Who is John Galt?
I’m not surprised to hear, via Instapundit, that sales of Ayn Rand’s books are reportedly rising.
In fact, I’ve spotted quite a few “Who is John Galt?” bumper stickers cropping up.
And, of course, there was this sign at the anti-porkulus protest in Denver last week:
(Photo via People’s Press Collective)
Here’s the Atlas Society page on the Atlas Shrugged movie still in development.
In the meantime, we’re part of a real-life version of an Ayn Rand novel.
Nationwide strike on Friday. Don’t miss it.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Cincinnati-Area School Pays Kids to… Show Up to School
February 13, 2012 09:43 PM by Doug Powers
4 CommentsWill Jack Lew please report to the Obama “Truth Team” desk now?; Update: Obama Budget Fail
February 13, 2012 10:57 AM by Michelle Malkin
149 CommentsVideo: Mr. America
February 13, 2012 10:23 AM by Michelle Malkin
31 CommentsNon-shocker of the morning: Soros monkeys coordinate with Democrats
February 13, 2012 10:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
85 CommentsGreece Erupts After Vote for Austerity Measures to Secure Another Bailout
February 12, 2012 10:19 PM by Doug Powers
55 Comments
More CPAC speeches in 20 words
February 11, 2012 06:53 PM by Michelle Malkin
75 CommentsUS State Department Expands Travel Warning for Mexico
February 11, 2012 03:29 PM by Doug Powers
43 Comments
‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’
February 10, 2012 09:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
199 Comments
Categories: fiscal stimulus,Politics
Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"JustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
I’ve always contended, parents should require their kids to read Atlas Shrugged!
My three favorite books, The American Standard Bible( Catholic), von Clausewitz ” On War” and Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”. Indeed, there may be a sudden vanishing of the leaders, movers, shakers who will not succumb to the Appointed One’s machinations.
I read that Obama wants to make some “changes” to our gun laws. He speaks as though he is now sole monarch of this country and that things change according to his wishes. Someone needs to put the cabosh on this man. His ego is killing us.
The next round of elections had better see some Democrats and RINOs being replaced.
To think that the last defense against Obama is Arlen Spector and two freakish twits from Maine…. God help us all.
America has become a statist nation.
We are no longer in danger of it. We now ARE one.
All that’s left is the blood.
FYI, Ayn Rand was not a social conservative. The politician closest to her beliefs is Ron Paul. She was against restrictions on immigration and drugs. She was against school prayer.
yeah..ok lgm…aahh thanks!
OT, but speaking of Atlas Shrugs, Pamela Geller has some interesting posts on her “Atlas Shrugs” blog…
They sure are. My husband just bought both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead last week.
How coincidental–this is what my IM (instant msg) reads (‘who is john galt?’); and my icon is of Atlas holding up the world.
Nice to know there aren’t all just blank stares out there when I mention Ayn Rand.
‘Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to become the means by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of other men. Blood, whips and guns–or dollars. Take your choice–there is no other.’
A is A
lgm, nice try …… Rand was supportive of legal immigration… she was adamant in her disgust of the porous borders even in the 40′s, 50′s and 60′s. Oh, I’m an Objectivist. Shall we have a little debate? She was not approving of drug usage since they represented the weakening of the body and ultimately potential intellect. The only thing you are accurate on is the fact that she was an atheist. I can live with an Objectivist atheist more so than a religious liberal.
lgm,
I responded to your elitest drivel
(Blue state = “educated”, Red state = “backward”)
in the “Reaganesque” thread.
What’s that?
I just finished “Atlas Shrugged.” Although I found the book depressing, it was also enlightening. A quote that leaped out when I read it was about people who sponge off others (like the recipients of Obama’s redistribution of wealth): “…whining rotters who never rouse themselves to any effort, who do not possess the ability of a filing clerk, but demand the income of a company president, who drift from failure to failure and expect you to pay their bills, who hold their wishing as an equivalent of your work and their need as a higher claim to reward than your effort … who demand that your strength be the voiceless, rightless, unpaid, unrewarded slave of their impotence…”
You beat me to it!
MNUSMC,
I don’t know what Ayn Rand personally said about immigration or drugs, but the Ayn Rand Institute, which appears to be the most prominent Objectivist organization, makes it clear that they object to any form of restriction on either. I wonder why they would stray so far from Rand’s philosophy.
And just because someone does not “approve” of drug usage because they believe it weakens the mind does not translate into a desire for the government to regulate that activity.
Obama on Green Energy and his initiative to create Green Jobs.
Read Ayn Rands “Return of the Primitive, The anti Industrialist” This movement was born in the 1960s who does Obama surround himself with? Think about the theme Wright America’s chickens are coming home to roost, Ayers- 60s radical, during the campaign.
Perfect. And how timely.
Ayn Rand Institute, Multiculturalism War on Education.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=1076&page=NewsArticle&id=10249
The Green Energy Fantasy
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=22651&news_iv_ctrl=1021
Yes Misscheryl that is true in more ways than one; more than metaphorical to be sure.
****
No lgm Ayn Rand was not a social conservative-she was also an atheist which did bother me. But she did understand and point out the deterioration of the Working Social Contract, a slide into sloth, welfare dependence and class warfare better than most.
You and yours are exactly the social parasites she was warning us to resist. Who is John Galt? I do not know but I am fairly sure he is not a school teacher or a bureaucrat. But thanks for the history lesson.
—
ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
Should be a convenience store
NOT a Government Agency
wighttrasch: Perhaps a non-sequitur? “…a comment which, due to its lack of meaning relative to the comment it follows, is absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing.”
Such as:
rich peasant
smart democrat
conservative news anchor
You get the point…
where did Jonathan Livingston lgm go? Is he fighting for scraps at the tip?
Resist and overcome we will!
One of these days I really should read “Atlas Shrugged” in its entirety.
Unfortunately, I have a handful of other books I want to get through right now before I take on such a large project.
Besides, thus far I am content to have read about Ayn Rand and her views rather than read her entire masterpiece.
Chap:
Right on man! Beat me to it. Let’s start with the herb! *smile* I could never figure out how anyone can justify alcohol being legal and MJ being illegal.
Laree:
From your link, very good stuff. It deserves to be quoted from here for the benefit of those who want follow your link:
The link above that says “Nationwide Strike on Friday” doesn’t work form.
Can someone please tell me what that’s about?
Better PR team.
Chap
I know about the Institute and it’s a great website. They do diverge at various points, but when Rand was alive she held tight control. You can imagine after her death the inner strife at the Society. but I would advise reading her books. They can be a bit intense but no worse than reading Hamilton’s Corporations law text( ugh)
It’s easy to test to see if someone has been drinking. That’s not the case with drugs. Therefore, driving under the influence is harder to prove without tests that cost money and take time.
Then there’s always that pesky business about damaging your body and raising health care costs.
MNUSM,
Like I said, I don’t know what Ayn personally felt. I will defer to your knowledge on the subject. But it does seem peculiar.
John Deaux:
Oh come on that’s just false. You can say the same exact thing about people that abuse over-the-counter drugs. They are still legal.
Furthermore, alcohol is far more damaging to the body then MJ. It’s purely a cultural bias.
Nonsense…
If they are wolfing down cheetos, they are high on pot.
If they look homeless and are scratching their arms and neck, they are high on crack.
If they look homeless, are scratching their arms and neck and are white, they are high on meth.
If they are wearing a suit and keep running to the bathroom, they are high on coke.
Nancy Pelosi.
I did read “Atlas Shrugged”, but couldn’t get through the ponderous “John Galt” speech at the end.
Obama and Congress are coming out with both guns blazing to destroy personal responsibility. It’s of minor importance, a tiny sliver in their world. Welfare is back, propping up failure is back, government regulation, soaking the rich, taxing everyone and everything, is all back, so they can pat themselves on the back. It’s Sowell’s “Vision of the Annointed — Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy”. I’m such a good person, giving to everyone. I’m positively glowing!
Not to mention the fact that MJ smokers drive like 80 yr old grandmothers on a Sunday morning.
Chap:
LOL. Awesome.
Chap…..your last comment….lol now THAT’s peculiar…..lol
Yep – along with the socialists’ assorted mascots and villains.
Did you see a picture of Michael Phelps smoking Preparation H? Ever heard of kids freebasing aspirin?
Didn’t think so.
If cough syrup drinking suddenly went through the roof, don’t you think it would require a prescription? Some medications are already behind the counter.
Tobacco is basically outlawed in nearly every public place, and is the whipping boy of the psuedo-medical folks. Why would you think ‘legalizing’ cannabis would change anything?!
Uhhh….try googling “cough syrup abuse” and get back to me.
It doesn’t even begin to touch the scale of marijuana.
John Deaux:
Cough syrup is often behind the counter. In any case, I was just responding to your point that MJ is illegal because you can’t test for it easily.
Then you have the problem of explaining why dextromethorphan is legal.
In any case, if Michael Phelps wants to smoke some herb, so what? He deserves it, says I!
Think about it a rationally for a minute.
Alcoholics do the following:
Kills families in car accidents
Beat their wives
Beat their kids
Start brawls
Destroy their bodies (liver)
Lose their jobs
and so on…
Potheads:
Get stupid
Lose their jobs
Alcohol (in large quantities, think college frat initiation) can KILL you.
MJ (in massive quantities) will make you go to sleep.
Any violence associated with MJ is because of the very fact that it is illegal, that is, it is related to the illegal trade of the drug and not the drug itself.
Finally, just how much does the government spend on enforcing laws against weed? I read somewhere it is more per year (several times more IIRC) than we spend in the war in the Mid East! Surely there are better things to spend it on, like for example, the war in the Mid East!
John:
…and MJ doesn’t even touch on the scale of alcohol abuse.
Being OK with alcohol and tobacco, but not tolerating the use of “drugs”, is a cultural, traditional, and worldview “thing” that, because it is difficult to put simply, quickly, glibly, and succinctly into words, especially into slogans and soundbites, is so often put on the defensive, and so often subject to ridicule, mockery, and scorn.
It’s not about changing anything it’s about the government ceasing to spend money on trying to control something impossible to control and far less harmful than something that is already legal (alcohol).
What scale? Preponderance of use? Delitorious effects?
Full disclosure: I have never smoked pot in my life.
Alcohol is a pretty deadly drug. Tobacco is a highly addictive (and also in the long term) deadly drug.
You have an open forum here, granite. Use as much time/space as you need.
And note that no one (to my knowledge) is talking about crack or any other hard drugs. Let’s stick to pot.
Exactly. Deadly drugs I am against legalizing. Following that logic, I can make a better case for alcohol being illegal over MJ.
I’d rather talk about the problem people have with me smoking cigarettes.
I’m not a big fan of Rand despite her intellectual, “conservative”, bona fides. Dismissing self-sacrifice, faith, and humility in favor of “reason” is too much to swallow. For all those, including Christians, who vilify the religious nature of liberalism or secular progressivism, Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy is equally religous in its out-working. And it is striking that she seems to hold equal animus for communists and religious believers alike.
I won’t be getting a Who Is John Galt? bumber sticker anytime soon.
Zero,
You said you couldn’t understand why one was legal and the other wasn’t. I’m not saying there aren’t other ways to get high. I’m not saying alcohol is great or there is no problem with cough syrup. I read a story a while back about a guy in a halfway house that drank a bottle of hand sanitizer. Does that mean is should be illegal? No!
What I am saying is that if mj were legalized tomorrow, millions of people would be driving around high tomorrow night and there’s no way the cops could test for it when they pulled them over without doing costly, time consuming tests.
Personally, I don’t really care what people do in the privacy of their home. But once that person gets in their car, they’re endangering me.
John:
Oh come on! Do you honestly think that making something legal will suddenly make people that didn’t smoke it the day before want to smoke it AND get into a car? I’ll submit you might have a initial rise and perhaps an adjustment period, but it’s not going to be like the streets will be filled with potheads.
Furthermore, even if that did happen all you would have is a big traffic jam since everyone will be driving about 5-10 miles an hour.
Besides, you don’t care what a person does at home? So then you are for legalizing weed?
On top of this, I think Ayn Rand is wrong here.
Self-sacrifice, humility, and yes (*gasp*, yes Zero is saying this) faith are IMHO built into the human condition.
They are evolved traits that I believe are coded into our DNA and part of what makes us propigate as a species.
Sometimes, making a self-sacrifice DOES indeed make me happy.
I just finished reading Atlas Shrugged. One of the best books I’ve ever read. That WSJ article is right on — we are living it.
On February 26th, 2009 at 10:11 am, Misscheryl said:
Troll though lgm usually is, he’s right. Ayn Rand was an atheist.
Atlas Shrugged?
More like Atlas rotflhao.
The only reason why the statists haven’t banned tobacco is because of all the tax money they get. (They don’t really give a darn about the farmers or the exports.)
I am predicting that the Dems will ram through either a ban on all tobacco smoking everywhere or will legalize MJ to tax the heck out of it.
I don’t like the idea of MJ being legal, but I don’t think it is so dangerous as all the effort to fight it is implies.
Just because I don’t care, doesn’t mean I endorse it.
John:
It’s not about endorsing it. It is about basically putting a gun to a person’s head and saying you can’t do this even in your own home!
Some people might not “endorse” drinking, doesn’t mean they want it to be illegal.
She was lots of things,
lgm, Little Green Monster, the bottom line here is her book Atlas Shrugged, and her successful illustration of what socialism leads to, and how it destroys civilization!I haven’t even managed to read all of Galt’s speech to the end in a sitting, and have never managed to finish the book.
I am not lazy, or illiterate. It is just a long book, about 900 pages, with fairly small font.
But most everything I have read about it, it seems like a good book.
BTW, does anyone trust Brad Pitt to make a version of any basically conservative novel without bastardizing it?
Anyone remember how Hollywood turned Arab terrorists in a Tom Clancy novel into white supremacists for the movie version?
Holey Moley, DagneyT is a referential nick, isn’t it?
#66
Even a web site…
I have to get one of those “I Am John Galt” bumper stickers.
It is a challenging read, but worth it. This is a good start, in case any of you want to place this plaque in your homes:
“In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man’s proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it’s yours.”
—Atlas Shrugged, Chapter 7 (This is John Galt Speaking)
The producers and creators – go on strike, quit supporting those that seek to consume what you do!
Business support limited government and
only limited government!
This is the national issue that will destroy all that makes us free if we let it!
Easy – Kennedy family is still getting rich from MJ. When prohibition was lifted, the Kennedy family income dried up on alcohol. Gotta keep them in money somehow.
You know, just because of my frustration over the current destructive solcialist government, I decided to try, again, to read Atlas Shrugged.
I promise I will get through it. But it may take a while. It is unbelievably badly written!
It’s curious to me that support for Rand and for Atlas Shrugged is coming from so many conservatives. Rand and Objectivism are as opposed to conservatism as fiercely as to liberalism.
Just as the left wants government to control people via financial means, the right wants government to control people via social means. And it’s only gotten worse over the past 15 years as neoconservatism has allowed the social controls spurred on by religion to become the primary focus over limiting government and increasing economic freedoms. At least in the past, conservatives’ and Republicans’ primary goals were to lower taxes, reduce regulations, and pull government back. Today, it’s all about saying who can marry whom, what a woman can do with a clump of cells in her uterus, rejecting the science of stem cells, and increasing “faith-based” initiatives.
Anyone that professes to follow or subscribe to Rand’s philosophy yet remains pro-religion, “pro-life”, anti-gay marriage, and so many of these other social conservative initiatives proves that they do not understand her philosophy at all.
A previous poster noted that they prefer a religious conservative to a secular liberal. As distasteful as it is to say this, I would choose the secular liberal. The religious conservative represents the worst that the right has to offer in terms of government and rights. At least the secular liberal gets it half right.
And on a personal note, I’m speaking from experience here. I used to be a conservative before I realized that I was being internally inconsistent and that the social side of conservatism was as oppressive to freedom as the economic side of liberalism.
I thought the Kennedy’s income in relation to alcohol dried up because Ted drank up all their inventory. *smile*
Ref. infallible in #73.
Awesome. Seems I have yet another ally on this board. Glad to have you here.
@infallible:
Would you characterize yourself as, say, a free-market libertarian, since the social aspects of conservatism trouble you?
Just curious, no judgements here.
Pianoman, re infallible.
I believe he would characterize himself as an Objectivist, which he/she sounds like. BTW, Objectivists purposefully disclain the Libertarian movement.
I would highly recommend reading Atlas Shrugged. Perhaps “Anthem” is appropriate for those with less time, as it’s only 2-300 pages instead of 1200.
Re Drugs, the Objectivist point is that government may morally only take actions to protect or enforce someone’s rights. Because an individual’s consumption of one substance or another does not infringe anyone else’s rights, the entire field is beyond the scope of governmental power. If you want to smoke crack or drink Drano, knock yourself out. I obviously think doing so is stupid (as did Ayn Rand, re drugs), but that is no reason to limit those actions BY FORCE, i.e. the only method available to government.
Also note, many “hard” drugs such as cocaine can be used without harm (the natives of S.A. used them for centuries, yet their societies didn’t collapse), and even with beneficial effects. Cocaine might be used to accomplish the same ends as a the daily intake of coffee, with less harmful side effects (caffeine can cause coronary problems, dehyrdation, etc). We can’t be certain of the trade-offs though, because such experiments to find out are banned by law.
Infallible #73, I wouldn’t be too suprised. There are a few Objectivists who frequent Michelle’s site for information and viewpoints from the more tradiditonal (free market) conservatives. She’s more rational, consistent, and pro-freedom than Ann Coulter (and any MSM, even Fox), and generally does a bang-up job of blogging. Look around, you’ll see monkers like JohnGalt, DagnyT, etc. posting here.
sclawstudent:
In the interst of accuracy; and please correct me if I am wrong; but ref. S.A. natives, they chewed coca leaves. This is different from refined cocaine.
As you were;
Hehe, “monkers.” Like when monks go bonkers?
*… monikers …”
Errah how come liberals want less controls on drugs and abortions but want tighter controls on our 1st and 2nd ammendment rights? I don’t know if this question is even possible to answer.
Errah a religious liberal is just like a twinky at Michael Moore’s house. Two things that may hypothetically exist but both of which you’ll probably never see.
I cease making love to my tonic and gin to respond to pianoman:
Yeah, that’s as good a label as any. I generally use the term “libertarian” just as an easy out because most people have a sense of what it means. However, if pressed, I generally don’t like the term because there are so many libertarians that are just wrong. In a way, it’s too broad a term.
I’m absolutely a free-market person though. I’m a hardcore laissez-faire capitalist. I’ve yet to see a market intervention that actually made things better.
On a somewhat related note:
Someone earlier compared Rand to Ron Paul, and I think she would bristle with the comparison. (I know I did a bit.) While I certainly like a good deal of what Paul has to say (though I would leave his rabid and nutty followers behind in a heartbeat), the problem with him is that he’s still something of a statist, just on a more localized level. He’s fine with strong state governments, but not a strong federal government. I think that’s absolutely absurd and contradictory. And as for Rand, she disavowed the “libertarian” label completely for the same objections that I harbor. There are anarchists that call themselves “libertarian” as well as the people like Paul that are fine with government, just on local levels. Now, for the most part, I think that those that call themselves “libertarian” are in the right place, which is why I don’t shun the label as she did. But to compare Rand to Paul is a mistake.
infallible:
Did you just recently start posting? I wonder why I can’t recall seeing your posts before. I actively look for and appreciate the input of other “libertarians” here.
zeroangel;
I believe it was Hypocrates that said “The difference between cure and poison is in the dose.”
Yes refined cocaine has more of the relevant chemicals than coca leaves, but that’s just a measurement. To draw on some of Rand’s epistomology, concepts require the omission of measurement. A ladder that has 7 steps instead of 8 steps is still a ladder. A 400mg pill of Tylenol is Tylenol just as much as a 250mg pill. Ditto with cocaine and coca leaves.
The argument that a more refined substance is more potent does not seem to make any point.
sclawstudent:
Just mentioned it for the sake of accuracy. Wouldn’t want any reader to be misinformed and think that S.A. natives have been refining cocaine since pre-history.
However, I guess I would say, I am not so much completely opposed to some level of government control over the sale of refined poisons in the interest of public safety.
How many dance on the head of a pin? That would be zeroangel:
I’ve been trying to get registered for AGES on this board (I’m pretty sure since Michelle implemented the comments system). But I couldn’t get WordPress to send me my password. I kept trying and trying, because it registered my username as being taken and my e-mail as being on file, but I just wouldn’t get the password by e-mail. I finally got one today, and I was thrilled.
Living in Austin, I get to argue with liberals all the time. (And they can be so frakking infuriating, too!) It’s kind of strange having a place where I can argue with conservatives.
Since this is currently on-topic:
I was recently hearing an Q&A by Rand, and someone asked about her position on marijuana. If I had half of her rhetorical ability, I’d be happy, but she correctly said that government has no place regulating what adults put in their body, including the harshest of drugs like heroin, cocaine, or whatever. “Adults are free to kill themselves by whatever means they wish,” was pretty much how she put it. But she made sure to point out that just because she was in favor of legalization, she felt that drug use was morally abhorrent and showed a defective philosophy of the user. And that’s a point which I can’t agree with more.
Let people be stupid and put whatever grade of cocaine they like up their noses or into their veins. Those people are stupid and moronic, but government should not be in this matronly position of telling them what they can and can’t do to themselves.
infallible:
Careful there, that kind of talk will attract the ire of my many detractors on this blog. *smile*
Glad you are here.
I can sympathize with this viewpoint in the strictest philosophical, idealist sense. However, my pragmatic side is insisting to me that some of the harshest stuff should get a smattering of control. Perhaps the government shouldn’t be in this matronly position, however, just a tiniest bit of guidance might be in order. In addition, consider things like PCP. There are certainly certain drugs out there that DO put other non-users at risk by virtue of someone else ingesting them. Actually, alcohol probably falls into that category on some level as well.
Oh now, that’s a tad bit harsh. Christopher Hitchens (I am assuming Rand classified alcohol as a “drug” too), Sam Harris (and many others, including myself) would probably object on that part.
Cheers!
infallible, I join with zeroangel in welcoming you here. I had to wait a while, too, but it was so worth it.
Your preambles to your posts are very creative as well. Wish I’d thought of that!
Zeroangel, I agree with your statement about some drugs needing some sort of intervention because of the hazard to non-users (like PCP). It falls in line with the philosophy of personal freedom being guaranteed up to the point that it infringes upon others’ freedoms. However, I wouldn’t want to be in a room with someone whose brain was soaked in angeldust in order to test that theory.
Hey Zero, infallible, and sclawstudent;
Drug abuse does show a defective philosophy of the user and a desire to drug themselves out of existence. This includes all substance abuse. I’m with zero that we have to enforce some laws with regard to safety because substance abusers operate machinery, drive, are health care workers, etc.
Ayn was not against a celebretory drink now and then but found drunkeness abhorent.
It’s great to see posts by other AR fans and capitalists. Viva!
celebratory drink
sims:
OK, that makes more sense to me.
I wonder, woudl Ayn Rand have objected to someone wanting to toke up every other month or snorting some blow on New Years?
Would that ammount “defective philosophy” or “abuse?”
I would say no.
That is to say, if Chap and his lawyer buddies end up in the village snorting C off the breasts of some hookers (we all know of course that’s what lawyers do after a big win) I don’t think he should go to jail over it.
My first thoughts ran to South African–I assume you meant South American?
See, now, I’d disagree with you, zeroangel, on the necessity to regulate things like PCP. Sure, PCP can cause people to act dangerously, but so can having an engine that can go fast, as can a table saw, as can tasty chocolate. Just because something has the potential to be abused doesn’t mean that it should be regulated.
I suppose that I should clarify that in the Q&A to which I referred, she was talking about people with drug addictions belying a defective philosophy (these are my words, by the way, and not quotes from her). People who use drugs to escape from or alter their perception of reality. So while I have a ton of respect for ole Chris Hitchens, he’s not right about everything. I would argue that drinking to excess to dull senses does, in fact, reveal an aversion and evasion from reality, which I believe is indicative of a defective philosophy.
I won’t presume to speak on behalf of Rand, but speaking for myself, getting high or drunk holds no appeal for me, be it once every other month or on New Year’s. Maybe it’s because I just get lethargic when I drink, though.
Which isn’t to say that I’m opposed to drinking. I enjoy drinking, but not getting drunk or even “buzzed” (which I admit, I find little difference between the two).
Still, speaking for myself, I certainly wouldn’t be has harshly judgmental of someone that infrequently used drugs, but I will say that I would still consider it to be a Bad Thing.
And, sims, I agree with you. However, the sort of control you’re talking about doesn’t have to come from government. You don’t need a sweeping outlaw of drugs to prevent people from performing an operation while high. I contend that it’s the employer’s responsibility, not government’s, to maintain a competent workforce, and I would certainly hope that a hospital or factory would send someone home if they showed up to work drunk or high, just as if they showed up unable to properly work for other reasons (like illness).
Even ignoring the issue of individual rights violations, the problem with drug laws is that they don’t work. How much effort, time, and money has been spent in the misnamed “drug war?” We just end up with police going after individuals for making a free choice to put things in their bodies rather than keeping communities safe from real crime. We have jails that are overstuffed with these same people. We have the creation of a black market and violent criminal organizations to support the illegal trade. Not to mention that drug use is more dangerous when it’s illegal and it brings more violence. Regulations just don’t work, whether big or small. We saw it during Prohibition, and we see it now.
Ah, frak! I need to learn how to make shorter posts.
THANK GOD!!!
infallible:
I think I agree with you in principle. However:
Well, it is illegal to go very fast. Perhaps taking too much PCP should be regulated?
As far drugs being “bad,” I generally think there is a time and place for it (it’s called college). That said, I’ve heard that some have certain “spiritual” effects that some might say have had a positive effect on thier life.
I want to post more but I have an appointment I am running late for. BBL.
From on high, zeroangel sung:
See, I’d say that it should be illegal to go on PCP and beat somebody up. But it shouldn’t be illegal to go on PCP and break all your fine china. Or go on PCP and run around the house.
Just as it should be illegal to eat that tasty chocolate and beat somebody up. But it shouldn’t be illegal to eat tasty chocolate and break all your fine china, etc.
The crime shouldn’t be taking PCP on its own. The crime should come from any violations after.
The difference is that the causal link between violent crime and someone hopped up on PCP is entirely predicable.
infallible:
What chap said. To add, following your train of thought, one might be able to say it shouldn’t be illegal to drive very fast as long as you don’t ruin someone else’s day. Unfortunately, it’s entirely predictable that driving very fast will ruin someone else’s day.
Drugs are illegal to prevent druggies from drugging young people. If someone slips PCP into your drink how will you prove that you did not want to take it?