http://web.archive.org/web/20020124130357/http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/

A very interesting book!

And having this online shows this author IS JUST NOT WANTING $$$!!

They have the book ONLINE so you can read it :)

To a large extent I agree with the premise, but there are ramifications to consider.  Just a quick example - motor cycle helmets. 

So fine, don't wear a helmet, but if you crash, make sure you die.  Because if you don't you will be whisked to the emergency room (the most expensive medical care).  No insurance? The rest of us will bear the cost (our collective property).  With insurance?  The cost will be passed on to other premium payers (their property).

One can make the same case for (especially) hard drugs and alcohol (driving while impaired).  My point is that when consensual activities harm the person or property of the activist they can very well have repercussions on the property of the rest of us.

I guess there needs to be a balance between personal freedom and the common good.  As a "real world" example, Vermont is spending thousands of $$$ (of tax payer $$$) on meds that counteract opioide overdoses.

This thread should probably be in the TTT section

Ya maybe your right............


About my post or wheree this thread should be?

Hehe I was trying to clean up this thread but YES I was referring to where you thought this thread would be better....


Thank you Cat!! (Meow!!) :)

Yeah, in this day and age, people want our personal liberties to be clamped down.


I think that state and corporate liberties should be restricted, because while they can do lots of good, their sheer size and influence means that they can do something bad to a large scale, like destroying the environment because some orange boy (Trump) believes that the physical state of the world isn't enough to promote responsibility by corporations and the state as well as individuals.

Other than that, the contract between individuals and the companies or governments that they depend on is slowly being severed - the companies and governments are slowly becoming leeches to the people to survive, through even unethical means. Some companies and governments have gotten too big for people to escape them.

To a large extent I agree with the premise, but there are ramifications to consider.  Just a quick example - motor cycle helmets. 

So fine, don't wear a helmet, but if you crash, make sure you die.  Because if you don't you will be whisked to the emergency room (the most expensive medical care).  No insurance? The rest of us will bear the cost (our collective property).  With insurance?  The cost will be passed on to other premium payers (their property).

One can make the same case for (especially) hard drugs and alcohol (driving while impaired).  My point is that when consensual activities harm the person or property of the activist they can very well have repercussions on the property of the rest of us.

I guess there needs to be a balance between personal freedom and the common good.  As a "real world" example, Vermont is spending thousands of $$$ (of tax payer $$$) on meds that counteract opioide overdoses.

This thread should probably be in the TTT section

If the drug issue is bad, then I don't know, this might be money well spent. They just need to relapse or not start. Now to convince people to get away from heroin so the addiction doesn't become endemic or burdensome on the rest of society or whatever.

If the drug issue is bad, then I don't know, this might be money well spent. They just need to relapse or not start. Now to convince people to get away from heroin so the addiction doesn't become endemic or burdensome on the rest of society or whatever.


It could be money well spent and I certainly support trying to save people's lives.  My point is, though, that what may appear to be activities that only effect the Activist, in many cases they do have a negative impact on the property of others.  In other words, because we live in society virtually everything we do can have an impact on the property of others, even if indirectly