Forcing an individual to help themselves

Dean,

I don't want to quibble. To start with, I never said knock a person out. You took that and ran with it to God knows where.

I said slug somebody drowning to calm them down. This is a pretty well known phenomenon. I'm stunned you have never heard of it. Anyway, that is initiating force.

Michael

Post 21

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 9:43pm

I've heard it before on this forum, probably from you. Now I'm debating that its not a good decision. You say its a "commonplace occurrence", but I've never seen it in practice or heard of anyone in real life that has actually used such a strategy.

Post 22

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 10:33pm

Agree with you Dean - sounds like something lifted from a grade 'B' movie of the 30's.......

Post 23

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 10:41pm

Dean,

You didn't hear it from me before, as this is the first time I ever mentioned it. I knew some tourists in Brazil where something similar happened. They were skin diving and the instructor had to hit one under water to stop the panic.

Also, in my own life, I had an occasion to put force to good use. My wife at that time had a rare uterus infection that was spreading quickly. Her parents were in denial mode, thinking that losing 30 kilos in one month was normal. They made a strong campaign in her head that she didn't need to go to the hospital. After exhausting every argument at my disposal over days and days of bickering and watching the disease progress, I got fed up and did a John Wayne on her. I literally picked her up over my shoulder, carried her to the car, threw her in, slammed the door and told her to shut up. I then took her to the hospital - mad as hell boiling over. She had to be operated on quickly. We were later informed that another day or two waiting would have been fatal. She thanks me to this day for saving her life (by initiating force).

Michael

Post 24

Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 9:30am

I have lifeguard, water safety instructor, and lifeguard instructor certifications and have for almost 20 years. It is commonplace for a drowning person to panic, which can risk pulling a would-be rescuer under water. This is why virtually all courses instruct rescuers *not* to go near a drowning person if at all possible. There is a popular rule called "Reach, Throw, Row, Go" which means physically going in after a drowning person is the last resort. Instead, rescuers should use a rescue tube or even a stick, pole, or some bouyant object as a rescue device. A drowning person can grab onto these and can be pulled to safety. The old-school underarm tow is not really the latest in rescue technology.

In the last-course-of-action situation, if you must "go in" after a drowning person, approach slowly and calmly. If the victim cannot be calmed by explaining your intentions and grabs on, a rescuer can usually handle this by going under the water themselves. A drowning person does not want to go under the water. If all else fails and a drowning person is in danger of pulling a rescuer under, just wait - they will thrash about until they are too tired to do it anymore or will lose consciousness, at which point you can remove them to safety. I have never been advised to punch someone in the face, or "knock them out" in any fashion. I think it is more of an old-wives tale kind of thing. It seems like it could really set someone up for a lawsuit, especially if the rescue was unsuccessful and the person actually drowned while unconscious. I wouldn't try it.

P.S. If I were panicking for any reason, I don't think there's any instance where punching me in the face would make me feel more calm.
(Edited by Ashley Frazier
on 3/02, 9:31am)

Post 25

Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 9:39am

Ashley,

Knocking someone out (if it were even possible under water) is Dean's idea. Shocking a person is another matter. That does have a calming effect.

I will not argue with your credentials, though. You're an expert.

Still, I know the history I have led.

Michael

Post 26

Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 9:47am

but Bob, at this time, in the here and now, all the knowledge about these products and drugs is freely and readily known and available to all, therefore you would have to posit some new drug or device, which would then have to be marketed by some company in order to have a case that fraud was used. I won't comment on the tobacco issue because it is too personal for you, and perhaps that is one reason why it is hard to be objective. However, the fact is that in today's world there is a large amount of information available on so many things to all adults (and I do differentiate minors) that ignorance is no excuse for making a bad decision. At this point, any such ignorance is willful.
(Edited by Kurt Eichert on 3/02, 3:34pm)

Post 27

Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 9:50am

Michael:

Just be sure and try throwing them an empty ice chest first :-)

I am not an expert in the area of having a panicked person grab me, it has never happened. I don't think I have ever physically touched anyone over about 5 years old having trouble in the water. In the most dangerous and exciting rescue of my life, when a drunk moron decided to swim in a river when the dam was overflowing, the most I did was yell at him to hold onto a life jacket while I pulled him along a static line to safety. Although I should confess that I broke the rescue rules by tying myself to this guy, putting myself at great risk. And if it had turned out badly I might well have punched him in the face, and then cut him loose to drown.

Post 28

Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 10:05am

Ashley,

As an aside, I once was friends with an associate of a guy in Brazil who gave lessons in making love underwater with an oxygen tank on. (I am pretty sure he held classes in Fortaleza, but I'm not certain - at least it was in one of the large Northeastern coastal cities.) He had all kinds of problems with the local authorities and the Ministry of Education even stepped in. I don't know if he is still in business.

There is a large number of deaths by drowning in Brazil of people who engage in underwater sex without proper training. This figure is available, but it is hard to get at. The authorities do not like this kind of statistic.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 3/02, 10:07am)

Post 29

Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 1:46pm

Kurt Wrote:

but Bob, at this time, in the here and now, all the knowledge about these products and drugs is freely and readily known and available to all, therefore you would have to posit some new drug or device, which would then have to be marketed by some company in order to have a case that fraud was used. I won't comment on the tobacco issue because it is too personal for you, and perhaps that is one reason why it is hard to be objective. However, the fact is that in today's world there is a large amount of information available on so many things to all adults (and I do differentiate minors) that ignorance is no excuse for making a bad decision. At this point, and such ignorance is willful

I fundamentally agree with most of this, BUT it is still an oversimplification. My main point is that addiction changes things, and you have not commented on this. It makes it much more difficult to correct mistakes. Anyone who starts smoking now, at least as an adult, is incredibly foolish in the face of all the freely available evidence, I totally agree. This was historically not the case though. Tobacco companies knew the truth and denied it for a very long time. In any case, adults in general don't start smoking, kids do - but I digress.

Addiction is force. It makes the sale of addictive products that have overwhelmingly more negative consequences than positive, a predatory thing to do. Even if the person is willing initially, stopping is a big problem. Rational thought and action becomes very difficult. Selling further product to this addicted person is an intiation of force, and I do think I'm being objective about that.

Bob

Post 30

Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 7:48pm

Bob wrote:

Addiction is force. It makes the sale of addictive products that have overwhelmingly more negative consequences than positive, a predatory thing to do. Even if the person is willing initially, stopping is a big problem. Rational thought and action becomes very difficult. Selling further product to this addicted person is an initiation of force, and I do think I'm being objective about that.

If we go this route then what is to stop us from also holding the makers of alcohol liable; or the makers of prescription painkillers that people become addicted to and abuse; how about people who are supposedly addicted to food?

Where is the personal responsibility of the person who finds themselves addicted to either quit on their on or find help if that is what it takes?

What company forces someone to walk into a store and purchase the addiction of their choice?

Post 31

Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 7:52pm

Addiction is force. It makes the sale of addictive products that have overwhelmingly more negative consequences than positive, a predatory thing to do. Even if the person is willing initially, stopping is a big problem. Rational thought and action becomes very difficult. Selling further product to this addicted person is an intiation of force, and I do think I'm being objective about that.

I completely disagree. Its your own fault if you choose to experiment with some new product and later you discover that you are addicted to it. Now, if someone made a new product, and said it was the same as an old product, but the new product was addictive and the old one was not, then I'd consider that a crime.

Post 32

Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 8:52pm

Bob Mac,

I had not been reading your posts until the word "addiction" popped out in the corner of my eye. Then I started going back and reading them.

Objectivists and Libertarians generally support elimination of all drug laws. As I am a recovered addict and alcoholic (to the extent one can use the term "recovered" for addiction), I have such a different view on this that I usually avoid comment with Objectivists and libertarians. (I wrote some articles on this earlier and the hostility from certain quarters was just not productive.) Those who have not been there simply don't know and I even encountered one libertarian who found his way out via Szasz, but he thinks that his way is valid for everybody. Although I am extremely happy for him that he found a way out, his way is not the only way. This is a very complicated subject.

I found your equating addiction with force to be a very interesting idea.

I recently came across a concept called "neural pathway" which is deepening certain convictions I already held from experience. Apparently a neural connection that does not exist can be created artificially with a substance or electricity. Once created, it never goes away entirely, but it can weaken from disuse.

The standard example used in teaching this concept is wiggling your ears. Most people cannot do this and have no idea of how to make their scalp muscles contract to make the ears wiggle. There are documented experiments where subjects are rigged up with electrodes that stimulate the appropriate muscles to contract. After the juice is turned on and the person learns how it "feels," he can do it by himself instantly. A "neural pathway" was created.

Craving is like that.

Thus addiction actually mutilates the normal neural pathway system by chemically creating extremely strong pathways that "drown out" the others when they are triggered. Sort of like a deep cut.

So in this sense, addiction is force. Mutilation is force, even if it is of a neural pathway.

(I will leave how such force is initiated to you and your friends here. Good luck on that!)

Michael

Edit: I sanctioned L W Hall by mistake. I agree only in part with what he said, as there is a lot left out. The mistake came from the fact that it was late and I mistakenly thought his post was another I had just read by Bob Mac.

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 3/02, 8:56pm)

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 3/03, 7:15am)

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 3/03, 9:21am)

Post 33

Friday, March 3, 2006 - 6:28am

Addiction is surely a change in the way your brain works, it changes what your goals and needs are. Woop-te-doo, plenty of things do that. The question is: Was it fraud, or were you a consensual lab rat?

Post 34

Friday, March 3, 2006 - 6:57am

L W Wrote:

Where is the personal responsibility of the person who finds themselves addicted to either quit on their on or find help if that is what it takes?

What company forces someone to walk into a store and purchase the addiction of their choice?

I did not say, nor do I agree with the notion that the consumer has no responsibility. My point, put another way is that is an oversimplification, and in my estimation, it is objectively wrong to put the ENTIRE responsibility on the consumer. It is not an either/or situation and the responsibility is shared. Addiction will change in a big way a person's ability to be rational. Addiction in my opinion is an indirect type of force as is fraud - different, but similar as well.

Bob

Edit: to be more clear: Addiction CAN be used as a form of force. Addiction is in and of itself, not neccesarily an example of force, and in that way is different than fraud.

(Edited by Mr Bob Mac on 3/03, 7:18am)

Post 35

Friday, March 3, 2006 - 7:07am

Dean Wrote:

Addiction is surely a change in the way your brain works, it changes what your goals and needs are. Woop-te-doo, plenty of things do that. The question is: Was it fraud, or were you a consensual lab rat?

So, you admit that it changes the whole goals/needs thing but then dismiss it? Now it only matters if it there was false pretenses? You gotta check your logic here.

Are you consensual? The first time? Every time? In the throws of addiction, are you consensual when you know the damage it's doing and are convinced that you are powerless (or at least it seems this way) to stop? The supplier knows this, understands the damage its doing, understands how difficult it is to stop, yet still makes bucketloads of money when they provide the consumer with the product. This is not indirect force, but fraud is? Woop-te-do? Bullshit.

Bob

Post 36

Friday, March 3, 2006 - 7:14am

MSK:

Objectivists and Libertarians generally support elimination of all drug laws. As I am a recovered addict and alcoholic (to the extent one can use the term "recovered" for addiction), I have such a different view on this that I usually avoid comment with Objectivists and libertarians. (I wrote some articles on this earlier and the hostility from certain quarters was just not productive.) Those who have not been there simply don't know and I even encountered one libertarian who found his way out via Szasz, but he thinks that his way is valid for everybody. Although I am extremely happy for him that he found a way out, his way is not the only way. This is a very complicated subject.

I get frustrated with folks who think that to be rational/objective means that the answer is either black or white, 0 or 1. It is not necessarily the case of course. Putting the entire responsibility on the consumer and none on the supplier in every case, is simply illogical - pure and simple. I am happy to hear you are recovered, many are not as fortunate.

Bob

Post 37

Friday, March 3, 2006 - 8:06am

So, you admit that it changes the whole goals/needs thing but then dismiss it? Now it only matters if it there was false pretenses? You gotta check your logic here.

I agree that addiction does change a person's goals and perceived needs. Whether or not it was a crime depends on whether it was fraud or consensual. I am checking my logic. It would be ridiculous for me to desire that the government used force to make sure that what it determined was addictive or destructive to me was made illegal to be distributed to me when I consent to use it.

Are you consensual? The first time?

The first time: depends on whether it was fraud.

Every time?

Depends on whether it was fraud.

In the throws of addiction, are you consensual when you know the damage it's doing and are convinced that you are powerless (or at least it seems this way) to stop?

Now here's the contradiction: you say that you are not consensual, and then you, out of your own free will, go and buy it and use it. Multiple personality disorder? Dissociative personality disorder? You think the drive for the destructive drug is not you, but your rational drive to live and enjoy your life is you? That's bogus. You are both.

The supplier knows this, understands the damage its doing, understands how difficult it is to stop, yet still makes bucketloads of money when they provide the consumer with the product. This is not indirect force, but fraud is?

Suppliers know they sell products that could potentially destroy the user's goals all the time. Its the user's responsibility to make sure they know what the product is and how to use it in a way that will help them achieve their goals. Its the producer/trader's responsibility to make sure they do not commit fraud by telling the user lies about what they are trading.

Post 38

Friday, March 3, 2006 - 9:21am

Bob - I thought the concept I had and the one used to an extent on liquor and cigarettes was a good solution. The consumer has the right to know what can happen, so we have warning labels. There are taxes on the product that are fairly high, these should be specifically earmarked for addiction programs and the like. My only argument is against criminalization and throwing some poor schmuck who has some drugs in his pocket into jail for years. Some kind of force = taxes and restrictions IS justified precisely because of the issues you mention. However, that level of force is not the same as the extreme levels currently used.

Post 39

Friday, March 3, 2006 - 9:57am