NationStates Jolt Archive

People should be as free as possible within society and to live as you wish in your private life. Believe what you want have what ever sexuality you want as long as your not hurting anyone else. Have as few laws as possible dictating what you can't do (ideally negative freedoms/laws) with the only responcibility of the state being to protect people from harm (in the social realm).

I really want to know how can people disagree with this, and I know there are people out there who do. I really wanna know if any, what are the arguements agains't such freedom.

I don't see much of a problem. Society will change, for better or worse.

People should be as free as possible within society and to live as you wish in your private life. Believe what you want have what ever sexuality you want as long as your not hurting anyone else. Have as few laws as possible dictating what you can't do (ideally negative freedoms/laws) with the only responcibility of the state being to protect people from harm (in the social realm).

I really want to know how can people disagree with this, and I know there are people out there who do. I really wanna know if any, what are the arguements agains't such freedom.

The problem arises when you start defining "protect people from harm". What counts as harm? Can you harm yourself? Should the state prevent that? Is being immoral harmful? To others, even, because it sets a bad example for the children?

You need to define "protect from harm" before we can see where the disagreement might occur.

Quiet you silly hippy!

/Joke

The problem arises when you start defining "protect people from harm". What counts as harm? Can you harm yourself? Should the state prevent that? Is being immoral harmful? To others, even, because it sets a bad example for the children?

You need to define "protect from harm" before we can see where the disagreement might occur.

Well people are going to want to follow their best interests which can really only be defined by themselves. So harming yourself (providing your mentally stable and atleast have some education) shouldn't face intervention from the state, friends/family would be better anyway if its self harm. Imposing laws to prevent all people from any harm to themselves doesn't seem to fit.

As for immorality thats a good point. But if its not causing specific physical/threatening harm it should be up for society to frown upon perhaps, like we dislike racists or homophobic people..

Well people are going to want to follow their best interests which can really only be defined by themselves. So harming yourself (providing your mentally stable and atleast have some education) shouldn't face intervention from the state, friends/family would be better anyway if its self harm. Imposing laws to prevent all people from any harm to themselves doesn't seem to fit.

As for immorality thats a good point. But if its not causing specific physical/threatening harm it should be up for society to frown upon perhaps, like we dislike racists or homophobic people..

As long as you define what constitutes harm, you're fine.

I would prefer a government that doesn't interfere if no harm is being done to non-voluntary participants. I would allow two consenting adults to harm each other.

Well people are going to want to follow their best interests which can really only be defined by themselves. So harming yourself (providing your mentally stable and atleast have some education) shouldn't face intervention from the state, friends/family would be better anyway if its self harm. Imposing laws to prevent all people from any harm to themselves doesn't seem to fit.

As for immorality thats a good point. But if its not causing specific physical/threatening harm it should be up for society to frown upon perhaps, like we dislike racists or homophobic people..

I agree with you mostly, but what if society fails? because its very possible and probably inevitable.

As long as you define what constitutes harm, you're fine.

I would prefer a government that doesn't interfere if no harm is being done to non-voluntary participants. I would allow two consenting adults to harm each other.

Again i agree with you mostly but does that make two people having a knife fight on the street who want to fight each other ok?

Again i agree with you mostly but does that make two people having a knife fight on the street who want to fight each other ok?

Well I suppose you might want to fight someone, but you don't want to be stabbed. Duals to the death via consent might be an interesting one though... I suppose violence could justifiably be prohibited, its not really increasing anyones freedom is it.

People should be as free as possible within society and to live as you wish in your private life. Believe what you want have what ever sexuality you want as long as your not hurting anyone else. Have as few laws as possible dictating what you can't do (ideally negative freedoms/laws) with the only responcibility of the state being to protect people from harm (in the social realm).

I really want to know how can people disagree with this, and I know there are people out there who do. I really wanna know if any, what are the arguements agains't such freedom.
I disagree with just one word, the 'only' (which I've bolded).

What about when people are harmed by others or by disease? Is that a state reponsibility, to make sure the harm doesn't become worse and/or cause more harm? What about harm because of people not being able to have or not currently having a job (and it not being their fault), as in not being able to afford food?

I can do more justifying other things that I think the government should do but the answer will be the same as the ones I've just done probably.

I disagree with just one word, the 'only' (which I've bolded).

What about when people are harmed by others or by disease? Is that a state reponsibility, to make sure the harm doesn't become worse and/or cause more harm? What about harm because of people not being able to have or not currently having a job (and it not being their fault), as in not being able to afford food?

I can do more justifying other things that I think the government should do but the answer will be the same as the ones I've just done probably.

I would think thats more on the economic shere than social. To prevent disease or unemployment the government will need to interviene in the economy rather than the social aspect of life.

I would think thats more on the economic shere than social. To prevent disease or unemployment the government will need to interviene in the economy rather than the social aspect of life.
ahh I thought I might have been making a mistake.

I wasn't sure whether the "(in the social realm)" went with "to protect people from harm"
(as in the only responcibility of the state being to protect people from harm in the social realm)
or if it went with "the only responcibility of the state"
(as in the only responcibility of the state in the social realm being to protect people from harm )
The former is what I responded which was wrong. Which doesn't make sence since why would you put the brackets in if it was.
*goes off rambling*

The problem arises when you start defining "protect people from harm". What counts as harm? Can you harm yourself? Should the state prevent that? Is being immoral harmful? To others, even, because it sets a bad example for the children?

You need to define "protect from harm" before we can see where the disagreement might occur.

A regime that structures its laws according to the harm principle doesn't try to legislate "morality." It states, essentially, that an act is only immoral (and therefore subject to legal intervention) if it does harm to another person. As for protecting you from yourself-- to *truly* believe in individual freedom, you have to believe in the individual's right to harm themselves. People get sketchy about this because they think that it follows that your society has to take care of people who harm themselves, but in fact, in such a liberal society it would be the individual's responsibility to deal with the consequences of their autonomous choices as well. So go ahead and amputate your own arm, but if you haven't got yourself a health care package you're going to bleed out because you made a free choice and no one else is responsible for that.

The problem arises when you start defining "protect people from harm". What counts as harm? Can you harm yourself? Should the state prevent that? Is being immoral harmful? To others, even, because it sets a bad example for the children?

You need to define "protect from harm" before we can see where the disagreement might occur.

This is correct but it doesn't quite address the real problem. Yes, people should be allowed to hurt themselves, the question is "should other people be able to cater to deals that hurt other people, when the person is accepting harm willingly."

Also very difficult in determining what constitutes harming another is the scenario of neglegence. How far do we go against battling actions that increase the risk of harm to someone else?

Again i agree with you mostly but does that make two people having a knife fight on the street who want to fight each other ok?

If each can demonstrate that the other consented, sure.

A regime that structures its laws according to the harm principle doesn't try to legislate "morality."

It might if it believes immoral behaviour to be harmful. Even to others.

Any number of religious societies might hold this opinion.

This is correct but it doesn't quite address the real problem. Yes, people should be allowed to hurt themselves, the question is "should other people be able to cater to deals that hurt other people, when the person is accepting harm willingly."

The reason people are allowed to harm themselves is because we know they consented. The same should apply to circumstances involving more than one party.

Also very difficult in determining what constitutes harming another is the scenario of neglegence. How far do we go against battling actions that increase the risk of harm to someone else?

Not necessarily. If someone else is ultimately responsible (I'm driving the beer truck, careening downhill), but you're negligent (you don't warn the children crossing the road), that's not your fault, is it? I'm the one who acted improperly.

The reason people are allowed to harm themselves is because we know they consented. The same should apply to circumstances involving more than one party.

I agree with you, but many people believe that no one should be able to benefit out of harming others.

Not necessarily. If someone else is ultimately responsible (I'm driving the beer truck, careening downhill), but you're negligent (you don't warn the children crossing the road), that's not your fault, is it? I'm the one who acted improperly.

If I am assigned as a crossing guard to alert the children to danger, then yes, I am at least partially responsible.

The example that was in my mind at the time was drunk driving. Drunk driving harms no one, but crashing often does, drunk driving greatly increases the likelihood of a crash. Should drunk driving be illegal?

Again i agree with you mostly but does that make two people having a knife fight on the street who want to fight each other ok?

If they both voluntarily participate in the fight, in full knowledge that it's possibly lethal? Sure. I'd support dueling rights.

The example that was in my mind at the time was drunk driving. Drunk driving harms no one, but crashing often does, drunk driving greatly increases the likelihood of a crash. Should drunk driving be illegal?

Yes. Driving drunk sharply increases the probability of death or injury for other people, as a direct cause of the actions being drunk causes you to take or not take. Crashing while sober can happen to anyone, but it's being drunk that kills the other motorist. You can't separate the effect from the cause; drunk driving negatively affects other people, period.

Yes. Driving drunk sharply increases the probability of death or injury for other people, as a direct cause of the actions being drunk causes you to take or not take. Crashing while sober can happen to anyone, but it's being drunk that kills the other motorist. You can't separate the effect from the cause; drunk driving negatively affects other people, period.

But it is not a simple 'cause no harm' evaluation.