A new ridiculous EU law - for whom it may concern

Solarflare not wanting to get off topic... Hilarious! (This is the discussion forum, if anyone hasn't peeked over at the "Where are we from" thread...) And I don't really think it is off topic. It is, in my opinion, a good example of where laws may be good intentioned but fail miserably in their goal. The great philosophers Trey Parker and Matt Stone recently gave a great commentary about this in one of their televised shows...

My point about drugs is not that they do not often hurt our society. But that there are numerous drugs nearly everyone uses (caffeine, aspirin), some drugs that are useful in medical contexts, and some drugs that are useful in religious contexts. Nearly every chemical is a poison in large quantities and useful in smaller quantities. This is the foundation of pharmacokinetics. Drugs, by definition, alter our metabolism, and finding uses for a particular alteration is the realm of pharmacology.

I personally have been on anti-depressants at one point in my life. This is a class of drugs that alters one's thought patterns, and is related to many sacramental drugs (Banisteriopsis caapi comes to mind). The real analagous point is, should self-medication be legal? Or should it be controlled (the prescription paradigm)? Or outlawed completely? I see this as completely analagous to CD copying for personal fair-use (controlled = copied through legal copy channels after verification of use). These same options have been presented in the context of CD copying in the past. The problem that arises from the final two options is the one I alluded to earlier: privacy issues.

All I am asking for is a consistent position. If there are specific distinctions, they are valid points, but it is my position that the specifics in these cases do not warrant differences in response.

Well, with a foundation from my last post, here's how I will respond to that:

The lawmakers must determine, then, whether a given drug will be more detrimental to the society (and often, in turn, the indivicual) or helpful (such as aspirin). Some drugs are helpful but must be used correctly; that is why they're prescription. There has always been a controversy over whether marijuana should be legal. This stems from the issue stated three sentences ago. Do its medicinal properties outweigh its problems? The answer is questionable (no pun intended, honest, I swear).

Just as the question of whether to allow copy for personal use is a valid critique of a law?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by galathaea
Just as the question of whether to allow copy for personal use is a valid critique of a law?

---

Not even close to the same thing! "Personal use" is so darn vague. If you want to have music to listen to, isn't that personal use? But don't companies sell CDs for precisely that purpose? By your logic they shouldn't even sell CDs at all! You see, if a million people use aspirin, no harm done. But if a million people download a song or an album, then you're robbing (see previous posts) someone. Very different.

Clarification: personal fair-use. I thought we were on the same page here from my previous posts. The original post is concerned not with the old laws (which already protect against copy for a new user), but a law against fair-use copy of already owned media to CDs for one's car, etc.

Here's an interesting link for those of you who think the RIAA are fat, old, and greedy businessmen.

http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html

And The Register story that led me there...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/28588.html

Quote:

---

Originally posted by solarflare
Okay, since you asked, here's one reason that governments ban drug usage.

The government is (theoretically) made so that the society can be more productive and orderly. The people who do drugs, on average, are much less productive (many addicts don't have jobs) and orderly (in their distorted reality it is easier for them to get in a fight or destroy something, etc.). It is intuitively clear that to improve the average you must eliminate something below the average. People on drugs are not being the best they can be. If they didn't do drugs they would be more productive, leading to a "better" society. The emphasis is on the whole here, not the individual, because government is meant to improve the whole. Therefore, they ban drugs.

---

Tastes a bit totalitarism aint it ? I didn't involve The Matrix for no reason it seems, somehow you give me the idea that actually the purpose of life is to be productive ? Remember the sequence when Morpheus tells Neo that the whole purpose of human existence has been put into...and he shows a Duracell battery...Can I be anymore informative ? :)

And now you too are saying that society needs to be productive. But i think you got it the wrong way around. Government WANTS society to be productive, but society wants to be happy. THats all there is to it. I know, i am not arguing with you, because you yourself said that it is the governements will not society's , but you are saying this like it HAS to be that way, and I strongly disagree with that.

'Government' is a tricky word - it implies we need or want or do get 'governed'. This of course implies that government decides why people live and what should they do with their lives.

Thanks but, no thanks. The whole purpose of existence is to be happy, and let others be happy. THe goal is utopical, but keeping it in sight helps to work towards it, and not towards being productive. Productive for what ? I understand being productive towards happiness of others, poor, enslaved and tortured f.e. But i am sure it is not what it means in this context.

P.S. Just wanted to say as well, that it is extremely interesting to continue this discussion with you guys! I haven't had so many contradictive and dynamic thoughts in my head for a while.

Amn, there has been much research on the types of societies associated with various recreational drugs. Its no coincidence that societies that use exclusively caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco tend to be agressive, industrial societies (or populations controlled by such)...

And to keep this point going, I have known several older Indian men (from India) that used marijuana regularly as a part of their meditations. These were professional men (mathematicians -- well, one physicist) who hurt no one (not even themselves). But implicitly, the state was holding a gun to their head their entire lives here in the US. They were adults trying to enjoy their life the way they saw fit. This is not some theoretical notion here that philosophers only should contemplate, this is real life, and we, as adults, need to make real life decisions as to the use of force in our society...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Amn
Government WANTS society to be productive, but society wants to be happy. THats all there is to it. I know, i am not arguing with you, because you yourself said that it is the governements will not society's

---

Good, you saved me the hassle of pointing this out ;)

Quote:

---

but you are saying this like it HAS to be that way, and I strongly disagree with that.

---

No, what I mean is it tends to become that way.

Quote:

---

'Government' is a tricky word - it implies we need or want or do get 'governed'. This of course implies that government decides why people live and what should they do with their lives.

---

If you want to get into government, it's a bit more philosophical than copying CDs and the like. If you want to, fine; but I assure you I can argue this point too.

Quote:

---

Thanks but, no thanks. The whole purpose of existence is to be happy, and let others be happy. THe goal is utopical, but keeping it in sight helps to work towards it, and not towards being productive. Productive for what ? I understand being productive towards happiness of others, poor, enslaved and tortured f.e. But i am sure it is not what it means in this context.

---

The group and the individual have different needs. The group needs to be "productive" so that it can claim itself to be better than some other group. This of course is the natural competitiveness tendency. The idea that the goal of life for the individual is happiness has been played with quite a lot by famous philosophists. While I'm not quite sure (if I knew I'd tell you;)) what the goal of life is, this one seems to be a possibility. Note that happiness is one type of productivity.

Quote:

---

P.S. Just wanted to say as well, that it is extremely interesting to continue this discussion with you guys! I haven't had so many contradictive and dynamic thoughts in my head for a while.

---

Sorry, or you're welcome... not sure which! :D:cool:

Now, I might as well get a jump start on where I think this conversation is headed.:eek:

Keep in mind what I said before, the needs of the individual are not the same as the needs of the group. What is good for one is often good for the other, although this is not always the case. Governments are originally established to give the majority safety and security, and in doing so they strengthen the group. All governments are theoretically supposed to do this - otherwise they would not have originally be set up. If it is a government installed by a minority of people, it is essentially a vigilante and not a true government regardless of what services it renders. Some leaders abuse the government installed before their time. They lead for power, not for the good of the people. In some instances, where not ruling in favor of the majority is harmless, leaders continue to gain power in a positive feedback manner. This is when the abilities and purposes of government get distorted. All of a sudden, when this happens, the government can do whatever it want without being stopped. This is how World War II started, being the most (in)famous example. There are many examples of this, however, throughout Africa, the Middle East, and other third-world areas.

I cannott post :|
It logs me in on each page i visit, and I cannot go past that point ?!

P.S. I ll edit this post with something meaningful later when i fix the bizarre login problem .... Until then, enjoy the discussion.

Milk and cookies anyone ? :p

I have been away just one day and this thread has gone off topic without me causing it. This may be ironic, but I do request you pay me copy-rights for violating this method patented by me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Amn
Tastes a bit totalitarism aint it ? I didn't involve The Matrix for no reason it seems, somehow you give me the idea that actually the purpose of life is to be productive ? Remember the sequence when Morpheus tells Neo that the whole purpose of human existence has been put into...and he shows a Duracell battery...Can I be anymore informative ? :)

---

You really seem to take that movie seriously now do you? For some it's Star Wars, for others Star Trek or Lord of the Rings, but I never thought this movie also. Some wisdom from a young fool : reality may suck, but it's real. And the meaning of life is the meaning you give to it, because it has no inherent meaning.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Amn
And now you too are saying that society needs to be productive.

---

So?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Amn
But i think you got it the wrong way around. Government WANTS society to be productive, but society wants to be happy.

---

I don't see any contradiction : of course governments want society to be productive, society needs to be productive otherwise mankind would never have progressed out of the Stone Age and societies want to be happy as every individual in it wants too. Oh and by the way, according to some (very wicked evil) people (sent from hell) like Margareth Tatcher, society doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Amn
'Government' is a tricky word - it implies we need or want or do get 'governed'. This of course implies that government decides why people live and what should they do with their lives.

---

You conclude that having a government implies that the government decides why people live and what to do with their lives? No wonder you accuse people of totalitarism out of the blue. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Amn
Thanks but, no thanks. The whole purpose of existence is to be happy, and let others be happy. THe goal is utopical, but keeping it in sight helps to work towards it, and not towards being productive. Productive for what ? I understand being productive towards happiness of others, poor, enslaved and tortured f.e. But i am sure it is not what it means in this context.

---

Let me doubt that one. As stated before, my opinion is that existence has no purpose other than the one we give to it. If you think that is being happy (as most people, others want to get rich or think its synomymous), fine, than that's the purpose of your life. As for the rest of your sentence : it is rather fuzzy and unclear.

Reporting from my Belgian citizen pod underneath Eurodisney, yours truly, Simon666.

I dont consider myself paranoid, Simon, nor should you (consider me one).

I never explicitly express that there is some predefined objective or subjective opinionated meaning of life. I agree with you - there is none, life is what you make of it.

You should open your eyes to the true meaning of government. While, we may like to be fooled into believing our government is us, and our goals and desires, it is seldom so. Throughout the history, nation governments and parlaments have only fractionally supported its people, while the power of dictators or alike had arisen and mislead the public to believe that it (public) actually NEEDS to to something with their lifes. Like i said, there is no meaning of life, but to be happy, while we are led to believe there is some sort of meaning. How about all the ideologies that have been written into histroy books - communism, totalitarism, nationalism, fascism - all they are merely an attempt to give a meaning of life. All of them promote a way of living, while any INDIVIDUAL ALONE will realize only after matter of minutes that it is of pure boredom and unknowingness that we 'write' our own history.


One more thing: Whatever stands behind wanting to get rich, wanting to kill, wanting to steal, wanting to create terror - the groundbreaking truth is, desire to be happy is behind THEM ALL. Happiness is the ultimate goal of concious beings IMHO. THats why I put it as a cornerstone here. HOW you want to get happy, is anotehr thing however, and is the reason of the whole told above.

Quote:

---

So ?

---

So what ? Somehow i got the impresion that solarflare thinks society needs to be productive, and I stated so. If I am wrong he will correct me. I am not enforcing this thought upon you nor him :-) Besides, as I think that society itself THINKS it needs to be productive by collective thought, it strengthes my opinion even more. After all, we all hear the "When i grow up...", "I am tired of doing nothing..." and "My son doesn't do anything in his spare time..." - This is all the historically-enforced delusion that we are or supposed to be heading somewhere, that there is this thing called "progress"..All it led to is increased awareness, increased fear, increased risk and increased complication of life. Who said people in stone age lived badly ? Yes they were more vulnerable and more frequently assimilated, but on the other hand, they didn't have to wake up 0700 to go to work to get food to eat to get to work to get food to eat to be able to work more towards the delusive light at the end of the tunnel which says "The meaning of life, the end of progress". You and I , Simon, are in fact sharing the same idea that there is no meaning with life, yet you cant understand why i object the society needing to be productive ? For the same reason as you - there is no meaning with life, for individual or any given group of individuals.

Quote:

---

Reporting from my Belgian citizen pod underneath Eurodisney, yours truly, Simon666.

---

LOL !

dAMNIT, I am not a Matrix paranoid.. It was just for fun, and it got farther than i thought OK ?! :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Amn
I dont consider myself paranoid, Simon, nor should you (consider me one).
dAMNIT, I am not a Matrix paranoid.. It was just for fun, and it got farther than i thought OK ?!

---

I was just joking. I tend to make fun of people that take movies more serious than I do. :D Belgians are not actually encapsulated underneath Eurodisney, everybody (who's not in the conspiracy) knows its underneath the Eiffeltower. :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Amn
I never explicitly express that there is some predefined objective or subjective opinionated meaning of life. I agree with you - there is none, life is what you make of it.

---

Glad. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Amn
You should open your eyes to the true meaning of government. While, we may like to be fooled into believing our government is us, and our goals and desires, it is seldom so.

---

Well? :rolleyes: I've figured that one out long before and apparently long before you did. Every grown up (and even a lot of people who are not considered so) knows that governments rarely "represent the people", even in democracies. I do not need to "open my eyes".

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Amn
So what ? Somehow i got the impresion that solarflare thinks society needs to be productive, and I stated so.

---

I think I urgently need to make something clear to you : A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK THAT WAY. Not just solarflare and me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Amn
Who said people in stone age lived badly ?

---

Me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Amn
Yes they were more vulnerable and more frequently assimilated, but on the other hand, they didn't have to wake up 0700 to go to work to get food to eat to get to work to get food to eat to be able to work more towards the delusive light at the end of the tunnel which says "The meaning of life, the end of progress".

---

They got to die at 21, so I'm three years behind my "Stone Age Expiration Date".

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Amn
You and I , Simon, are in fact sharing the same idea that there is no meaning with life, yet you cant understand why i object the society needing to be productive ? For the same reason as you - there is no meaning with life, for individual or any given group of individuals.

---

If you think most people believe that society does not need to be productive, you're free to open a poll on that one. I think the results would surprise you.

Stone age was too far of a comparision, ahem. What I meant is we dont need to go blind for the end of the progress line, stopping somewhere in the golden balance point is best. That was the point - to note that its not necesserarly better in the future than it was in the past. Millions of people dies of wars fought for some sick idea that helped not a single soul.

Ok, since you think that society needs to be productive, just, as you state, the rest thinks so too I should clear that we are talking about two kinds of being productive. As being productive is abstract, we should clarify what is it we should be productive towards ? What i mean is that productive in nowadays is misused to mislead public into taking the goals of some elected government sickos to reach their goals. Such forms include, communist party forcing people to produce weapons, propaganda literature, and rewriting history in school books to favour the advances of communistic structure and culture. Being productive yes, but NOT being productive for oneself. Being productive as I DESIRE it, is being a productive individual, reach ones goals in life, dont be ambitious, as you never know when death comes for you, help others, for not all are so fortunate as you are in some aspects of existence. That is being productive if you ask me.
Not being productive to promote your land. That is nationalism. And it goes farther to being faschism, and even furtther to holocaust. Fascists wanted to be more productive in their assimilation of jews, so they built a couple more concentration camps. Can you with great deal of confidence say, that they didn't do it for their own best ? No. Because they thought they did.

So both you and me think we all need to be productive. We just put different meaning into our expressions. I cant be productive for my government, if I with open heart know that I dont serve majority in my being productive, and that I serve someones hidden agenda. No thanks. Do you think you would ? I am sure you will say no, and then I ask you, how can you justify your response to the government ? When they ask you to join armed forces, would you comply ? What if they are preparing an invasion, and not peacekeeping mission. Then you are part of it, part of someone elses sick interest. You are sure being productive, but in the wrong direction.

So if I make a poll, it wont have two options. Then I can as well make a poll "Do you want to be happy?" - equally meaningless, since deeper meaning is "Through what actions?".

Eh, I get too confrontal on this, so I just shut up until I cool down... :) No offense meant to anyone. Important discussions are a drug. :p