Tag: immoral

Legalizing All Drugs is Morally and Practically Beneficial

By Indri Schaelicke | United States

Since the passage of the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, the War on Drugs has destroyed countless lives. This campaign often oversteps constitutional restrictions to searches and seizures without warrants or probable cause. Worse than this, however, is the pain it inflicts upon families. For mere use of an illicit substance, the state takes people away from their loved ones.

Continue reading “Legalizing All Drugs is Morally and Practically Beneficial”

Advertisements

Drug Prohibition is Not the Government’s Responsibility

By Andrew Lepore | United States

Drug prohibition is the attempt to do the impossible through the mechanism of violence. Drug prohibition is The attempt to quell the vices passions of man do the iron fist of the state. The Tyranny of the drug war has Ruined millions of lives, torn apart families, destroyed communities, built the largest prison population in human history, and in the process, cost taxpayers billions.

Despite its inefficiencies and impossibilities, those factors are not the underlying problem of drug prohibition. As it’s supporters will say “Are just going to legalize violent crime because it’s impossible to fully stop?”

No, the main problem with the drug war is the total immorality of it. A great hypocrisy of the state is that what would be done by individuals or by the private sector that would be seen as immoral when done by the government or the public sector is seen as not only justified but fully moral. Drug prohibition is a prime example of this phenomenon. Given some critical thought, anybody can see that the war on drugs is unapologetically immoral.

The entire war on drugs is based on the assumption that we do not own our bodies, and we are not directly responsible for the consequences of our actions. The very nature of the drug war assumes that we need some politician or bureaucrat to write a law telling us what we can and can’t put in our bodies.

If you ask any person on the street if they own themselves, and the consequences of their actions, 99% will say yes. So why is it that most people support drug prohibition? Why is it that people will like acknowledge self ownership and direct responsibility for self action, yet believe that there should be a strong centralized government around to throw people in a cage that make risky decisions?

Another pure moral hypocrisy of drug prohibition is the underlying mechanism of enforcement. If you ask any individual on the street if initiating violence is a moral means to achieve in end, most people will say of course not. Yet again most people support drug prohibition which uses this underlying mechanism, the initiation of violence.

A sovereign individual using the substance of his or her choice, regardless of its Unfavorability, is not hurting anybody else. Now of course if that person goes out and Hurts another individual or steals another individual’s property, that person has now initiated force and has become a different story. But the action of simply using a substance is a peaceable action, and attempting to forcefully stop that by enforcement of the law is an initiation of violence and morally unacceptable.

Imagine if such action was engaged upon in the private sector. Imagine if some individual or company went around and started arresting people and throwing them in cages for eating at McDonald’s. Better yet, these people were saying it is for the benefit of the people they are arresting because McDonald’s is extremely unhealthy.

What if they started arresting McDonald’s employees for distributing unhealthy food and locking them in human cages for decades on end and claiming it was for the betterment of society. Would this be morally acceptable? Only if carried out by the state Because it’s okay for only it’s employees to use violence I guess.

People must stop believing that use of force when carried out by the state is absolutely any different than when carried out by private individuals or groups. The drug war is just one area, be it a large one, that this problem plagues the opinions of the population.

Elon Musk Leaves Facebook Following Data Collection

By Mike McCosker | United States

Elon Musk, the founder and CEO of SpaceX , Tesla , Neuralink , the Boring Company, and the former CEO of Paypal, has left Facebook. 1 Musk also deleted the public Facebook pages for both Tesla and SpaceX after learning that Facebook gave the private information of 50 million users to a political data firm. The political data firm, Cambridge Analytica, was hired by President Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign to help identify and influence voters. 2 Only 270,000 of the 50 million profile users consented to participation in the data collection. 3

Elon Musk’s reaction to this sort of illegal and unethical behavior was to delete the pages of his two largest companies and his personal account. Musk deleted those accounts because he distrusts the way Facebook handles consumer data, and stated that, “[Facebook] Gives me the willies.” 4 There has been a growing trend on various social media platforms, to delete Facebook the data scandal. This trend is commonly identified by the hashtag #deletefacebook.

Musk’s decision to leave Facebook comes shortly after a recent incident, in which Kylie Jenner left the Snapchat, causing the company to lose over $1 billion in stock value. 5 Jenner’s example should cause social media giants to try and retain celebrities. Elon Musk, while not in Hollywood, is a celebrity, and his loss from Facebook will cost the social media giant millions of dollars.


Featured image source.