So we’ve been looking at what it takes to have a congruent philosophy for prosperity. And the last few days there’s been some spirited debate because I said that if your philosophy were congruent, you would support the legalization of drugs and sex workers.
The reason being of course, if you try to legislate your morals, beliefs or feelings on other people, you are restricting their right to seek happiness. Most of you understand the logic, although a few readers couldn’t seem to overcome their personal feelings and think logically.
Jim raised a few questions. He asked, “Is it victimless? If someone spends the family’s money on prostitutes or traumatizes you breaking into your house, isn’t there a victim? Most drug addicts don’t have the cash to buy drugs.”
I’ll address these, because a few of you shared similar thoughts and I think that’s missing the issue.
For some reason, you guys seem to think I want to abolish all laws, police and courts. I don’t. You need police and a court system to adjudicate disputes and protect everyone’s rights and private property.
If you break into someone’s home to buy your drugs, you’re trampling on the private rights of others. Likewise if you kidnap someone and sold them into the sex trade. Yes someone could take the family’s money and spend it on drugs. Or alcohol. Or the racetrack. Or a new boat. That’s an issue that the family needs to deal with, not the government.
I wear a seatbelt when I drive and a helmet when I ride motorcycles because that’s the smart thing to do. But I don’t want the government telling me I have to. It’s not their business.
Every morning when I brush my teeth and get ready, I have to bend way over to the counter because I’m tall. But when I told my contractor that I wanted a higher counter he told me he couldn’t do it because it was against the county code, because the counter has to be accessible for wheelchairs. Just like when I remodeled my kitchen, I had to put electrical outlets every three feet, because the code has determined that most kitchen appliances have short cords.
It’s my condo, I live there, I don’t need a wheelchair and I don’t have a bunch of appliances. But the nanny state tells me how I have to build my private property. How crazy is that?
Now just to really keep things interesting, Jim also asked about abortion. He said, “In a free society is it a woman’s right to chose or is she killing the infant inside her who has no rights?”
I must admit this is somewhat of a quandary for me. Personally I am against abortion. But I do support the right of a woman to do one. From a prosperity standpoint what we look at is people’s right to do things as long as they don’t impinge on the rights of others. So obviously abortion goes both ways.
But I can’t in my mind justify making a woman carry a fetus in her body for nine months if she does not want to do this. I can’t think of anything that would be more intrusive and restrict rights more. I know there are people that make the argument that as soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg it is a person, but I don’t buy that. Now that’s just my opinion, after doing critical thinking about it. I can respect other people’s opinions and understand this is a very difficult issue to deal with. Cloning is now a reality and we will be forced to look at the ethical and moral implications of that as well.
So what do you guys think? Please share your thoughts below.