Re: Rand Paul Supports Drug Legalization-Right?

Thom, 

I believe the answer to your question is yes, but more to your point read the 
following piece keeping in mind that the government can only make good on a 
supposed "right" to health care by forcibly extracting money from taxpayers:  

http://www.duke.edu/web/philsociety/taleofslave.html

"The Tale of the Slave"
from Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, pp. 290-292. 

Consider the following sequence of cases, which we shall call the Tale of the 
Slave, and imagine it is about you.

1. There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal master's whims. He 
often is cruelly beaten, called out in the middle of the night, and so on. 

2. The master is kindlier and beats the slave only for stated infractions of 
his rules (not fulfilling the work quota, and so on). He gives the slave some 
free time.
 
3. The master has a group of slaves, and he decides how things are to be 
allocated among them on nice grounds, taking into account their needs, merit, 
and so on.
 
4. The master allows his slaves four days on their own and requires them to 
work only three days a week on his land. The rest of the time is their own. 

5. The master allows his slaves to go off and work in the city (or anywhere 
they wish) for wages. He requires only that they send back to him three-
sevenths of their wages. He also retains the power to recall them to the 
plantation if some emergency threatens his land; and to raise or lower the 
three-sevenths amount required to be turned over to him. He further retains 
the right to restrict the slaves from participating in certain dangerous 
activities that threaten his financial return, for example, mountain 
climbing, cigarette smoking. 

6. The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves, except you, to vote, and the 
joint decision is made by all of them. There is open discussion, and so 
forth, among them, and they have the power to determine to what uses to put 
whatever percentage of your (and their) earnings they decide to take; what 
activities legitimately may be forbidden to you, and so on.

Let us pause in this sequence of cases to take stock. If the master contracts 
this transfer of power so that he cannot withdraw it, you have a change of 
master. You now have 10,000 masters instead of just one; rather you have one 
10,000-headed master. Perhaps the 10,000 even will be kindlier than the 
benevolent master in case 2. Still, they are your master. However, still more 
can be done. A kindly single master (as in case 2) might allow his slave(s) 
to speak up and try to persuade him to make a certain decision. The 10,000-
headed monster can do this also.

7. Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty (and are given the 
right) to enter into the discussions of the 10,000, to try to persuade them 
to adopt various policies and to treat you and themselves in a certain way. 
They then go off to vote to decide upon policies covering the vast range of 
their powers. 

8. In appreciation of your useful contributions to discussion, the 10,000 
allow you to vote if they are deadlocked; they commit themselves to this 
procedure. After the discussion you mark your vote on a slip of paper, and 
they go off and vote. In the eventuality that they divide evenly on some 
issue, 5,000 for and 5,000 against, they look at your ballot and count it in. 
This has never yet happened; they have never yet had occasion to open your 
ballot. (A single master also might commit himself to letting his slave 
decide any issue concerning him about which he, the master, was absolutely 
indifferent.) 

9. They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly tied your vote 
carries the issue. Otherwise it makes no difference to the electoral outcome. 

The question is: which transition from case 1 to case 9 made it no longer the 
tale of a slave?


> Because drug use is the only way I can see one justifying this 
> tortured excuse to challenge the notions of rights.  
> "Rights=Slavery".  Remember that people.
> 
> "With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, 
> you have realize what that implies. It?s not an abstraction. I?m a 
> physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and 
> conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you?re 
> going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the 
> person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, 
> the nurses.
> 
> "Basically, once you imply a belief in a right to someone?s services 
> ? do you have a right to plumbing? Do you have a right to water? Do 
> you have right to food? ? you?re basically saying you believe in 
> slavery. I?m a physician in your community and you say you have a 
> right to health care. You have a right to beat down my door with the 
> police, escort me away and force me to take care of you? That?s 
> ultimately what the right to free health care would be." - Sen. Rand 
> Paul. Think Progress
> 
> Seriously... he's questioning the access to basic human needs like 
> water and food.  This is not logical at all.  So, I guess Rand Paul 
> believes in slavery-he is pro-life and believes in the *right* to life...
> 
> "Rights=Slavery".  Remember that people.
> 
> Thom
> http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
> http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
> http://www.in-one-ear.com

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot