'Roid Rage Of A Different Kind
Dr. Andrew Bernstein, a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute, says (as I have continued to say) the government has no proper role in banning steroid use by athletes -- or any other drug use:
The use of steroids and other performance enhancing drugs by major league baseball players has drawn threats from the United States government. Major league baseball had better institute strict drug policies, warned Senators John McCain and Byron Dorgan, or it will face Congressional action.But the government should not be granted the power to dictate to consenting adults what they can and cannot ingest, stated Dr. Andrew Bernstein, senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute. Major league baseball is a private organization that has the right, if it chooses, to ban steroid use among players by contractual agreement. As with any private individual or organization, it has the right to lay down the terms under which it will associate with others--leaving it to the voluntary decision of players to accept the terms or play elsewhere.
More broadly, Bernstein pointed out, in a free society an adult has the right to think and decide for himself in the pursuit of his own happiness. A necessary consequence is that he may choose self-destructive actions--whether to drink harmful amounts of alcohol or use toxic drugs. A legal prohibition on drugs, as on alcohol, is a violation of the right of the individual to determine the course of his life. Bernstein concluded that Congress should butt out and let Major league baseball determine its own course of action regarding players’ use of steroids.
I read somewhere that sports fans really don't care if the players use performance-enhancing drugs anyway.
Claims of a right to use drugs/alcohol can initiate a set other rights claims that are equally compelling, eg, the right to protection from the potential negative externalities of drug/alcohol use. You have the liberty to get drunk, and I have the liberty to get hit by your car?
Lena Cuisina, Barren Crack Whore at December 16, 2004 1:36 PM
Maybe somebody could print up little cards to put in their pill bottles!
Jim Treacher at December 16, 2004 3:37 PM
A society that whines about having to give health care to the uninsured should not be too patient with people who risk the kinds of complications that these steroid freaks risk. A friend suffers from receiving (merely) medical doses of these compounds in the early 80s, and it's heartbreaking. And expensive.
This is the same reason it's tough to be tolerant of the anti-motorcyle-helmet types... The rest of society is going to have to scrape them off the curb, and it won't be pleasant.
Cridland at December 16, 2004 4:07 PM
Well, Leaner, we have laws to protect you -- ie, laws against drunk driving. I think it should continue to be illegal to take massive quantities of hallucinogens and get behind the wheel.
Amy Alkon at December 16, 2004 4:26 PM
I'm generally leery of arguments staked on claims of rights or morals. I'm not saying that rights and morals don't exist; they're just really easy shots, rhetorically. I'm also tired of hearing about various "crises." Listening to advocates and interest groups, you'd think that every imaginable health problem is a "crisis" demanding immediate investments of public money. Now, when legal scholars talk or write about rights, they are usually referring to specific laws or policies, without the tedious chest-pounding, and I take that work seriously. Out here in the real world, however, you forget to return someone's phone call within 24 hours, and it's like you've suddenly violated their "right" to a punctual reply. And that's when I inform them of my inalienable right to have my pussy munched on. Eat me! Eat me!
Lena (jaded, not faded) at December 16, 2004 5:01 PM
McCain was saying that if MLB doesn't police itself, the government will take away MLB's monopoly status. Maybe McCains thought is that by providing MLB with this priviledged status, the government is encouraging steroid useage?
I would prefer to see the government completely out of the sports and entertainment business, which would include not subsidizing NASCAR, MLB, or any other sports organization.
PS- Lena
If you'll spring for the peanut butter, I have a St Bernard named Lola you might enjoy meeting..
eric at December 16, 2004 5:33 PM
"If you'll spring for the peanut butter, I have a St Bernard named Lola you might enjoy meeting."
Chunky or smooth?
Lena (on a crisp Ritz Cracker) at December 16, 2004 6:28 PM
I told her all about you- she'll go either way.
eric at December 16, 2004 6:37 PM
Public money?!
Now there's a whopper!
As The Russian Radical herself (i.e. Ayn (rhymes with "mine")) would have said: "Check your premises, dear."
RKN at December 16, 2004 6:38 PM
Very funny, Treach.
Next, I think steroid users should be forced to pay the back end health costs in the price of the drugs. I'm all for autonomy, as long as I don't have to pay for yours. The same goes for very fat people and people who ride without motorcycle helmets.
Amy Alkon at December 16, 2004 6:48 PM
I'm sorry RKN, but I zoomed right back Ayn Rand back in 10th grade. You'll have to venture forth a bit more into your English language skills if you want me to understand the nature of Mommy's problem with the words "public money." Is this your way of asking for clarification? Speak up, baby boy (now, HOW did I know you're a boy?!).
Lena, with talons poised at December 16, 2004 7:04 PM
Lena wondered:
Is this your way of asking for clarification?
You mean you actually have an explanation for how what I've earned becomes yours to dispose of for your public purpose(s)?
Puhleez don't tell us this happened by a show of hands, Lena, 'cause I could quite easily find 6 out of 10 people who would vote to yoke your existence to the plow of their public purposes. No problem.
And if they did that, certainly we shouldn't expect any objections from Lena based on silly concepts like ethics and your natural rights and all those other rhetorically vulnerable arguments.
I have to beg your pardon; I suppose I was chortling in civics class at the Social Contract about the same time you were zooming past Rand.
RKN at December 16, 2004 8:07 PM
One other thought here- if steroids became accepted, under a libretarian model, wouldn't all who wanted to play sports be forced into taking them just to compete? The usage would filter down from professional, through college, past high school and down to junior high.
This is a case where ones choice directly effects anothers, and so fails the libretarian model.
Eric at December 16, 2004 8:22 PM
oops- libertarian.
eric at December 16, 2004 10:47 PM
RKN --
I'm sorry, I forget: Stupid whores like you work for cash, so of course you don't know what taxes are. "Public money" is tax revenue, you asshole. And public-sector health insurance programs are financed by general and excise taxes -- whether your Anus Rand likes it or fucking not. Some day, you'll cough up your share of this as well -- if you ever get off the street and get a real job.
And after you're finished "chortling in civics class," you can come here and lick my fucking scab, you dainty fucking asshole.
Lena
Lena-doodle-doo at December 16, 2004 11:49 PM
My my, I love it when you talk dirty.
Look everyone, meet Lena, Ann Coulter of the left.
Move along, citizen Lena, move along.
RKN at December 17, 2004 12:24 AM
This is going to go into my journal of favorite Lenazoidisms, right after "I love some of Andrew Sullivans work, especially those lovely personal ads about milking cocks dry with his rock-hard muscle buns".
eric at December 17, 2004 12:53 AM
Amy -- Wasn't it you who said "They Don't Make Catfights Like They Used To"? There's still time to retract that (see 12/15 blog item). LC
Lena Purina at December 17, 2004 1:28 AM
I actually have news from somebody who has news from a secret tipster on that, but my, this was something else! Meeeeyow! So nice to see. I hate latent hostility. It's so dull.
Amy Alkon at December 17, 2004 4:29 AM
Let's get back to Eric's civilized discussion, free of accusations of whoredom...
"This is a case where one's choice directly effects another's, and so it fails the libertarian model."
Econometricians usually refer to that as "clustering," a violation of the assumption of independent observations in the multivariate regression context. But don't lose heart! There are software packages like Stata or Sudaan (no relation to Darfur) that can adjust not only for clustering, but also for differential probabilities of selection across subgroups of the population. So there's no need to worry, Eric, that the model assumptions don't hold.
Lena, circumspect and circumcized at December 17, 2004 5:09 AM
You bet your sweet ass they don't.
My fondest (and only) memory of econometrics occurred in my graduating year at UC Riverside (class of 1988), when my econometrics professor Dr Mike xxxxxx did not show up for the final, and passed everyone involved. He was a hotshot at the World Bank, and later told me on that particular day he was in Jamaica on a beach stoned out of his mind on Ganja weed.
That is a true story.
Regarding multivariate regression distribution, the condition of randomness is no longer in play, so moot.
Millions of kids are born, and spread across the country. Sample distribution applies. Say 5% want to play football. Distribution still applies. Some will be talented and quickly make the cut, some won't. Distribution applies. There is one position left open, with two candidates.
Two football players, with roughly the same ability, compete and will win or lose based upon their merits. Luck is a factor.
The introduction of steroids violates the otherwise random occurrence of probabilty by predetermining the outcome to the player who takes steroids. In order to once again level the playing field, the second player is forced into taking steroids, so his choice has really been taken away.
PS- like Crid, I had a friend in the early 90's who was in great shape but wanted that extra edge. The steroids he took shrank his cock and balls, and really turned him into a muscle bound, very lonely, screwed up castrato. The funny thing was he could have had any woman he wanted, but thought he had to be perfect first.
It seems to be a morality play for todays America.
eric at December 17, 2004 6:39 AM
"The introduction of steroids violates the otherwise random occurrence of probabilty by predetermining the outcome to the player who takes steroids."
But I'm sure the outcome wouldn't be uniform for all players. There'd be some variation in the outcome (measured as, say, a change in the number of hits or home runs or whatever) that might be attributable to random disturbances, after taking into account age, weight, etc, etc.
Lena-doodle-doo at December 17, 2004 4:02 PM
True true true.
SO are you going to take me home yet, or should I buy you another drink?
eric at December 17, 2004 5:10 PM
Let me get the peanut butter first. It's out in the car.
Lena at December 17, 2004 5:42 PM