundations" that are enormous investments like that, donating their proceeds to the non-profit proper to fund their work.
So a government that didn't use force to raise taxes would look like an enormous non-profit organization with an enormous diversified stock portfolio funding it.
How to set such a thing up in the first place is a hard question, but consider that the question of how to set any government up in the first place is a hard one. You had to get a bunch of people to contribute a bunch of time and resources like money to get the thing rolling in the first place. If you're trying to set up a liberal, democratic government, then those people are going to be donating all that time and money for nothing in return but the society they're building, which is a big thing to ask of enough people, which is why setting up good governments is hard -- much easier for powerful people who want something in return to put their power into making a government that enriches them personally and gives them a more direct return on that investment. So it makes sense that putting together an even better government that doesn't rely on force to raise revenue would be even harder; you'd have to get large swathes of society, including those already in power, to come together and donate a lot of resources to create the investment that would go on to fund the services provided to society at large.
Of course in real history, good governments, liberal democratic ones, didn't just get built from scratch out of nothing by donations of time and money from common people out of the good of their hearts. There was usually already a big powerful organization with tons of resources at its disposal pre-existing, one that acquired those resources and that power through illegitimate, violent means over a long period of time -- the previous, usually monarchic or feudal, government. The better-hearted liberal democrats then took over that enormous machine and used its ill-gotten goods and status to build a better government to replace it. So why not use that same kind of mechanism to set up a better, tax-independent government out of the ones we've already got? Use its existing illegitimate source of revenue, taxation, to slowly build up that investment portfolio that will then in turn accelerate the revenue available to grow it and in time reduce the tax burden on the people. At the very least, something like corporate welfare could be restructured such that whenever the government pays out money to some company, it gets stock ownership in return. (Which it can then trade away for more general, diversified holdings; the point isn't to own a controlling interest in any particular company or meddle at all in their day-to-day operations).
Although in the particular example case you give, the solution is much simpler. Roads are a network, and we already monitor and charge for access to that network (you and your vehicle must b
What makes an imperative into a law is the threat of force behind it. Actual literal physical violent force. A law saying "do this" really means "do this or else pay us money or else pay us more money or else go sit in this jail cell or else we'll drag you into that jail cell ourselves or else, if somehow we can't manage to do that, we'll shoot you." Without the last bits there, it's just a suggestion. If you can not do something you've been told to do, and all that will happen in response is they tell you to do something else or in addition, but you can choose to continue ignoring those commands indefinitely and never suffer consequences for it, then it's not really a law.
I sometimes think there should be two sets of law books to placate the people who fail to think that through. One of them is a body of unenforced law, which is basically a list of things that people demanded that politicians publicly denounce as bad things you shouldn't do, but not things worth stopping at the point of a gun. The second is the actual law in the normal sense, backed by violence like real laws are, which ought to be much smaller, limited to the set of things it's really worth backing up with violence, which is basically only prohibitions on violence itself.
A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned.
The warlords in Somalia are the government, and the money they demand you pay them (or else) is consequently a tax.
Taxes are just what we call theft by government. Good governments will put the money toward public goods, and there are practical arguments to be made about the necessity of those public goods and how else one might or might not fund those public goods without tax money, but the provision of public goods in return is not a requirement for the money collected to count as a tax. When a monarch demands money from his peasants so that he can continue paying his knights to defend his power, including the power to demand money from the peasants, that's still a tax even though the peasants don't get anything for it and didn't do anything to deserve it.
If you are guaranteed something in return and the loss of that something is the only consequence suffered for not paying, then it's not a tax, it's a fee, like you'd pay any private merchant. If you can avoid having to pay it by avoiding certain behaviors designated 'bad', then it's not a tax, it's a fine. If you have to pay it, no matter what you do, no matter what you want in return, no matter what, period, or else, then it's a tax. Or if someone besides a government is demanding it, just plain theft.
Make it absurdly inconvenient, difficult, and expensive to smoke in public places where other people are affected by it -- and then let smokers hide out in private places if they really really want to continue smoking, and don't bother trying to stop them there. Problem solved.
If the only thing prohibited during Prohibition was public drunkenness, there wouldn't have been a problem. (Well, except inasmuch as prohibiting something harmless like that is a problem in itself, but none of the subsequent problems of fueling a black market and crime and such).
I can't tell you what the rest of the world would do, but I for one would be thrilled and have no problem with it. I don't care if people eat THC butter brownies even though I hate marijuana smoke as much as cigarette smoke. I don't care if people pop pills or shoot themselves up (though I might care about some of the behavior that might be likely to cause, but the behavior is the problem, not the drugs themselves). Keep it to yourself and you're fine by me, just don't force me to participate.
Yeah! Fuck those fucking smokers who put their goddamn drugs into the common air and thereby force me to do their drugs with them whether I want to or not!