NationStates Jolt Archive

I maintain that most people don't, but say they do. For the purposes of my argument I hold individual rights to mean this:

Any action that you do that only involves you and other adults capable of consent (meaning not people who are clinically insane or mentally disabled).

I'm not including children or animals in the discussion because whether or not they are consenting to the action is debatable.

So that means I think you have the right to stab yourself in the eyes with pencils so long as you don't try to force me to care for you afterward. You have the right to freebase cocaine. You have the right to shoot yourself in the knee. You have the right to sell sex for money. You have the right to have sex in any orifice with any inanimate object or any part of a consenting person you so desire. You have the right to form a partnership with any other consenting adult. You have the right to walk around your home naked or your community naked provided it does not present a health risk. You have the right to nurse in public or not. You have the right to watch porn i the middle of the day. You have the right to go to church every morning and night. You have the right to worship in public provided you aren't infringing on the rights of others not to suppor the practice. You have a right to tattoo yourself all over, to change yourself physically into the other sex, to express yourself and be yourself in whatever way that means, so long as you aren't violating the rights of others in doing so.

I mean full-out complete respect for individual rights unless there is a compelling and urgent societal need to limit those rights, meaning some would argue that taxes limit those rights but so does a military coup in your country. Sometimes the rights of one individual weighs too heavily against the needs of the collective the individuals chose to form.

How many people really support individual rights or how many would vote to outlaw some activity that does not actually affect them in any way, such as gay marriage or anti-drug laws?

Agreed. Viva la Revolucion Libertaria!

I would support everything you said in that list. And probably more, if I could think of any.

[snip] do you realize how many things in your list actually don't just affect you? but others.

do you realize how many things in your list actually don't just affect you? but others.

Like?

EDIT: Please don't tell me this is going to be one of those, but people can see you when you're naked, or tattooed, or whatever, arguments? Because if you go down the path of if someone doesn't like it, it's not a right path, then you are arguing against EVERY freedom.

Without individual rights, our society would risk a lot.

We have all those rights apart from freebasing cocaine and walking around the community naked.

Although you would probably be commited if you shot yourself in leg or poked your eye out with a pencil unless you claimed it was an accident.

Like?should you die of your actions, there is NOTHING stopping your family from suing people for negligence, thus...

So that means I think you have the right to stab yourself in the eyes with pencils so long as you don't try to force me to care for you afterward.
hospitals and all healthcare providers are Obligated to assist anyone injured... so your poking yourself in the eye will require, in a round about way, everyone in the community to support you. (via Insurance/hospital staff etc.)

You have the right to shoot yourself in the knee.
GSW's (Gun Shot Wounds) are required to be reported to the police by said Health Care officals, thus, the police are now required to investigate. even if you INSIST that you did it to yourself because you feel like it. and who pays for the cop's salary while they are investigating? the taxpayers

You have the right to freebase cocaine
You can take what ever Drugs you want, if they are perscription ones tho, you also endanger the professions of the Pharmacudicals, the Doctors who prescribed the drugs as well as the manufacturers. and if those drugs are illegal, there's still the danger you present while under the influnce.

You have the right to sell sex for money.
with the range of STD as well as other blood/fluid deseases, you dont only endanger yourself with promiscuous sex, but you endanger your partner of the hour/minute/day... then add to the fact that such transactions rarely get taxed, so you're "business" (if it is profitable for you) denies services that would benifit from your taxes. add to the fact that "Pandering" is not regulated, thus hostile takeovers by other in the business can be extremely... well... Hostile.

to express yourself and be yourself in whatever way that means, so long as you aren't violating the rights of others in doing so.well, unfortunatly, to insure you are not Violating the Rights of others, there are limitations to how LOUD you can be. but that's set up by the state. Also How you Express yourself is also monitored...


but other than that, I agree with the rest. Tho I am still anti-drug.

should you die of your actions, there is NOTHING stopping your family from suing people for negligence, thus...


hospitals and all healthcare providers are Obligated to assist anyone injured... so your poking yourself in the eye will require, in a round about way, everyone in the community to support you. (via Insurance/hospital staff etc.)


GSW's (Gun Shot Wounds) are required to be reported to the police by said Health Care officals, thus, the police are now required to investigate. even if you INSIST that you did it to yourself because you feel like it. and who pays for the cop's salary while they are investigating? the taxpayers


You can take what ever Drugs you want, if they are perscription ones tho, you also endanger the professions of the Pharmacudicals, the Doctors who prescribed the drugs as well as the manufacturers. and if those drugs are illegal, there's still the danger you present while under the influnce.


with the range of STD as well as other blood/fluid deseases, you dont only endanger yourself with promiscuous sex, but you endanger your partner of the hour/minute/day... then add to the fact that such transactions rarely get taxed, so you're "business" (if it is profitable for you) denies services that would benifit from your taxes. add to the fact that "Pandering" is not regulated, thus hostile takeovers by other in the business can be extremely... well... Hostile.

well, unfortunatly, to insure you are not Violating the Rights of others, there are limitations to how LOUD you can be. but that's set up by the state. Also How you Express yourself is also monitored...


but other than that, I agree with the rest. Tho I am still anti-drug.
Err, no. None of that means that the peaceful lawful activities that Jocabia described hurts anyone but himself. It is only the state making unjust laws, and the state being aggressive is nothing new, nor anything you can be blamed for just because you do one of the uncountable things that will set them off.

Any action that you do that only involves you and other adults capable of consent (meaning not people who are clinically insane or mentally disabled).

I'm not including children or animals in the discussion because whether or not they are consenting to the action is debatable.

So that means I think you have the right to stab yourself in the eyes with pencils so long as you don't try to force me to care for you afterward.
(Emphasis added) Might not eye-stabbing be regarded as a sign of clinical insanity?

Err, no. None of that means that the peaceful lawful activities that Jocabia described hurts anyone but himself. It is only the state making unjust laws, and the state being aggressive is nothing new, nor anything you can be blamed for just because you do one of the uncountable things that will set them off.
read it again.

Hurt is relative and not neccessarily Physical. it can be Financial, emotional as well as Mental.

Also My reply I stated it affects those around you, not just Hurts, but affects.

and Jocabia wrote this.
Any action that you do that only involves you and other adults capable of consent (meaning not people who are clinically insane or mentally disabled).

(Emphasis added) Might not eye-stabbing be regarded as a sign of clinical insanity?

That's the main reason I cannot agree with the parts about self-mutilation. It's a far cry from sanity to want to chop your leg off, or poke your eyes out for no actual reason other than wanting to do it.

I'm not including children or animals in the discussion
Last time I checked humans are animals.

should you die of your actions, there is NOTHING stopping your family from suing people for negligence, thus...

Um, yes, there is something stopping your family from suing. I pointed out in the actual scenario that you should be permitted to do it PROVIDED no one else is forced to pay for your stupidity, thus... my examples were perfect and only can be argued against by you changing them. Now, isn't there a fallacy referring to such an argument.


hospitals and all healthcare providers are Obligated to assist anyone injured... so your poking yourself in the eye will require, in a round about way, everyone in the community to support you. (via Insurance/hospital staff etc.)

Not if we, as in my scenario, chose not to make that a requirement anymore. Or you were held personally financially responsible for any healthcare that resulted from intentionally self-inflicted wounds, then it wouldn't be a problem. Oh, wait, insurance companies already do that. Would you care to reply to the things I posted and not the things you've changed to mean something different?


GSW's (Gun Shot Wounds) are required to be reported to the police by said Health Care officals, thus, the police are now required to investigate. even if you INSIST that you did it to yourself because you feel like it. and who pays for the cop's salary while they are investigating? the taxpayers

Also true of car accidents but we don't make NASCAR illegal.


You can take what ever Drugs you want, if they are perscription ones tho, you also endanger the professions of the Pharmacudicals, the Doctors who prescribed the drugs as well as the manufacturers. and if those drugs are illegal, there's still the danger you present while under the influnce.

If no drugs were illegal, then there would be no need for prescriptions. NEXT.


with the range of STD as well as other blood/fluid deseases, you dont only endanger yourself with promiscuous sex, but you endanger your partner of the hour/minute/day... then add to the fact that such transactions rarely get taxed, so you're "business" (if it is profitable for you) denies services that would benifit from your taxes. add to the fact that "Pandering" is not regulated, thus hostile takeovers by other in the business can be extremely... well... Hostile.

Again, I said consenting. Consent requires people to be informed.

Meanwhile, prostitution is regulated in places where it is legal and in Nevada there has not been any problem with STD's. Using the status quo because these are currently illegal is absurd.



well, unfortunatly, to insure you are not Violating the Rights of others, there are limitations to how LOUD you can be. but that's set up by the state. Also How you Express yourself is also monitored...

And I never said otherwise. Again, care to reply to my arguments and not ones you made up. Thanks for your time. Hopefully, your next post will consider a debate rather than a fallacious diatribe.


[QUOTE=JuNii]but other than that, I agree with the rest. Tho I am still anti-drug.
So would you make drug use illegal?

So far you've basically argued that by making things legal they MUST be unregulated, which doesn't hold true anywhere drugs, prostitution, euthanasia, open sexual relationships or suicide are legal.

Last time I checked humans are animals.

Equivocation. If you're going to be dumb about it, substitute non-humans for the word animals.

read it again.

Hurt is relative and not neccessarily Physical. it can be Financial, emotional as well as Mental.

Also My reply I stated it affects those around you, not just Hurts, but affects.

and Jocabia wrote this.

He's right, though. You invoked forms of hurt that are result of current regulations that are a result of *gasp* current concepts of legality. You mentioned how illegal prostitution is not regulated which is a result of its being illegal. In places where it is legal there is no such problem. You mention prescription drugs which is a result of the three categories of drugs we have today, over-the-counter (always legal), prescription (sometimes legal) and never allowed (always illegal). If all drugs were legal your argument disappears. If self-injury becomes legal then requirements on institutions to address such injuries should also change (according to the premise of the defined rights I gave). I actually made the argument that self-injury should be legal ONLY if it also a given that you will not force others to pay for such injuries. You had to change what I described to something where we did have to pay which I explicitly stated violated the concept of individual rights.

I support most things, but not everything in your list.

For example; I think we should help people, even those who deliberately injure themselves, to preserve their life and dignity.

So that means I think you have the right to stab yourself in the eyes with pencils so long as you don't try to force me to care for you afterward. You have the right to freebase cocaine. You have the right to shoot yourself in the knee. You have the right to sell sex for money. You have the right to have sex in any orifice with any inanimate object or any part of a consenting person you so desire. You have the right to form a partnership with any other consenting adult. You have the right to walk around your home naked or your community naked provided it does not present a health risk. You have the right to nurse in public or not. You have the right to watch porn i the middle of the day. You have the right to go to church every morning and night. You have the right to worship in public provided you aren't infringing on the rights of others not to suppor the practice. You have a right to tattoo yourself all over, to change yourself physically into the other sex, to express yourself and be yourself in whatever way that means, so long as you aren't violating the rights of others in doing so.

You don't support all individual rights. What about the right to food, water, shelter, health, life and public spaces?

You don't support all individual rights. What about the right to food, water, shelter, health, life and public spaces?

Pardon? Who said I don't support those rights? I think people have all of those rights and more? They don't have the right to force others to provide it for them, however. Just like a person who has the right to poke himself in the eye with a pencil doesn't have the right to force me to provide him with the pencil.

I support most things, but not everything in your list.

For example; I think we should help people, even those who deliberately injure themselves, to preserve their life and dignity.

We're not talking about what we should do. We're talking about rights. There is no right to force others to do things for you. If society has to provide a right for you, generally, it's pretty certain it's not an individual right. Absent of society you can't argue that people can be forced to help someone who has chosen to make it so they cannot help themselves.

I think the right is better defined as the pursuit of happiness. People are allowed to pursue wealth, food, shelter, healthcare, and those sort of things, but they should not be garunteed those things.

Um, yes, there is something stopping your family from suing. I pointed out in the actual scenario that you should be permitted to do it PROVIDED no one else is forced to pay for your stupidity, thus... my examples were perfect and only can be argued against by you changing them. Now, isn't there a fallacy referring to such an argument. nope, some of your suggested rights can be used to show deficent and compromised mental facility. thus even if you wrote a lengly note ellequently stating that you willingly did these things to yourself (they eye poking and shooting of self in knee... for example) and should you die of Drug Overdose, again it can be shown of decreased mental facility. remember, if it does go to court, it's in the hands of Lawyers. not you.




Not if we, as in my scenario, chose not to make that a requirement anymore. Or you were held personally financially responsible for any healthcare that resulted from intentionally self-inflicted wounds, then it wouldn't be a problem. Oh, wait, insurance companies already do that. Would you care to reply to the things I posted and not the things you've changed to mean something different?and thus you aknowledge that what you do to yourself does affect others. now if you change those laws, what happens... peope who are hurt in legitament accidents suddenly become bankrupt as insurance no longer works. a mis typed report signed by you in a drug induced daze (morphine and such) can leave you with 100% of the bill. you have hospitals refusing to assist anyone to protect their assets. really, think about it.


Also true of car accidents but we don't make NASCAR illegal. did you ever see what NASCAR has to pay for insurance, infact what any racepark/event has to pay? how many times did they move because they COULDN'T find a carrier there.

If no drugs were illegal, then there would be no need for prescriptions. NEXT.actually there would be. they need to inform the patients the correct dosage and timing needed. thus anyone who fails to place such instruction on Prescription drugs risks Malpractice Lawsuits. now if you also remove MALPRACTICE LAWSUITS and ANY LAWSUIT then perhaps....


Again, I said consenting. Consent requires people to be informed.wrong, CONSENTING means giving permission, not being informed.

Meanwhile, prostitution is regulated in places where it is legal and in Nevada there has not been any problem with STD's. Using the status quo because these are currently illegal is absurd.because they are regulated.


And I never said otherwise. Again, care to reply to my arguments and not ones you made up. Thanks for your time. Hopefully, your next post will consider a debate rather than a fallacious diatribe.and I never said it was an argument against it. it's just a point that there are alot of things that while it seems that it only affects you, it actually doesnt.



So would you make drug use illegal?yes, because people are not that responsible when it comes to Drug Use.

So far you've basically argued that by making things legal they MUST be unregulated, which doesn't hold true anywhere drugs, prostitution, euthanasia, open sexual relationships or suicide are legal.
no My basic argument is that not everything you listed only INVOLVES the people directly tied to those actions.

He's right, though. You invoked forms of hurt that are result of current regulations that are a result of *gasp* current concepts of legality. You mentioned how illegal prostitution is not regulated which is a result of its being illegal. In places where it is legal there is no such problem. You mention prescription drugs which is a result of the three categories of drugs we have today, over-the-counter (always legal), prescription (sometimes legal) and never allowed (always illegal). If all drugs were legal your argument disappears. If self-injury becomes legal then requirements on institutions to address such injuries should also change (according to the premise of the defined rights I gave). I actually made the argument that self-injury should be legal ONLY if it also a given that you will not force others to pay for such injuries. You had to change what I described to something where we did have to pay which I explicitly stated violated the concept of individual rights.It can be seen as that. tho the drug one is wrong. Over the counter is up to a certain Drug Strength. Perscription is stronger than over the counter. Edit: Illegal is Illegal. you argue only one type of drug Cocaine, ever seen the effects of PCP? Meth? the only way they affect the one person is if that one person was locked in a room by themselves.

you allow institutions to change their policies (and the law) and you can have hospitals turning away homless people. you can have a woman who was beaten by her husband to continue being beaten because it will be reported as "an accident" you will place alot of people in jeopardy by changing those LAWs. and you will remove their RIGHT for healthcare.

I have not changed anything you listed, I have mearly shown you where it goes after the action.

of course you can stop it by NOT GOING TO THE HOSPITAL.

Like?

EDIT: Please don't tell me this is going to be one of those, but people can see you when you're naked, or tattooed, or whatever, arguments? Because if you go down the path of if someone doesn't like it, it's not a right path, then you are arguing against EVERY freedom.
no, I only listed things that involve others. tattooes and nakedness is all well and good. but I work in a Hospital and see alot of things not shown in ER or most documentaries.

I maintain that most people don't, but say they do. For the purposes of my argument I hold individual rights to mean this:

Any action that you do that only involves you and other adults capable of consent (meaning not people who are clinically insane or mentally disabled).

I'm not including children or animals in the discussion because whether or not they are consenting to the action is debatable.
I still don't really know what you mean by "right". Do you mean from the point of view of "what the Government won't stop or hinder you from doing", "what other people shouldn't stop you from doing", "what other people have an obligation to enable you to do", "what you must naturally be capable of doing", or some other status of permission/freedom/privilege?

In most cases, whether or not a given individual has a right depends on context. For instance, take Abortion. If we say someone has the right to have an abortion, what does that mean?

Does it mean that there is no law or threat of punishment prohibiting it?
Does it mean that there is a ruling explicitly permitting it?
Does it mean that, by the very virtue of free will, we can choose to make use of the available service if we wish to do so?
Does it mean that we have the justification to demand of society that such a service is made available for us?
Does it mean that we can expect society to allow us to go ahead with this action without question or criticism?
Does it mean that we have authority to prevent people from trying to restrict the availability of the service?

I feel that the concept of a right needs to be more fully fleshed out before anything can really be said about whether we have a right to perform a given action.

OK - I pretty much agree with all you mentioned - but to bring the discussion to a more practical (and pedestrian) rhetoric lets forget about lawyers and instead talk about farts. (really not all that different!)


Does one have the right to fart? Or, more specifically, does one have the right to fart in public?

At first glance the answer would seem a most certain "yes". Nobody is harmed and there is little doubt it provides a biological function which otherwise could lead to a painful condition.

However - your OP hypothesis is that you support rights that do not infringe others. What about the right to breath freely without offensive odors? Is that too not a right which should be enjoyed in public?

Which right, then, trumps the other?

Pardon? Who said I don't support those rights?
They're not on the list.

We're not talking about what we should do. We're talking about rights.
Yes, the unconditional right to live!

They're not on the list.I think if Jocabia were to list all the rights [s]he believes an Individual should have without interferance of the law, the first post will still be in the making. :D

I think if Jocabia were to list all the rights [s]he believes an Individual should have without interferance of the law, the first post will still be in the making. :D
I can understand how he doesn't need to put down theings like Freedom of Speech, which are universally agreed upon, but he should put down material rights, which are not all agreed upon, especially in America.

nope, some of your suggested rights can be used to show deficent and compromised mental facility. thus even if you wrote a lengly note ellequently stating that you willingly did these things to yourself (they eye poking and shooting of self in knee... for example) and should you die of Drug Overdose, again it can be shown of decreased mental facility. remember, if it does go to court, it's in the hands of Lawyers. not you.

No, not unless you assume the activity would not be engaged unless the faculties are deficient, which is an assumption you better be willing to prove.

Again, we are talking about a scenario where, in making it legal, we would make sure such consequences did not exist, as a direct part of the scenario. I'll quote "so long as you don't try to force me to care for you afterward." Making this part of legalizing, a fundamental part, was part of the argument. If you're unable to address the argument, just say so.




and thus you aknowledge that what you do to yourself does affect others. now if you change those laws, what happens... peope who are hurt in legitament accidents suddenly become bankrupt as insurance no longer works. a mis typed report signed by you in a drug induced daze (morphine and such) can leave you with 100% of the bill. you have hospitals refusing to assist anyone to protect their assets. really, think about it.

Nope, I don't acknowledge. I acknowledge that our current law makes some of our personal actions affect others. The law is to blame for that. Not the individual. You FAIL to acknowledge that current state of our law is exactly what I'm complaining about so arguing that because the law is as it is today that these activities should be illegal is a circular argument.

Again, you make up some scenario to make an argument. Your signature in a drug-induced haze has no validity in a court of law, my friend, nor would anyone logically argue that a person should be held responsible for a coerced agreement.

I have thought about it. You are arguing current law. I am arguing for a change in the law. You're slippery slope is a fallacy unless you can prove otherwise. I'll wait.


did you ever see what NASCAR has to pay for insurance, infact what any racepark/event has to pay? how many times did they move because they COULDN'T find a carrier there.

Again, the point is that there are ways to address such things. I'm arguing for a change in the law and you're arguing that current law prohibits or discourages certain behaviors so thus it should be illegal. It's circular and kind of silly.


actually there would be. they need to inform the patients the correct dosage and timing needed. thus anyone who fails to place such instruction on Prescription drugs risks Malpractice Lawsuits. now if you also remove MALPRACTICE LAWSUITS and ANY LAWSUIT then perhaps....

Again, you are arguing about current laws. With over-the-counter medication, they have dosage information and timing, same when doctors tell you to take over-the-counter medication. If you violate the dosage and time of the manufacturer or doctor, they are not liable.


wrong, CONSENTING means giving permission, not being informed.

False. In our society, consenting means informed consent. If I trick a woman into having sex with me by convincing her I am her husband, it is rape. Not just legally, but logically. If I lie to a woman about having AIDS and have sex with her, it is murder. We require informed consent in this country, and I have made no argument otherwise.



because they are regulated.

Duh. Who is arguing against regulation? Not I. Legal and unregulated are not equal.


and I never said it was an argument against it. it's just a point that there are alot of things that while it seems that it only affects you, it actually doesnt.

And you've failed to demonstrate this is true. You've proven that our current legal system occasionally holds people accountable for the actions of others, but then I don't advocate that and that has no bearing on whether or not the activities at their core should be illegal.


yes, because people are not that responsible when it comes to Drug Use.

So then you believe that we can deny individual rights because some people will not use those rights the way you'd like. Glad we cleared that up.


no My basic argument is that not everything you listed only INVOLVES the people directly tied to those actions.
And you've failed to demonstrate that argument. You've shown that in the current state in the US that the courts sometimes involves other people in your personal activities, but that doesn't make that effect inherent. I'll wait for you to demonstrate some inherent effect. I mean, it's actually possible there's a good argument in you, despite currect evidence.

It can be seen as that. tho the drug one is wrong. Over the counter is up to a certain Drug Strength. Perscription is stronger than over the counter. Edit: Illegal is Illegal. you argue only one type of drug Cocaine, ever seen the effects of PCP? Meth? the only way they affect the one person is if that one person was locked in a room by themselves.

you allow institutions to change their policies (and the law) and you can have hospitals turning away homless people. you can have a woman who was beaten by her husband to continue being beaten because it will be reported as "an accident" you will place alot of people in jeopardy by changing those LAWs. and you will remove their RIGHT for healthcare.

I have not changed anything you listed, I have mearly shown you where it goes after the action.

of course you can stop it by NOT GOING TO THE HOSPITAL.

You insert a lot of assumptions into my arguments that are either not there or directly counter to what is there and then you argued from that position. That's called a strawman. Now, if you'd like to argue my actual points, feel free. If you'd like to make yourself look silly, keep arguing as you have been.

I'm not falling for your slippery slope argument. You could make the same argument about nearly every activity. I don't hold that the fact that we currently require hospitals to address all comers as an argument that individual rights affect others inherently. In fact, the fact that you have to invoke the government to force that involvement proves the repsonsibility of the government in creating that effect rather than it being inherent to the individual right. You argue against yourself and I don't think you realize it.

Meanwhile, you again reference rules that are result of our concept of the illegal drug. Absent that concept, your rules become unnecessary. And yes, I've seen the effects of those drugs. Most of those effects are caused by the fact that PCP and LSD are being made at home rather than by clean facilities as they used to be. You are arguing about things that are a result of drugs being illegal. They are not a problem in places where drugs are currently legal.

If no drugs were illegal, then there would be no need for prescriptions. NEXT.


There might very well be a need for prescriptions. Just because you would be able to legally buy any drug you wish does not mean that you do in fact know which drug you want to purchase for any given medical condition. Id much rather have a doctor prescribe something for a medical condition than to randomly try every drug available until something was found to help.

I maintain that most people don't, but say they do. For the purposes of my argument I hold individual rights to mean this:

Any action that you do that only involves you and other adults capable of consent (meaning not people who are clinically insane or mentally disabled).

I'm not including children or animals in the discussion because whether or not they are consenting to the action is debatable.

So that means I think you have the right to stab yourself in the eyes with pencils so long as you don't try to force me to care for you afterward. You have the right to freebase cocaine. You have the right to shoot yourself in the knee. You have the right to sell sex for money. You have the right to have sex in any orifice with any inanimate object or any part of a consenting person you so desire. You have the right to form a partnership with any other consenting adult. You have the right to walk around your home naked or your community naked provided it does not present a health risk. You have the right to nurse in public or not. You have the right to watch porn i the middle of the day. You have the right to go to church every morning and night. You have the right to worship in public provided you aren't infringing on the rights of others not to suppor the practice. You have a right to tattoo yourself all over, to change yourself physically into the other sex, to express yourself and be yourself in whatever way that means, so long as you aren't violating the rights of others in doing so.

I mean full-out complete respect for individual rights unless there is a compelling and urgent societal need to limit those rights, meaning some would argue that taxes limit those rights but so does a military coup in your country. Sometimes the rights of one individual weighs too heavily against the needs of the collective the individuals chose to form.

How many people really support individual rights or how many would vote to outlaw some activity that does not actually affect them in any way, such as gay marriage or anti-drug laws?

Agreed, except... What is Consent? What poses a serious risk to others or to the rights of others?
Sound like obvious questions? well the're not. Just think of peer pressure and Second Hand smoke. Is it really consent if you were subconsciously 'pressured' to do so, due to either some imagined 'coolness/acceptance' factor, or simply because someone with some form of real or imagined authority (your boss, your parents, etc.) wants you to?

And does something like smoking pose a serious health risk to others via second hand smoke? If some one decides to take advantage of their right to shoot theirself in the knee, what happens if the bullet ricochets and kills an innocent bystander? How about if somone engages in some public behaviour that psychologicall traumatizes another, or alters their pschological state ins ome unfathomable manner?

Personally, I'm all for Individual rights, as long as everyone is intelligent enough to partake intelligently. You can give everybody full individual rights if you want, but various incidents, scientific research and etc. will eventually whittle down each one unless reasonable limits are imposed to prevent individual misuse of rights.

There might very well be a need for prescriptions. Just because you would be able to legally buy any drug you wish does not mean that you do in fact know which drug you want to purchase for any given medical condition. Id much rather have a doctor prescribe something for a medical condition than to randomly try every drug available until something was found to help.

I meant in terms of prescription drugs v. over-the-counter drugs (I actually further defined it). I didn't mean that doctors would stop telling us what and how much to take for maladies. However, their prescriptions would be exactly like what they write currently for non-prescription drugs like tylenol.

Agreed, except... What is Consent? What poses a serious risk to others or to the rights of others?
Sound like obvious questions? well the're not. Just think of peer pressure and Second Hand smoke. Is it really consent if you were subconsciously 'pressured' to do so, due to either some imagined 'coolness/acceptance' factor, or simply because someone with some form of real or imagined authority (your boss, your parents, etc.) wants you to?

This already happens. Peer pressure is not an excuse that adults are or should be permitted to use. Actual coersive behavior is something adults are permitted to use. In current society, only certain activities are considered coersive to the point of flipping consent.


And does something like smoking pose a serious health risk to others via second hand smoke? If some one decides to take advantage of their right to shoot theirself in the knee, what happens if the bullet ricochets and kills an innocent bystander? How about if somone engages in some public behaviour that psychologicall traumatizes another, or alters their pschological state ins ome unfathomable manner?

By that argument, you could deny all free speech. And we already have laws regarding negligence. Something being legal doesn't mean I can negligently endanger others, this include second-hand smoke and bullets ricocheting.



Personally, I'm all for Individual rights, as long as everyone is intelligent enough to partake intelligently. You can give everybody full individual rights if you want, but various incidents, scientific research and etc. will eventually whittle down each one unless reasonable limits are imposed to prevent individual misuse of rights.

I don't believe in the individual misuse of rights. I do believe that individuals abuse the rights of others, which is what you are describing above in your more reasonable examples.

[snip] and you jocabia hasn't seen what i presented. I'm not presenting Legal as in laws, but actions through the laws. Lawsuites. as in your loved ones suing others. No one can stop them, no matter what you try to do.

all my "made up" examples are not actions though the breaking of laws but the lawsuites by those close to those individuals.

you poke yourself in the eye, or shoot yourself in the knee. if you go to the doctors, that will cause a psychiatric test to be given, it will cause an investigation to be done because those facilities including law enforcement will leave themselves open for lawsuites by your loved ones "why didn't the police do anything to stop him, why didn't the hospital get him the help he needed" those are all comments echoed by the survivors of suiciders (another individual right by your definition.)

self harm for no reason is also not the signs of a well mind.

As for assumptions, you also set alot of assumptions. that only those Directly invovlved in the activity are the ONLY ONES involved. I've shown you how they are not.

thus some of your Individual Rights are not as Individual as you think.

Individual rights are fine as long as they don't harm anyone else unless consented. :)

and you jocabia hasn't seen what i presented. I'm not presenting Legal as in laws, but actions through the laws. Lawsuites. as in your loved ones suing others. No one can stop them, no matter what you try to do.

You sure about that. I think you're going to have to prove that lawsuits are impossible to prevent.


all my "made up" examples are not actions though the breaking of laws but the lawsuites by those close to those individuals.

Again, lawsuits can be avoided by a change in law. Please explain to me why it is impossible to make it so that such enforced responsibilities of one individual for the actions of another are not subject to lawsuit? You've not. You've assumed it simply because it is the present state of affairs in some countries.


you poke yourself in the eye, or shoot yourself in the knee. if you go to the doctors, that will cause a psychiatric test to be given, it will cause an investigation to be done because those facilities including law enforcement will leave themselves open for lawsuites by your loved ones "why didn't the police do anything to stop him, why didn't the hospital get him the help he needed" those are all comments echoed by the survivors of suiciders (another individual right by your definition.)

So you say. They are the result of a society that makes other people responsible for my actions. You are arguing a circle, because I am arguing for a society where the only person responsible for one's actions is that person and anyone actually involved in the actions. You are arguing that because it is not the current society that it is not the current society. I don't see how that addresses my argument at all.


self harm for no reason is also not the signs of a well mind.

Based on what? You're assertion. I think you're going to have to do better than that. Tattooing is self-harm. Fast food is self-harm. Are the vast majority of people ill because they eat fast food? I would say that people eat who fast food have a reason for eating, but then the only one who claimed no reason is, well, YOU.


As for assumptions, you also set alot of assumptions. that only those Directly invovlved in the activity are the ONLY ONES involved. I've shown you how they are not.

No, you haven't. You've shown how if you change the object of discussion they COULD be involved. You've asserted that it can be no other way, but I have yet to see support for it. Nothing you've said demonstrates that the harm you are claiming is inherent, but rather it is a type of harm we invented as a society by requiring uninvolved people to be responsible for the individual actions of another, and you've not demonstrated that this harm is unavoidable by a change of law. Feel free to do so.

By the wya, when someone sponsors a discussion and they make it clear what they are attempting to discuss, that's not making assumptions, that's setting the terms. You've changed the terms without establishing why you would do so and then acting as if they were the terms all along.

thus some of your Individual Rights are not as Individual as you think.
No, you've not demonstrated this. You've demonstrated that a flawed legal system creates harm where otherwise none would exist. That harm has nothing to do with the harm inherent to the rights. Want proof? Does the harm exist absent a civil suit system? Nope. Thus, it's invented by that civil suit system.

Last time I checked humans are animals.

Your pedanticness will be the death of you.

I maintain that most people don't, but say they do. For the purposes of my argument I hold individual rights to mean this:

Any action that you do that only involves you and other adults capable of consent (meaning not people who are clinically insane or mentally disabled).

How many people really support individual rights or how many would vote to outlaw some activity that does not actually affect them in any way, such as gay marriage or anti-drug laws?

As you define them, I support individual rights.

As you define them, I support individual rights.

That's a good answer. I admit that the way I define them is not as they exist today, some of which is demonstarted by JuNii's arguments. However, if we respected individual rights more and consequently individual responsibility, I think they are quite valuable and worth defending.

They're not on the list.


Yes, the unconditional right to live!
The list is not all inclusive. To expect to be is ludicrous and shows a hideous lack of understanding of how extensive a list that included all of the rights I am generally referencing is.

That right, the right to live, extends as far as to my skin. Otherwise I would have the right to kill you for food, which I don't. When you say the right to live requires me to support those rights, you are no longer discussing individual rights, but societal rights. Start a thread about it if you like, but we are discussing individual rights.

Jocabia, you are very quick to blame the Law for all that you view as wrong. The fact is that human beings naturally socialise, and are not compelled into doing so by a distant legislative body.

Take any of the examples that have been tossed around, a self-inflicted gun-shot wound for instance. What about the person who discovers you hobbling after you have shot yourself in the leg, if he is conscientuous he would feel the urge to stop and ask you if you require assistance - this delay could cost him his punctuality in attending a job interview, and as such he loses the oppurtunity to advance in his career. Or say your room-mate comes home intent on using your shared gun and single bullet to murder the man who's been porking his fiancee, but finds instead that it is imbedded in your leg, ruining his well-laid plans.

The point is that no Individual can operate in isolation. Social interaction is not a Government invention. As long as there are other people walking the globe, your actions are going to be affecting theirs. And thus your assumption that any action can ever be truly personal is flawed.

As you define them, I support individual rights.

Seconded

Jocabia, you are very quick to blame the Law for all that you view as wrong. The fact is that human beings naturally socialise, and are not compelled into doing so by a distant legislative body.

Take any of the examples that have been tossed around, a self-inflicted gun-shot wound for instance. What about the person who discovers you hobbling after you have shot yourself in the leg, if he is conscientuous he would feel the urge to stop and ask you if you require assistance - this delay could cost him his punctuality in attending a job interview, and as such he loses the oppurtunity to advance in his career. Or say your room-mate comes home intent on using your shared gun and single bullet to murder the man who's been porking his fiancee, but finds instead that it is imbedded in your leg, ruining his well-laid plans.

The point is that no Individual can operate in isolation. Social interaction is not a Government invention. As long as there are other people walking the globe, your actions are going to be affecting theirs. And thus your assumption that any action can ever be truly personal is flawed.

See, again, if you make the argument that because people choose to involve themselves with me that I am responsible for how this affects them outside of our interaction, well, I don't know what to say. I guess if a guy buys a car from me, I'm responsible for the person who he didn't buy a car from and every other resultant act. When you start down that road, there is no end to it. I am responsible for actions I commit that are against the will of others. What others choose to do is not my responsiblity.

This is exactly the flaw of our society. We haven't just destroyed the idea of individual rights, but also individual responsibilty.

You sure about that. I think you're going to have to prove that lawsuits are impossible to prevent.easily done, look at all the lawsuites filed.

against fast food restuarants for making them fat.
against restruants for serving coffee too hot.
against a man for looking at a woman in a lewd fashion.

Again, lawsuits can be avoided by a change in law. Please explain to me why it is impossible to make it so that such enforced responsibilities of one individual for the actions of another are not subject to lawsuit? You've not. You've assumed it simply because it is the present state of affairs in some countries. so you are going to put up laws to prevent lawsuits... isn't that an infringement on Individual Rights? so you are only for SOME individual Freedoms then and not total individual freedom. sorry, then your argument looses.

So you say. They are the result of a society that makes other people responsible for my actions. You are arguing a circle, because I am arguing for a society where the only person responsible for one's actions is that person and anyone actually involved in the actions. You are arguing that because it is not the current society that it is not the current society. I don't see how that addresses my argument at all. and that is what you have to change. that and turn everyone around to the point where they will take responsibility and not rely on the Government nor on Corporations to "take care" of them. I really wish you luck on that.

Based on what? You're assertion. I think you're going to have to do better than that. Tattooing is self-harm. Fast food is self-harm. Are the vast majority of people ill because they eat fast food? I would say that people eat who fast food have a reason for eating, but then the only one who claimed no reason is, well, YOU.no, baised on the reports done by many psychologists.

Tattooing isn't self-harm, it's self defacement. big difference. Fast Food isn't self harm but poor nutrition.

thanks for some classic examples of strawmen there.


No, you haven't. You've shown how if you change the object of discussion they COULD be involved. You've asserted that it can be no other way, but I have yet to see support for it. Nothing you've said demonstrates that the harm you are claiming is inherent, but rather it is a type of harm we invented as a society by requiring uninvolved people to be responsible for the individual actions of another, and you've not demonstrated that this harm is unavoidable by a change of law. Feel free to do so.and how were those non involved people pulled in? simple, because individuals in society cannot and will not take responsibility for their own actions.

you also haven't demonstrated any way to affect this change. you make assertions yet your whole argument is also baised on assertions.

By the way, when someone sponsors a discussion and they make it clear what they are attempting to discuss, that's not making assumptions, that's setting the terms. You've changed the terms without establishing why you would do so and then acting as if they were the terms all along. no I didn't, I made my points baised off of your situations and arguments backed by what is happening right now in today's society. and the fact that you made no attempt to show how your Individual Rights can overcome what I presented. infact, all you do is accuse me of changing the situation.

I did say, alot of your examples will involve other people, you ask how and I told you. you have yet to refute that. you didn't. you just said "Waaa, you changed what I said."

sure, you shoot youself in the leg. then what? you gonna just sit there and bandage it up? fine by me. if it gets infected then what? will you go to the doctor? once you involve them, then you start the wheels that hospitals put in place to protect themselves (their Right) and when that happens, you put into motion the actions Law Enforcement has to take to protect themselves (also their Right) Then what you say will also initiate psychological examinations to see if you are a threat to other individuals (their Right for secuity) and should you die, or cause another death either by design or accident, the surviving loved ones, yours and (if someone else is involved) theirs will examine everything done and if something was mishandled, they will take legal action (Their Right)

so will you prevent someone else from excercising their Individual Rights just because you want to excercise YOUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHT?


No, you've not demonstrated this. You've demonstrated that a flawed legal system creates harm where otherwise none would exist. That harm has nothing to do with the harm inherent to the rights. Want proof? Does the harm exist absent a civil suit system? Nope. Thus, it's invented by that civil suit system.no, I shown how a legal system build on protecting each citizens Individual rights will work to protect the Right for each Individual and each entity in society.

See, again, if you make the argument that because people choose to involve themselves with me that I am responsible for how this affects them outside of our interaction, well, I don't know what to say. I guess if a guy buys a car from me, I'm responsible for the person who he didn't buy a car from and every other resultant act. When you start down that road, there is no end to it. I am responsible for actions I commit that are against the will of others. What others choose to do is not my responsiblity.

This is exactly the flaw of our society. We haven't just destroyed the idea of individual rights, but also individual responsibilty.ok let's try this step by step experiment.

we will take shooting yourself in the knee. you create the excuse, and bang! you plug your kneecap. for the sake of keeping others out, you are alone at home and you use a sliencer.

what do you do next?

See, again, if you make the argument that because people choose to involve themselves with me that I am responsible for how this affects them outside of our interaction, well, I don't know what to say. I guess if a guy buys a car from me, I'm responsible for the person who he didn't buy a car from and every other resultant act. When you start down that road, there is no end to it. I am responsible for actions I commit that are against the will of others. What others choose to do is not my responsiblity.

This is exactly the flaw of our society. We haven't just destroyed the idea of individual rights, but also individual responsibilty.

Okay then, assume the person who finds you hobbling chooses not to help - he walks on but is so disturbed and guilt-ridden from leaving you that he then procedes to blow his interview anyway. Unless you are saying that he chose to find a bullet-ridden man in his path, then you have to admit that any action you make can have consequences in any other Individual's life.

Obviously, this is a Social mechanism at work, so I do not see why you cannot accept a Social solution to it. Working together in a Society does not destroy your Individual Rights.

ok let's try this step by step experiment.

we will take shooting yourself in the knee. you create the excuse, and bang! you plug your kneecap. for the sake of keeping others out, you are alone at home and you use a sliencer.

what do you do next?

Well I would think this is a bit of an extreme example but I think I may be able to follow Jocabia reasoning here. If I am wrong I should hope he/she will correct me.

IN THE SOCIETY HYPOTHESIZED BY JOCABIA

A) If you next blow your head off then the landlord finds you and uses your security deposit to get the mess cleaned up and if someone cares enough (such as relatives) they may pay for a funeral.

B) If you suddenly think 'What the FLOCK did I just do?' and go to a medical professional then in this society she/he is hypothesizing the doc will look at you and ask how it happened. Assuming he learns the truth he tells you, "If you want me to help you with your stupid action I require lots of money. If you don't have then it sucks to be you."

Okay then, assume the person who finds you hobbling chooses not to help - he walks on but is so disturbed and guilt-ridden from leaving you that he then procedes to blow his interview anyway. Unless you are saying that he chose to find a bullet-ridden man in his path, then you have to admit that any action you make can have consequences in any other Individual's life.

Obviously, this is a Social mechanism at work, so I do not see why you cannot accept a Social solution to it. Working together in a Society does not destroy your Individual Rights.

This seems a very impractical way to run any kind of society, and I am far from convinced that this is how human society functions when left to its natural course.

Individual #1: Has shot himself in the knee. Without his motive it is harder to make a decision, but his action was his own. Besides, you seem more concerned about individual #2.

Individual #2: Has passed a wounded man and not helped him and suffered a consequence as a result. However, this consequence was entirely of his own construct was it not? He chose not to assist and regretted it. Was this because he held his choice to be faulty?

If he did, then would he not have avoided this consequence by stopping to help the man, which would have also been his choice . I do not see how individual one is responsible for individual 2's choice.

In this same vein of logic, what if your lawn is cut horizontally while your neighbor obsessively cuts their lawn vertically? Are you subject to the whims of those around you only because they hold their opinions with more conviction? Which goes along with "do people have a right not to be offended?'. I hold that they have no such right.

easily done, look at all the lawsuites filed.

against fast food restuarants for making them fat.
against restruants for serving coffee too hot.
against a man for looking at a woman in a lewd fashion.

Again, the fact that they exist in a system that allows them to exist does not mean they must exist. Certainly you have an argument that is NOT circular.


so you are going to put up laws to prevent lawsuits... isn't that an infringement on Individual Rights? so you are only for SOME individual Freedoms then and not total individual freedom. sorry, then your argument looses.

Lawsuits are enacted against someone else against their will. It is not individual. Did you forget what INDIVIDUAL means or are you being intentionally obtuse? If a lawsuit is an individual right, so is murder, because the victim is equally consenting.


and that is what you have to change. that and turn everyone around to the point where they will take responsibility and not rely on the Government nor on Corporations to "take care" of them. I really wish you luck on that.

It starts with expectations. We have a current system that rewards people for not taking responsibility for our actions. History shows that people are quite willing to take responsibity for their own actions when it is required of them. The lack of personal responsibility is a relatively new phenomena.

Meanwhile, if your entire arguments rests on the idea that it currently works that way so it must work that way, well, I'd say that's a pretty poor argument, but I'm biased.


no, baised on the reports done by many psychologists.

Tattooing isn't self-harm, it's self defacement. big difference. Fast Food isn't self harm but poor nutrition.

Ha. Poor nutrition doesn't harm you? By what absurd definition of harm is poor nutrition not harmful? And tattoos can cost you employment, cause poisoning, they damage the skin, they hurt. Again, what does harm mean to you?


thanks for some classic examples of strawmen there.

I guess it's only an example of a strawman if you make up a definition of harm that doesn't include damaging your health and well-being.


and how were those non involved people pulled in? simple, because individuals in society cannot and will not take responsibility for their own actions.

Pardon? They absolutely can and used to take responsibility for their actions. Are you actually arguing that two hundred years ago there were lawsuits for the kinds of things you're describing? I'm sorry, but you're going to have to show how even a handful of societies had such problems.


you also haven't demonstrated any way to affect this change. you make assertions yet your whole argument is also baised on assertions.

My argument is based on a concept of rights and responsibilities. You changed the concept and then argued against it. Again, how we would affect such a change is really quite simple. First, begin by limiting the ability to sue people for reasonable results of your own consented actions provided they did not defaud you or in any other way coerse your actions unreasonably. Second, by getting rid of laws that treat people as if they aren't responsible for themselves, like sin taxes, drugs laws, euthanasia laws, helmet laws, etc.


no I didn't, I made my points baised off of your situations and arguments backed by what is happening right now in today's society. and the fact that you made no attempt to show how your Individual Rights can overcome what I presented. infact, all you do is accuse me of changing the situation.
If my argument was about how we need to change today's society, then you'd have a decent claim. Since it is, you're being nonsensical. "We can't change today's society, because it doesn't work that way in current society."

You changed my scenario. Yes, it doesn't exist today. That's the point of my argument. No part of my scenario requires me to show how we get there from here. If you'd like me to demonstrate how we could be there, easy. Simply get rid of all of the things that you've argued happen today that force others to be responsible for my personal consented actions.


I did say, alot of your examples will involve other people, you ask how and I told you. you have yet to refute that. you didn't. you just said "Waaa, you changed what I said."

I did refute that. I said your claims don't involve my examples. You gave DIFFERENT examples. You admit they are different because you didn't like mine. Unless, you want to claim I did NOT say that it was assuming that other people aren't financially held responsible for these individual decisions. You changed my examples and then said my examples involved other people. The original examples that I gave didn't. What's the matter, friend, your argument isn't strong enough to warrant avoiding the strawman?

Me: "Provided other people aren't held financially liable for my choice, individual rights should include my right to stab myself in the eye."
You: "But what about the financial harm."
Me: "You mean the financial harm that I said should also change."
You: "But you can't change the system unless the system changes."


sure, you shoot youself in the leg. then what? you gonna just sit there and bandage it up? fine by me. if it gets infected then what? will you go to the doctor? once you involve them, then you start the wheels that hospitals put in place to protect themselves (their Right) and when that happens, you put into motion the actions Law Enforcement has to take to protect themselves (also their Right) Then what you say will also initiate psychological examinations to see if you are a threat to other individuals (their Right for secuity) and should you die, or cause another death either by design or accident, the surviving loved ones, yours and (if someone else is involved) theirs will examine everything done and if something was mishandled, they will take legal action (Their Right)

Again, you argue in circles.

Me: "I want to change the way we view the rights and responsibilities of individuals."
You: "You can't because those rights affect other people in the current system."
Me: "So? The current system supports the way we view those rights and responsiblities. I would like to change that."
You: "But in the current system, they do and so we can't change the current system because in the current system it works the way it works in the current system. Blah, blah, blah."

Unless you have an argument that demonstrates that the current system is the only possible system, then I'm afraid you just look silly.


so will you prevent someone else from excercising their Individual Rights just because you want to excercise YOUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHT?

No, I don't. You are arguing that the current system (that I am trying to change) can't be changed because in the current system (thatI am trying to change) my individual actions cause people to be victimized by the current system. Again, unless you can demonstrate that holding me accountable for the actions of others is unavoidable, you have no argument. You haven't.

In fact, you are talking about how violations to individual rights that I would want to stop are reason to not allow me to stop the violations to invidividual rights.

no, I shown how a legal system build on protecting each citizens Individual rights will work to protect the Right for each Individual and each entity in society.
No, it doesn't protect individual rights. You've shown how it cause my individual rights to allow others to be victimized by a system. Here's how you know it's not an individual right... ready? If there is any individual involved against their will, it's not individual. You've asserted that suing is an individual right. Quick, is anyone involved against their will? I think there is. You've asserted that forcing hospitals to care for a wound I inflicted on purpose is an individual right. Quick, is there anyone involved against their will? Hmmmm... I think there is again. Let me know when you're prepared to behave as if you know the meaning of the word INDIVIDUAL.

I'll define a couple of words for you -

Individual - 1 a : a particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection: as (1) : a single human being as contrasted with a social group or institution <a teacher who works with individuals> (2) : a single organism as distinguished from a group b : a particular person <are you the individual I spoke with on the telephone?>

Harm - 1 : physical or mental damage : INJURY

Amusingly, you argue from both sides. You claim financial harm is a reason to abridge rights and then argue that the physical harm resulting from poor nutrition is not harm.

Effects of poor nutrition - http://www.immunesystemetc.com/Nutrition.html "According to Dr. Jesse Stoff, Dr. Robert Atkins and others, poor nutrition can cause ill health and suppress immune function."

I guess ill health and suppressed immune function is not physical damage in the magically made-up world of JuNii. So now that we've defined some terms, perhaps some individuals can make an argument that isn't an affront to classic definition of terms.

ok let's try this step by step experiment.

we will take shooting yourself in the knee. you create the excuse, and bang! you plug your kneecap. for the sake of keeping others out, you are alone at home and you use a sliencer.

what do you do next?

Any number of things. How about I go to the hospital and I pay out of my own account for medical assistance? I voluntarily employ a doctor in his chosen profession for which I reimburse him for, in a relationship we both enter into voluntarily. No one's rights are violated. Everyone is voluntarily acting exactly according to their choice.

Or, how about I then take my life? Again, no one's rights are violated.

Or how about I properly care for my wound and I walk around on crutches from then on? Again, no one's rights are violated.

Or I go to the hospital where they tell me that they do not treat self-inflicted wounds and I die from infection? Again, no one's rights are violated. Now, even if my parents sue the hospital for turning me away, it is my parents who are using my choice to violate the rights of others and being aided by a system that is flawed. It doesn't change that my actions do not inherently violate the rights of anyone else.

There is no scenario where that action violates the rights of anyone else unless someone else within the system or using the system chooses to use the event to victimize someone. No matter how you slice there is nothing abou the action that directly victimizes another unless the system allows that to happen. Thus it is inherent to the current system, not the right itself.

Okay then, assume the person who finds you hobbling chooses not to help - he walks on but is so disturbed and guilt-ridden from leaving you that he then procedes to blow his interview anyway. Unless you are saying that he chose to find a bullet-ridden man in his path, then you have to admit that any action you make can have consequences in any other Individual's life.

Obviously, this is a Social mechanism at work, so I do not see why you cannot accept a Social solution to it. Working together in a Society does not destroy your Individual Rights.

Ha. Again, if you're going to follow this path, then you're going to have to show me how this is different than if I choose to get a tattoo or excercise my freedom of speech or anything else. I get it, you think that I should be responsible for the behavior of others that I have not control over simply because I've encountered them. I'm sorry. I don't buy that.

I took this example because it will get others involved.. not like tattooing. :p but kneecap is a bit extreme, so I'll change it to leg.
Well I would think this is a bit of an extreme example but I think I may be able to follow Jocabia reasoning here. If I am wrong I should hope he/she will correct me.

A) If you next blow your head off then the landlord finds you and uses your security deposit to get the mess cleaned up and if someone cares enough (such as relatives) they may pay for a funeral.well, close. the Landlord will call the police (since he is responsible for the building and the tennents.) the police will investigate, the mortician/pathologist will determine that it was suicide.
Next of kin will be called and you can bet your bonnet that they will insist on an investigation of their own. especially if suicide is so out of character.

so far, that's police, Hospital, Forenscics, family and possibly another investigator that's all involved in a non-criminal action.

the family will claim the body or if no family, friends, if no friends, it's disposed of.

landlord now has to clean the apartment and most likely that will be more than the deposit so someone eats that cost. we'll say landlord for the sake of brevity.

then you have the estate, yes, even if all you owned was clothes and a suitcase, it still is your estate. simplist thing will be it would be donated to charity, or sold in a garage sale or something.

no lawyers in this scenario but everyone near you would be affected. neighbors would wonder if they "missed" the signs or assume you were a nutcase.

B) If you suddenly think 'What the FLOCK did I just do?' and go to a medical professional then in this society she/he is hypothesizing the doc will look at you and ask how it happened. Assuming he learns the truth he tells you, "If you want me to help you with your stupid action I require lots of money. If you don't have then it sucks to be you."now for this scenario, how one answers determines the results. think Choose your own adventure.

you can either bandage it yourself or go to the hospital.
if you go to the hospital they will most certanly ask questions and the police will be called. for simplicity, we'll ask one. what happened. do you Lie or Tell the truth.
if you Tell the truth, I shot myself to [blank] then a whole world of hurt opens up. you get subjected to Psychological testing, the results are put into your record and anyone referencing your records will ask the same questions and you end up going through the whole rigamarole. Insurance, Job Interviews, Loans... all might see this as a high risk option and may reject you or raise your premiums.

If you Lie, "It went off accidently while cleaning it." then you get a lecture on gun safty, you might even get a free trigger guard. all legality of the weapon will be ok, permit, licence and such... for simplicity sake. very few people invovled. hooray.

now, you bandage it yourself. if you're lucky, you won't get an infection and none of the bullet fragments will poison you. you also missed bone. unfortunatly, you limp now and because it's not on any medical chart, you don't get the nifty handicapped sign to park in those good stalls. :D however the chances of it being infected is there and should it become infected, you have more awkward questions to answer. but only one path won't involve that many people while others will involve alot.

that's what society is. if you don't want anyone getting involved in what you do, then you need to move to an island and live by yourself. ;)

Well I would think this is a bit of an extreme example but I think I may be able to follow Jocabia reasoning here. If I am wrong I should hope he/she will correct me.

A) If you next blow your head off then the landlord finds you and uses your security deposit to get the mess cleaned up and if someone cares enough (such as relatives) they may pay for a funeral.

B) If you suddenly think 'What the FLOCK did I just do?' and go to a medical professional then in this society she/he is hypothesizing the doc will look at you and ask how it happened. Assuming he learns the truth he tells you, "If you want me to help you with your stupid action I require lots of money. If you don't have then it sucks to be you."

Yes, more or less. And nothing about your response shows a violation of rights.

Even if the security deposite doesn't cover the mess, then I've chosen to victimize the landlord, and it no longer is an enaction of my individual right. Same is true if I don't set aside funds for my own funeral. Etc. Each of these are choices that I made where I could have performed the same action absent of victimizing people. It is not inherent to the action.

Any number of things. How about I go to the hospital and I pay out of my own account for medical assistance? due to the nature of the wound, the police will be called and questions answered. how you answer those questions determine what happens next.
I voluntarily employ a doctor in his chosen profession for which I reimburse him for, in a relationship we both enter into voluntarily. No one's rights are violated. Everyone is voluntarily acting exactly according to their choice.like, what doctor will turn anyone down. their oath pretty much insures they will help you. payment or no.

Or, how about I then take my life? Again, no one's rights are violated. no one's rights... were are you when you take your life?

I never argued that rights will be infringed on, just that people will be involved and thus affected.

Or how about I properly care for my wound and I walk around on crutches from then on? Again, no one's rights are violated. and if the wound gets infected? Not everyone knows how to take care of a gunshot wound... do you? And where will you get the meds to insure you won't get infections? ahh... black market where you pay more.

Or I go to the hospital where they tell me that they do not treat self-inflicted wounds and I die from infection? I pitty you if you live in a country where they do that. :(
Again, no one's rights are violated. Now, even if my parents sue the hospital for turning me away, it is my parents who are using my choice to violate the rights of others and being aided by a system that is flawed. It doesn't change that my actions do not inherently violate the rights of anyone else.wrong, that is not flawed because if the hospital does turn you away for that reason, then it's criminal negligence on their part or you don't mind criminals getting away...

There is no scenario where that action violates the rights of anyone else unless someone else within the system or using the system chooses to use the event to victimize someone. No matter how you slice there is nothing abou the action that directly victimizes another unless the system allows that to happen. Thus it is inherent to the current system, not the right itself.then I pitty your ideal society that lacks compassion and replaces it with self fulfillment.

I took this example because it will get others involved.. not like tattooing. :p but kneecap is a bit extreme, so I'll change it to leg.
well, close. the Landlord will call the police (since he is responsible for the building and the tennents.) the police will investigate, the mortician/pathologist will determine that it was suicide.
Next of kin will be called and you can bet your bonnet that they will insist on an investigation of their own. especially if suicide is so out of character.

Again, none of this is a requirement. It's the design of a current system. It is not inherent in the enaction of the right. What if choose to commit suicide to I fill out a document that makes my suicide legal and no investigation is required? What if I pay Dr. Kavorkian to help me commit suicide after setting all my affairs in order? None of your argument is inherent to the right. You point to flaws in the society I would like to change as reason to not change the society. It's circular.


so far, that's police, Hospital, Forenscics, family and possibly another investigator that's all involved in a non-criminal action.

Again, you argue that the current system is flawed. If I wasn't arguing to change the current system, you'd have an excellent argument.


the family will claim the body or if no family, friends, if no friends, it's disposed of.

landlord now has to clean the apartment and most likely that will be more than the deposit so someone eats that cost. we'll say landlord for the sake of brevity.

If I make the landlord pay for my actions, then I have victimized him. However, it is not inherent in the action. I could have avoided that consequence and in the enactment of an individual right, I would have that responsibility. And if the landlord did have to pay to clean up that mess it would come from my estate.


then you have the estate, yes, even if all you owned was clothes and a suitcase, it still is your estate. simplist thing will be it would be donated to charity, or sold in a garage sale or something.

Yes, and the cost of doing these actions is covered under the estate. This is typical of all deaths. These actions are performed by individuals who have chosen this as a part of their careers. All of this is funded by my estate.


no lawyers in this scenario but everyone near you would be affected. neighbors would wonder if they "missed" the signs or assume you were a nutcase.

Same is true if I get married, get a sex change, get a haircut, etc. The fact that other people choose to involve themselves in my life doesn't make my decision not within my rights and what should be legal. Nothing about the actual given action makes it unreasonable or a violation of the rights of others.


now for this scenario, how one answers determines the results. think Choose your own adventure.

you can either bandage it yourself or go to the hospital.
if you go to the hospital they will most certanly ask questions and the police will be called. for simplicity, we'll ask one. what happened. do you Lie or Tell the truth.
if you Tell the truth, I shot myself to [blank] then a whole world of hurt opens up. you get subjected to Psychological testing, the results are put into your record and anyone referencing your records will ask the same questions and you end up going through the whole rigamarole. Insurance, Job Interviews, Loans... all might see this as a high risk option and may reject you or raise your premiums.

If you Lie, "It went off accidently while cleaning it." then you get a lecture on gun safty, you might even get a free trigger guard. all legality of the weapon will be ok, permit, licence and such... for simplicity sake. very few people invovled. hooray.

now, you bandage it yourself. if you're lucky, you won't get an infection and none of the bullet fragments will poison you. you also missed bone. unfortunatly, you limp now and because it's not on any medical chart, you don't get the nifty handicapped sign to park in those good stalls. :D however the chances of it being infected is there and should it become infected, you have more awkward questions to answer. but only one path won't involve that many people while others will involve alot.

that's what society is. if you don't want anyone getting involved in what you do, then you need to move to an island and live by yourself. ;)
The rest of this is just dumb. Seriously, dumb. It doesn't matter what happens, you are still arguing for a situation where someone in some area chooses to victimize someone else and it happens to coincide with the enactment of a particular right. What if I get a tattoo and it gets infected? What if I eat a hamburger and choke? What if... what if... what if... Meanwhile, none of what you claim is a required response. Unless you can tell me that a society where one can be denied care for an intentional wound is impossible, then no one cares about your argument, because it has nothing to do with the actual topic.

Lawsuits are enacted against someone else against their will. It is not individual. Did you forget what INDIVIDUAL means or are you being intentionally obtuse? If a lawsuit is an individual right, so is murder, because the victim is equally consenting.

Umm lawsuits are usually about the infringement of one parties' property rights or breach of contract, which is more or less an extension of property rights. If someone damages my car and won't pay to fix the damage then I can sue them so I will get the money from them. If I buy a product that turns out to be faulty when the seller advertised differently then I should get my money back. Otherwise its theft. I agreed to buy one product, but got another. Lawsuits are more like killing in self defense. People have the right to defend themselves through deadly means even if the attacker never consented to die.

due to the nature of the wound, the police will be called and questions answered. how you answer those questions determine what happens next.

False. That is not due to the nature of the world. That is due to current law. It has nothing to do with the nature of the world. That's a cop out argument.



like, what doctor will turn anyone down. their oath pretty much insures they will help you. payment or no.

So your argument is that because the doctor chooses to do his job without payment that I am responsible for that choice? Again, do you have any arguments where the 'victim' isn't choosing to be victimized?



no one's rights... were are you when you take your life?

Doesn't matter. The fact that you have to ask proves that it's not inherent.

I never argued that rights will be infringed on, just that people will be involved and thus affected.

In that case, who cares? We don't infringe on individual rights because it affects others. If that were true, freedom of speech, religion, etc. would not exist. They also would not be considered basic human rights.

I assumed you must have been talking about something larger than this innocuous effect you point to, since it's absurd. What action will I ever take that won't eventually affect everything on the planet indirectly? You can't have meant that or you wouldn't have only said some of my examples. You'd have said ALL of my examples. Well, assuming you understand the meaning of the word, affect, that is.


and if the wound gets infected? Not everyone knows how to take care of a gunshot wound... do you? And where will you get the meds to insure you won't get infections? ahh... black market where you pay more.

Again, you make a bunch of assumptions that are not inherent to the situation. You assume that someone MUST save me from my choice causing my death. This is not inherent to the choice. Victimizing others is not inherent to the choice and thus your argument is silly.


I pitty you if you live in a country where they do that. :(

Why? Again, if I choose to take an action that I cannot deal with the consequences of then I am not enacting personal rights, but victimizing others. I don't support victimizing others. I support enacting rights when they don't victimize others. That is inherent in the definition.


wrong, that is not flawed because if the hospital does turn you away for that reason, then it's criminal negligence on their part or you don't mind criminals getting away...

Again, circular argument. The fact that we currently make others responsible for my actions does not mean that we have to.



then I pitty your ideal society that lacks compassion and replaces it with self fulfillment.

Not self-fulfillment. It doesn't outlaw compassion. Legally requiring someone to help another isn't making them compassionate. In fact, it discourages compassion because someone else will be required to take action so the compassion is unnecessary. Almost every action you listed of people suing others are not compassionate. Don't pretend like a society that discourages personal responsibility and personal rights is compassionate. You're giving a very limited list of examples. If you'd like to play the game of which society is more flawed, it's easy to see who will win, since I am talking about a theoretical society and you are talking about one that exists today where there is a billion examples of lack of compassion and people being victimized by the current system. If you're claiming that a lack of personal responsibility equals a more compassionate society, you better be prepared to prove it.

The idea that a legally required 'compassion' makes people literally more compassionate is something I don't buy. You can't force people to care about others. You can only force them to pretend.

Again, the fact that they exist in a system that allows them to exist does not mean they must exist. Certainly you have an argument that is NOT circular.considering the fact that your argument goes nowhere. at least mine is moving.

Lawsuits are enacted against someone else against their will. It is not individual. Did you forget what INDIVIDUAL means or are you being intentionally obtuse? If a lawsuit is an individual right, so is murder, because the victim is equally consenting.LOL. nice strawman... wow, some farm is missing all their hay.

It starts with expectations. We have a current system that rewards people for not taking responsibility for our actions. History shows that people are quite willing to take responsibity for their own actions when it is required of them. The lack of personal responsibility is a relatively new phenomena. and we have a system that punnishes those for not acting. so....

Meanwhile, if your entire arguments rests on the idea that it currently works that way so it must work that way, well, I'd say that's a pretty poor argument, but I'm biased.well... you have a point. the system you presented is soo..... not there. you bring up flaws but don't say what and how you will change them. "Change the laws" is not a viable option. change them how! you presented nothing so you force others to use the system already in place.

Tattooing isn't self-harm, it's self defacement. big difference. Fast Food isn't self harm but poor nutrition.Ha. Poor nutrition doesn't harm you? By what absurd definition of harm is poor nutrition not harmful? And tattoos can cost you employment, cause poisoning, they damage the skin, they hurt. Again, what does harm mean to you?simple, goes to your Much Lauded Individual Rights. I am not forced to get a tattoo, so thus I can choose not to, I am not forced to Go to McDonalds thus it's a choice. the fact that you can see such harm means you agree that not all Individual Freedoms are good.


I guess it's only an example of a strawman if you make up a definition of harm that doesn't include damaging your health and well-being.again you change my original argument. My original argument is that what you say doesn't involve others infact does. you have yet to show that those individuals involved in your actions are not completely isolated.


Pardon? They absolutely can and used to take responsibility for their actions. Are you actually arguing that two hundred years ago there were lawsuits for the kinds of things you're describing? I'm sorry, but you're going to have to show how even a handful of societies had such problems. as shakespear once said, first you shoot the lawyers.

My argument is based on a concept of rights and responsibilities. You changed the concept and then argued against it. Again, how we would affect such a change is really quite simple. First, begin by limiting the ability to sue people for reasonable results of your own consented actions provided they did not defaud you or in any other way coerse your actions unreasonably. Second, by getting rid of laws that treat people as if they aren't responsible for themselves, like sin taxes, drugs laws, euthanasia laws, helmet laws, etc.nope your argument is baised on a concept of ME FIRST. it's totally and completely selfish.

If my argument was about how we need to change today's society, then you'd have a decent claim. Since it is, you're being nonsensical. "We can't change today's society, because it doesn't work that way in current society."funny, no where do you say how you want to change society. "change laws" well change how? you can do all that you described, and with a little creative tale telling, you can even stab yourself in the eye and get away with it. all within the system.

You changed my scenario. Yes, it doesn't exist today. That's the point of my argument. No part of my scenario requires me to show how we get there from here. If you'd like me to demonstrate how we could be there, easy. Simply get rid of all of the things that you've argued happen today that force others to be responsible for my personal consented actions. I didn't change anything. I presented possible results of some of your actions.

I did refute that. I said your claims don't involve my examples. You gave DIFFERENT examples. You admit they are different because you didn't like mine. Unless, you want to claim I did NOT say that it was assuming that other people aren't financially held responsible for these individual decisions. You changed my examples and then said my examples involved other people. The original examples that I gave didn't. What's the matter, friend, your argument isn't strong enough to warrant avoiding the strawman?no, it's called cause and effect. that happens in a society. what you do does influence others. some in big ways, some in small and some not readily noticable.

Me: "Provided other people aren't held financially liable for my choice, individual rights should include my right to stab myself in the eye."
You: "But what about the financial harm."
Me: "You mean the financial harm that I said should also change."
You: "But you can't change the system unless the system changes."and you accuse me of changing things. :rolleyes:


Again, you argue in circles.and you go nowhere.

Me: "I want to change the way we view the rights and responsibilities of individuals."
You: "You can't because those rights affect other people in the current system."
Me: "So? The current system supports the way we view those rights and responsiblities. I would like to change that."
You: "But in the current system, they do and so we can't change the current system because in the current system it works the way it works in the current system. Blah, blah, blah."and for that you need to change the laws. yet you never said how and which laws you want to change. thus again, you go nowhere.

Unless you have an argument that demonstrates that the current system is the only possible system, then I'm afraid you just look silly.considering your perfectly nonexsistant model of society is so... non exsistant...

No, I don't. You are arguing that the current system (that I am trying to change) can't be changed because in the current system (thatI am trying to change) my individual actions cause people to be victimized by the current system. Again, unless you can demonstrate that holding me accountable for the actions of others is unavoidable, you have no argument. You haven't.change! change! change! change!

no how, no what, no examples thus no change.

In fact, you are talking about how violations to individual rights that I would want to stop are reason to not allow me to stop the violations to invidividual rights.again.. HOW! I'm showing how the current system is acutally protecting others from some Individuals from excersising their Individual Rights and you haven't even provided a model or example of your own "Perfect" society.

No, it doesn't protect individual rights. You've shown how it cause my individual rights to allow others to be victimized by a system. Here's how you know it's not an individual right... ready? If there is any individual involved against their will, it's not individual. You've asserted that suing is an individual right. Quick, is anyone involved against their will? I think there is. You've asserted that forcing hospitals to care for a wound I inflicted on purpose is an individual right. Quick, is there anyone involved against their will? Hmmmm... I think there is again. Let me know when you're prepared to behave as if you know the meaning of the word INDIVIDUAL.

I'll define a couple of words for you -

Individual - 1 a : a particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection: as (1) : a single human being as contrasted with a social group or institution <a teacher who works with individuals> (2) : a single organism as distinguished from a group b : a particular person <are you the individual I spoke with on the telephone?>

Harm - 1 : physical or mental damage : INJURY

Amusingly, you argue from both sides. You claim financial harm is a reason to abridge rights and then argue that the physical harm resulting from poor nutrition is not harm.

Effects of poor nutrition - http://www.immunesystemetc.com/Nutrition.html "According to Dr. Jesse Stoff, Dr. Robert Atkins and others, poor nutrition can cause ill health and suppress immune function."

I guess ill health and suppressed immune function is not physical damage in the magically made-up world of JuNii. So now that we've defined some terms, perhaps some individuals can make an argument that isn't an affront to classic definition of terms.mean while in Jocabia's world, everyone is nice nice with no greed or desire to get ahead. they will willingly turn away people because "it's their own damn fault they got into this mess." after all, people choose to get drunk, drive and kill others in car crashes, yet the drunk driver was VOLUNTARILY excercising his Individual RIGHT to drive, also his Right to get Drunk. and anything used to hamper any one of those rights is WRONG.

guess we can also do away with all those rehab programs, after all, according to Jocabia, it's the individual's choice and Right to get addicted to any and all substances.

all that Jocabia's society wants is for each individual to live for themselves and not get involved in anyone elses affairs what so ever.

Umm lawsuits are usually about the infringement of one parties' property rights or breach of contract, which is more or less an extension of property rights.


If someone damages my car and won't pay to fix the damage then I can sue them so I will get the money from them. If I buy a product that turns out to be faulty when the seller advertised differently then I should get my money back. Otherwise its theft. I agreed to buy one product, but got another. Lawsuits are more like killing in self defense. People have the right to defend themselves through deadly means even if the attacker never consented to die.

Except the example JuNii is giving is of lawsuits where no one's rights have been violated and no breach of contract occured. It a situation where the lawsuit of the parents victimizes others based on the my personal actions.

Except the example JuNii is giving is of lawsuits where no one's rights have been violated and no breach of contract occured. It a situation where the lawsuit of the parents victimizes others based on the my personal actions.

Oh, sorry. I thought you meant that NO lawsuits should be allowed.

the Landlord will call the police

The landlord will definitely get compensation from you since he has you by the balls.

the police will investigate, the mortician/pathologist will determine that it was suicide.

Police is a public service. Its cost does not reflect on individual rights, as they will investigate any problem regardless of individual compensation (theoretically).

Next of kin will be called and you can bet your bonnet that they will insist on an investigation of their own. especially if suicide is so out of character.

Family and relatives have no contractual obligation to be involved and only involve themselves for personal reasons. Rights refer to obligations by the other individuals of society, and as there is no obligation, this is irrelevant.

so far, that's police, Hospital, Forenscics, family and possibly another investigator that's all involved in a non-criminal action.

Yes, three public services that operate free of individual compensation and one that involves themselves.

Are you going to say that poor people will have no investigation into their deaths because they cannot afford the price of said investigation?

Are you going to argue that friends and family can sue someone for negligence in the instance of attempted suicide?

landlord now has to clean the apartment and most likely that will be more than the deposit so someone eats that cost. we'll say landlord for the sake of brevity.

As a former property manager, I can say affirmatively that these issues are handled contracturally.

You sure about that. I think you're going to have to prove that lawsuits are impossible to prevent.



You could conceivably stop lawsuits by taking away an individuals already existing right to sue other individuals. I cant really see any other way however.

False. That is not due to the nature of the world. That is due to current law. It has nothing to do with the nature of the world. That's a cop out argument. read it again, the word is Wound. not world.

the nature of the wound, gunshot, indicates a weapon was used. thus the police will be called.

So your argument is that because the doctor chooses to do his job without payment that I am responsible for that choice? Again, do you have any arguments where the 'victim' isn't choosing to be victimized?so if your loved one is refused treatement because the doctor doesn't want to treat them and both of you are ejected from the hospital by the staff, you will respect the doctor and the staff's choice and not take any legal action?

Doesn't matter. The fact that you have to ask proves that it's not inherent.the fact you won't answer means you already see flaws in your own argument.

In that case, who cares? We don't infringe on individual rights because it affects others. If that were true, freedom of speech, religion, etc. would not exist. They also would not be considered basic human rights.

I assumed you must have been talking about something larger than this innocuous effect you point to, since it's absurd. What action will I ever take that won't eventually affect everything on the planet indirectly? You can't have meant that or you wouldn't have only said some of my examples. You'd have said ALL of my examples. Well, assuming you understand the meaning of the word, affect, that is.getting a tattoo, that will only affect you. Masterbation also only affects you (assuming you do it in a private location.) but some of your examples do affect others and will force them to action. if you change the laws, then you may (because you don't say what you change and how) make matters worse.

Again, you make a bunch of assumptions that are not inherent to the situation. You assume that someone MUST save me from my choice causing my death. This is not inherent to the choice. Victimizing others is not inherent to the choice and thus your argument is silly.
however, your actions do force others to react. cause and effect.

Why? Again, if I choose to take an action that I cannot deal with the consequences of then I am not enacting personal rights, but victimizing others. I don't support victimizing others. I support enacting rights when they don't victimize others. That is inherent in the definition. your society is one where people will be afraid to act because they will be seen as "infringing on the Individual Rights of others" thus they won't get involved because they will choose not to. If a cop sees someone breaking into your home, he won't stop that person since that crook is exercising his Individual Rights voluntarily. oh you can complain after that and start an investigation, but untill then...

Again, circular argument. The fact that we currently make others responsible for my actions does not mean that we have to.depending on the action... yes it does.

Not self-fulfillment. It doesn't outlaw compassion. Legally requiring someone to help another isn't making them compassionate. In fact, it discourages compassion because someone else will be required to take action so the compassion is unnecessary. Almost every action you listed of people suing others are not compassionate. Don't pretend like a society that discourages personal responsibility and personal rights is compassionate. You're giving a very limited list of examples. If you'd like to play the game of which society is more flawed, it's easy to see who will win, since I am talking about a theoretical society and you are talking about one that exists today where there is a billion examples of lack of compassion and people being victimized by the current system. If you're claiming that a lack of personal responsibility equals a more compassionate society, you better be prepared to prove it.and your society doesn't even encourage assistance since it will infringe on the individual rights of those involved.

The idea that a legally required 'compassion' makes people literally more compassionate is something I don't buy. You can't force people to care about others. You can only force them to pretend.the current system protects those that act out of compassion. your system will persicute them.

Here is a poser for you. Assume I have a house. Private property. Individuals trespass to cut across my lawn because it saves them a 15 minute walk around. No individual trespasser can be shown to cause any harm at all. Together they are treading a path through my lawn. one part of the lawn is beaten lower and turning yellow. By telling an individual to stop Im enforcing my will over his to his harm despite him not personally doing any demonstrable harm to me. By allowing all to tread on my lawn I lose my lawn. Individual rights hang in the balance.

Except the example JuNii is giving is of lawsuits where no one's rights have been violated and no breach of contract occured. It a situation where the lawsuit of the parents victimizes others based on the my personal actions.
wrong. you see, the doctors are obligated, under oath, to assist you paramedics and all other health care officals need to render aid reguardless of your personal desires. that is their job. now if you do have a legal document stating you are not to be touched, revived or even assisted in any sense of the word, then they are legally bound to not touch you. however in the absense of such documentation or arraingements, they do have to assist you. if it seems at any point that they were negigent, family can initiate a lawsuit, that is their right. thats why when you go against doctor's orders, you need to sign all sorts of paperwork. if you just leave, the doctor as well as staff do note down that you left AMA (Against Medical Advice) that helps to prove you took action against the professional's opinion.

heck, who was that stripper that married that old fart? it was known in the will what his wishes were, yet the family excercised their right to contest the will and last I heard, she lost almost everything.

Lawsuites will occure, unless you render them illegal, but then, you also take away an individual Right.

OK - I pretty much agree with all you mentioned - but to bring the discussion to a more practical (and pedestrian) rhetoric lets forget about lawyers and instead talk about farts. (really not all that different!)


Does one have the right to fart? Or, more specifically, does one have the right to fart in public?

At first glance the answer would seem a most certain "yes". Nobody is harmed and there is little doubt it provides a biological function which otherwise could lead to a painful condition.

However - your OP hypothesis is that you support rights that do not infringe others. What about the right to breath freely without offensive odors? Is that too not a right which should be enjoyed in public?

Which right, then, trumps the other?

Well, that's a different question, isn't it? When rights are in direct competition then there is a compelling reason to deal with that competition.

Well, that's a different question, isn't it? When rights are in direct competition then there is a compelling reason to deal with that competition.

Any individual right is always in direct competition with other individual rights.

[snip]you're falling into the same fallicy Jocabia is.

the OP is this. Bolding mine.
I maintain that most people don't, but say they do. For the purposes of my argument I hold individual rights to mean this:

Any action that you do that only involves you and other adults capable of consent (meaning not people who are clinically insane or mentally disabled).

I'm not including children or animals in the discussion because whether or not they are consenting to the action is debatable.

So that means I think you have the right to stab yourself in the eyes with pencils so long as you don't try to force me to care for you afterward. You have the right to freebase cocaine. You have the right to shoot yourself in the knee. You have the right to sell sex for money. You have the right to have sex in any orifice with any inanimate object or any part of a consenting person you so desire. You have the right to form a partnership with any other consenting adult. You have the right to walk around your home naked or your community naked provided it does not present a health risk. You have the right to nurse in public or not. You have the right to watch porn i the middle of the day. You have the right to go to church every morning and night. You have the right to worship in public provided you aren't infringing on the rights of others not to suppor the practice. You have a right to tattoo yourself all over, to change yourself physically into the other sex, to express yourself and be yourself in whatever way that means, so long as you aren't violating the rights of others in doing so.

I mean full-out complete respect for individual rights unless there is a compelling and urgent societal need to limit those rights, meaning some would argue that taxes limit those rights but so does a military coup in your country. Sometimes the rights of one individual weighs too heavily against the needs of the collective the individuals chose to form.

How many people really support individual rights or how many would vote to outlaw some activity that does not actually affect them in any way, such as gay marriage or anti-drug laws?

the key words, Involving. now unless he can get the concent of the police (an officer maybe.) Doctors and so forth for they will be involved in something like shooting yourself in the leg. then it's illegal. (in using this current system)

in Jocabia's system (from what I gather) it will still be illegal since the investigating officers, doctors and so forth did not give their consent to be involved. now the only way around that is to not seek medical help after shooting yourself in a limb. that in turn places a health risk to him and possibly those near him.

should said person die, the parents will sue those who knew about it for not rendering aid. (I never said they would succeed, just that the action will take place.) Now if I understand Jocabia's society, this is now an illegal action since those his parents are suing did not concent to be sued. thus rendering their action illegal and void.

so the parents are now haunted by What if's but in Jocabia's society that's ok, since no PHYSICAL HARM came to those parents.

all in all Jocabia. without a viable model to work with, I can only say, No, as you have described it, I really don't think I could live in your society. so we'll just say we agree to disagree... agreed?

considering the fact that your argument goes nowhere. at least mine is moving.

No, it isn't. It's based on the current society being an argument against changing it. It's circular and silly.

LOL. nice strawman... wow, some farm is missing all their hay.

Okay, again, when you claim a logical fallacy you are required to show how it applies. You have not, AGAIN. Can you show me how you didn't argue that the right to sue is not individual? Well, let's check, "so you are going to put up laws to prevent lawsuits... isn't that an infringement on Individual Rights? so you are only for SOME individual Freedoms then and not total individual freedom. sorry, then your argument looses."

Oops. I guess, I was actually reacting to the exact argument you made. Please, please, please, get a friggin' dictionary. I'm tired of defining the words you use for you. It's embarassing. Seriously, get a dictionary.





and we have a system that punnishes those for not acting. so....

We need to change the system. Thank you. I agree with you whole-heartedly. I believe punishing them for not acting violates their individual rights, since it forces them to act against their will.


well... you have a point. the system you presented is soo..... not there. you bring up flaws but don't say what and how you will change them. "Change the laws" is not a viable option. change them how! you presented nothing so you force others to use the system already in place.

I'm not required to enact the system to desire the system.

I'll make it simple. I create a new state. It has no laws. I create a legal system where the only laws that exist are laws that prevent violating the rights of others, like rape laws, murder laws, theft laws, fraud laws, criminal negligence (although it would limited like it used to be to be actions where I positively acted in a way that caused an injury or death), etc.

The civil system exists in the form it used to exist where it cannot be used to punish but instead only to right monetary inequities. Any lawsuits based on fraud or negligence must only deal with actual monetary inequities and not punative damages. Punitive damages require a violation of law and will be enacted as fines that are then rewarded to the victim, the difference being that it will have the same legal requirements that criminal proceedings currently have.

There, I guess to propose a change to society I have to redesign the whole society because you can't form an argument, but I did it. Show me how that society will not work.



simple, goes to your Much Lauded Individual Rights. I am not forced to get a tattoo, so thus I can choose not to, I am not forced to Go to McDonalds thus it's a choice. the fact that you can see such harm means you agree that not all Individual Freedoms are good.

You aren't forced to shoot yourself in the knee or commit suicide. Great. Did you forget your argument. I'm laughing at you. I want you to know it. Not because you're funny, but because you have the memory of a goldfish. You argued that harming yourself by choice is evidence of mental illness and now you've argued that harm can't occur if you make a choice. How can I not laugh at such an argument?

self harm for no reason is also not the signs of a well mind.
Tattooing is self-harm. Fast food is self-harm.
Tattooing isn't self-harm, it's self defacement. big difference. Fast Food isn't self harm but poor nutrition.
Ha. Poor nutrition doesn't harm you? By what absurd definition of harm is poor nutrition not harmful? And tattoos can cost you employment, cause poisoning, they damage the skin, they hurt. Again, what does harm mean to you?
simple, goes to your Much Lauded Individual Rights. I am not forced to get a tattoo, so thus I can choose not to, I am not forced to Go to McDonalds thus it's a choice. the fact that you can see such harm means you agree that not all Individual Freedoms are good.

Ha. Can you see how you, one, didn't answer the question and, two, have shown how self-harm doesn't prove you don't have a well-mind? You really need to start paying attention.

again you change my original argument. My original argument is that what you say doesn't involve others infact does. you have yet to show that those individuals involved in your actions are not completely isolated.

Equivocation. You didn't mean affect in this way, because according to you only some of those examples affect others. If you were using it as anything not completely isolated then you were wrong when you said only some. And if you were using it that way, it's a strawman, because for something to be an individual right it doesn't have to affect no one else, but simply not to violate their rights.


as shakespear once said, first you shoot the lawyers.

nope your argument is baised on a concept of ME FIRST. it's totally and completely selfish.

No, it's not. The current society is based on a concept of ME FIRST. You gave a number of examples where people will sue doctors for not putting the needs of the complainers loved ones ahead of the loved ones of the doctor.

See in current society, I could victimize every single taxpayer, but disabling myself. It's not legal, but I could do it and spend the rest of my life being cared for under medicaid and other government programs. My selfishness is rewarded.

In my society, I can't victimize the taxpayer or force anyone to care for my decision. My selfishness is not rewarded. However, people can choose to help me as is their right. It means the only way I will get help is people choose to help me. It discourages my selfishness and encourages others to choose to be unselfish. Meanwhile, all of the current systems exist to help people so long as my predicament is not caused by my own gross negligence. It's a society that encourages personal responsibility.


funny, no where do you say how you want to change society. "change laws" well change how? you can do all that you described, and with a little creative tale telling, you can even stab yourself in the eye and get away with it. all within the system.

If I have to commit fraud, a crime, it is not within the system. Meanwhile, there is no requirement in discussion of ideals that I outline the entire society. You're trying to require of me an impossible request of outlining the entirety of societal law in a debate because you're losing the debate.


I didn't change anything. I presented possible results of some of your actions.

Ha. And if my example didn't say that the right should only exist absent of those results your argument wouldn't have been a change. Since I did, you argued a strawman. My argument addressed the issue before you ever mentioned it. You took out my caveat in order to argue against my examples.



no, it's called cause and effect. that happens in a society. what you do does influence others. some in big ways, some in small and some not readily noticable.

Again, if that's what you were talking about then you were apparently arguing that only some things have effects. See, this is called equivocation. This is where you make a statement that means one thing and when it's proven wrong pretend you meant something else. Unless, you're arguing that only some of my examples have effects.



and you accuse me of changing things. :rolleyes:

Shall I quote you? Your argument is that we can't change society because of the way current society works. It's circular.

what is happening right now in today's society

Ope, look at that. See when I talk about what you said, I quote you. When you talk about what I said, you just make crap up. It's not your fault. You're desparate because you've been losing this argument like you took Jocabia by the fifth page in the pool.



and you go nowhere.

and for that you need to change the laws. yet you never said how and which laws you want to change. thus again, you go nowhere.

Um, actually, yes, I did. I didn't mention the actual text of the laws, but I did say which laws are the problem and what the specific problem is. Pretending I didn't is an act of desperation on your part. I thought you knew how to debate. I said specifically that I would not allow punitive damage in civil court. I also gave a number of other examples of laws I would change. If you think in order to have a hypothetical discussion I must write an entire code of laws, then I'd say that you don't have a clue what a debate involves. Or perhaps you're losing the argument so you're making impossible demands.


considering your perfectly nonexsistant model of society is so... non exsistant...

That's your argument. Because it doesn't exist, it shouldn't? You can't do better than that? Perhaps that's why you're losing the debate.


change! change! change! change!

no how, no what, no examples thus no change.

Hey, if you can't read, I can't help you. I gave specific examples of what I would change. Again, you are trying to create a burden on me that cannot be met, a burden of writing out every specific law I would change. My changes are specific and defined. I'm sorry, that you can't win the debate by conventional means so you have to create an impossible burden on me.


again.. HOW! I'm showing how the current system is acutally protecting others from some Individuals from excersising their Individual Rights and you haven't even provided a model or example of your own "Perfect" society.

Um, yes, I have. Reading is fundamental.



mean while in Jocabia's world, everyone is nice nice with no greed or desire to get ahead. they will willingly turn away people because "it's their own damn fault they got into this mess." after all, people choose to get drunk, drive and kill others in car crashes, yet the drunk driver was VOLUNTARILY excercising his Individual RIGHT to drive, also his Right to get Drunk. and anything used to hamper any one of those rights is WRONG.

Who said "no greed or desire", Mr. Strawman? I said, they are allowed to turn them away. Whether they do or not is up to them. That's called freedom.

The drunk driver committed an act that directly endangered others, at which point it's not an individual enactment of a right. The driver killed the other drivers with his actions and he should absolutely be held responsible for doind so, Mr. Strawman. Please, make an argument that at least pretends like you know what individual rights are.




guess we can also do away with all those rehab programs, after all, according to Jocabia, it's the individual's choice and Right to get addicted to any and all
substances.

I can do away with programs that are financed by the state. Absolutely. It's a person's right and choice to use drugs and to bear the consequences of thsoe actions.


all that Jocabia's society wants is for each individual to live for themselves and not get involved in anyone elses affairs what so ever.
Nope. Again, Mr. Strawman, Jocabia specifically said that involvement in the lives of others is not discouraged, it is voluntary. My society simply doesn't force such involvement. And people would have exactly the same protections provided there predicament is not the result of gross negligence.

Any individual right is always in direct competition with other individual rights.

No, it isn't. Want an example. My individual right to think whatever I like. My right to religion. There's two. Show how that competes with some other person's individual rights.

You could conceivably stop lawsuits by taking away an individuals already existing right to sue other individuals. I cant really see any other way however.

It's not a right. Rights don't allow me to violate others. In a lawsuit, I am including another person against their will. It's like claiming I have a right to slavery. Suing is a privelege that is abused and needs to be corrected. We used to require that in order to be punished in this country you must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Let's call that 99.9999% proof. Now, punitive damages make it legal to punish with only 50.000001% proof because that is the burden of civil court. It's not too hard to make laws to correct such a thing.

The landlord will definitely get compensation from you since he has you by the balls.



Police is a public service. Its cost does not reflect on individual rights, as they will investigate any problem regardless of individual compensation (theoretically).



Family and relatives have no contractual obligation to be involved and only involve themselves for personal reasons. Rights refer to obligations by the other individuals of society, and as there is no obligation, this is irrelevant.



Yes, three public services that operate free of individual compensation and one that involves themselves.

Are you going to say that poor people will have no investigation into their deaths because they cannot afford the price of said investigation?

Are you going to argue that friends and family can sue someone for negligence in the instance of attempted suicide?



As a former property manager, I can say affirmatively that these issues are handled contracturally.

Don't fall for his reaction to this argument. He'll claim he wasn't talking about harm, but just any involvement at all, but he then gives a number of examples of things he claims have no 'involvement' thus demonstrating his use of the word. If his use of the word is consistent (at least until he started get annihilated in the argument), then he clearlly must mean harm and not just any involvement.

[Snip] this isn't getting us anywhere. you place alot of value on Individual Freedoms and you don't see how your some (not all) of your individual freedoms will actually hurt society in the long run. but seeing that while you only point to flaws in the current system but do not offer any solutions exept to chant "Change!" there is no real solution in your society either.

untill you try to live in your society you will not see where your poblems lie and since you only accuse me of changing your situation without presenting one of you own untill now.

your criminal negligence law is faulty. any act that is proven to be in a way that is ment to cause harm it would limited like it used to be to be actions where I positively acted in a way that caused an injury or deathwould make such actions fall under other areas (assuming you will have assult laws, even tho it's not listed.) only proves your system will be bogged down by legalize... like this current system.

as long as you keep tossing other aruguments as strawmen, you cannot prove the worth of your system to me but instead prove that your system of Self Rights will be nothing but a fluxuating sea of leagalize that will allow more harm than good and leave your society more confused as to what they can do and what they can't.

you're falling into the same fallicy Jocabia is.

the OP is this. Bolding mine.

the key words, Involving.

Equivocation. I used the word 'involve' meaning direct and specific involvement.

Involve - 2 a : to engage as a participant <workers involved in building a house> b : to oblige to take part <right of Congress to involve the nation in war> c : to occupy (as oneself) absorbingly; especially : to commit (as oneself) emotionally <was involved with a married man>

Clearly, the people you are trying to claim are involved are not involved according to my use of the word. Do you have any arguments not predicated on a logical fallacy, like equivocation?

this isn't getting us anywhere.

It's demonstrating that you aren't prepared to debate with me or anyone worth their salt.


you place alot of value on Individual Freedoms and you don't see how your some (not all) of your individual freedoms will actually hurt society in the long run.

No, I see it. You've demonstrated no harms. You've mostly just engaged in logical fallacies like slippery slope, strawman, equivocation and circular argument. Under my system, rights would be respected until the injured someone else. Personal responsibility would become a respected part of society which is a major problem in our current system. Can't have responsibility without rights. They are directly tied. YOu don't like it, but given you can't make a decent argument, I'll stick with my current position, thanks.


but seeing that while you only point to flaws in the current system but do not offer any solutions exept to chant "Change!" there is no real solution in your society either.

Except I did. Wouldn't it be easier for you choose media that doesn't require you to read my English posts? I'm not trying to be a prick, but come on, man, you can't read a complete description of what I would change? Seriously? This is just sad.


untill you try to live in your society you will not see where your poblems lie and since you only accuse me of changing your situation without presenting one of you own untill now.

Oh, wait, I did present one? Just a sentence earlier you said I didn't offer any solutions? Are you forgetful or a liar?


your criminal negligence law is faulty. any act that is proven to be in a way that is ment to cause harm would make such actions fall under other areas (assuming you will have assult laws, even tho it's not listed.) only proves your system will be bogged down by legalize... like this current system.

No, it doesn't. Here's a hint - in debate, you actually have to support your arguments. Show why it would be bogged down? Gross negligence is already against the law in our current system. In my system, it will only be in criminal courts. In the current system, it is often tried twice, which both violates double jeopardy and guilty until proven innocent requirements.


as long as you keep tossing other aruguments as strawmen, you cannot prove the worth of your system to me but instead prove that your system of Self Rights will be nothing but a fluxuating sea of leagalize that will allow more harm than good and leave your society more confused as to what they can do and what they can't.

I see. So you again use logical fallacies you don't understand because you can't address my argument on its merits. Really sad. What the heck is a "fluxuating sea of leagalize"?

Make an argument. You haven't. You complained I didn't give a more definitive example of what I was trying to do and when I do, you dismiss it without actually addressing it with vague references to how it's going to do more harm than good.

Okey-dokey, I think we're done here, unless someone with a bit more... shall we say... ability to present an argument has something to discuss. There were a couple of good points made here, but I fear the discussion has been derailed by strawmen, equivocation and absurdity.

Okey-dokey, I think we're done here, unless someone with a bit more... shall we say... ability to present an argument has something to discuss. There were a couple of good points made here, but I fear the discussion has been derailed by strawmen, equivocation and absurdity.actually you've already proven your society won't work.

so there is nothing more for me to say.

actually you've already proven your society won't work.

so there is nothing more for me to say.

Ha. Amusing. There are many who will read this argument. I have no doubt whose argument is legitimate.

I find it amusing that you challenged me to produce an example of the societal structure I advocate and you couldn't address it with more than a vague "I declare it doesn't work" statement. I long for the day when an argument with you doesn't make me feel like I'm picking on you or at least something that contains a sentence.

as long as you keep tossing other aruguments as strawmen, you cannot prove the worth of your system to me but instead prove that your system of Self Rights will be nothing but a fluxuating sea of leagalize that will allow more harm than good and leave your society more confused as to what they can do and what they can't.
I'm sure there is a world where that is an argument or even a sentence. This, however, is not that world.

ok jocabia, in your perfect society, how protected is Individual Rights?

From past statements, you will allow a complete legalization of Drugs.
Will there be any regulation of those drugs?
you did indicate that you wouldn't have need for prescription. is this true?
You also indicated private ownership of Firearms. is this true?
you indicated minimal intervention by the law at all levels as long as harm is not done to others. is this correct?
you define Harm as only physical. or do you also include mental, and emotional?
You also indicated that as long as NO ONE is FORCED to participate in any activity, it is considered legal. my question At what degree of participation is needed before concent is required. for example, someone parading in the buff down the street is fine but the spectators on that public street may not consent to see what is being shown. while their participation as viewers was involuntary, I assume that the nude walker will not be arrested for forcing those who happen to be there to see him, since those viewers can turn away or just not watch him. or is this assumption wrong?

this is just some questions about your society. there are others but we'll start with this.

I just wanna get rid of any wrong assumptions I may be making.

ok jocabia, in your perfect society, how protected is Individual Rights?

Again, your strawman is ridiculous. No one said 'perfect' except you. I guess when you can't argue against the argument I did make, why not argue against one I didn't.


From past statements, you will allow a complete legalization of Drugs.
Will there be any regulation of those drugs?

Yep. Why not? Legal and unregulated are not equal as I stated. Much there is regulation on food.

you did indicate that you wouldn't have need for prescription. is this true?

Not in the way it is used now. It would be a description of what you are to take and when, much like it currently is with OTC drugs, not something you use to acquire drugs you could not get normally. For this reason, there would be no need to continue to visit the doctor to get a regular prescription renewed, for example.


You also indicated private ownership of Firearms. is this true?

No, I didn't. I mentioned the limiting of private ownership of firearms as an example of a compelling need for infringement, since private ownership of firearms exists in the society I currently live in. I didn't say where I fall. I would certainly regulate firearms. I think the problem is that firearms as a weapon provide a very real danger to others even in their proper usage. There is a compelling reason for their limitation. Such limitation would not apply equally to things like pot or nudity.


you indicated minimal intervention by the law at all levels as long as harm is not done to others. is this correct?

Yup.

you define Harm as only physical. or do you also include mental, and emotional?

No, I didn't. In fact, I listed the actual definition of harm and included several examples of victimizing people monetarily. Some of which are legal in current society. I consider harm, in terms of what we're discussing, to be anything that damages a person financially, physically or psychologically. I consider people to be liable for harm only if they perform a positive action that was avoidable and that reasonably could be expected to cause such harm. If the harm is a result of law, then it is the fault of society that such harm exists, not the individual.


You also indicated that as long as NO ONE is FORCED to participate in any activity, it is considered legal.

No, I didn't. I said it is an individual right. I didn't actually say they would be legal and I mentioned that some individual rights must be infringed upon in a society but that it should be avoided unless a compelling reason exists. This is all explained in the OP which one would think you would read.


my question At what degree of participation is needed before concent is required.

What is that? A joke? The degree would depend on the situation and the activity, just as it does now. When did I suggest we change the meaning of the term consent? Or do you just not know what it means?


for example, someone parading in the buff down the street is fine but the spectators on that public street may not consent to see what is being shown.

They also don't consent to hearing freedom of speech, by your definition. Consent is a much different concept on property that is public versus property that is private. It's also a much different concept depending on the activity.

However, they did consent to being in public, however. Here's a tip for people in public, there are other people there. And some of them, hell, even most of them, are going to be saying things and doing things that you don't like. Unless those things directly affect you or are paid for with your taxes then you get no say in what other people do or say provided it does not inhibit your rights.

while their participation as viewers was involuntary, I assume that the nude walker will not be arrested for forcing those who happen to be there to see him, since those viewers can turn away or just not watch him. or is this assumption wrong?

He hasn't forced them to do anything. Seeing other people behaving in a manner you don't get to decide is a part of being in public. It's a part of the social contract we all sign. The only time you should be allowed to inhibit those activities are if they provide a real danger to you or if they are unnecessarily intrusive (e.g. screaming).

this is just some questions about your society. there are others but we'll start with this.

Most of which were answered if you were reading, but, hey, I won't try to have unrealistic expectations of you.


I just wanna get rid of any wrong assumptions I may be making.
You don't want to go down this path. You're not going to come out of this happy you went in.

No, it isn't. Want an example. My individual right to think whatever I like. My right to religion. There's two. Show how that competes with some other person's individual rights.

Your "right" to think what you like is not a right so much as it is a property of yourself. You cannot give up this right for even a moment and allow someome else to control your thoughts even if you should attempt to.

Your right to religion most certainly does compete against others rights to religion if the two religions colide upon some issue. You dont have to search this forum long to see that.

Try again.

Again, your strawman is ridiculous. No one said 'perfect' except you. I guess when you can't argue against the argument I did make, why not argue against one I didn't.true and I apologize, I should've left it with 'Your'.

Yep. Why not? Legal and unregulated are not equal as I stated. Much there is regulation on food. who would regulate, Federal Health organizations? Private companies? and would there be at the same level as food. or will it be closer to what it is now?

Not in the way it is used now. It would be a description of what you are to take and when, much like it currently is with OTC drugs, not something you use to acquire drugs you could not get normally. For this reason, there would be no need to continue to visit the doctor to get a regular prescription renewed, for example.so perscription strength and stronger drugs will be as available as OTC drugs? most OTC drugs don't need a perscription to obtain. it's the stronger stuff that require prescriptions to get and to refill.


No, I didn't. I mentioned the limiting of private ownership of firearms as an example of a compelling need for infringement, since private ownership of firearms exists in the society I currently live in. I didn't say where I fall. I would certainly regulate firearms. I think the problem is that firearms as a weapon provide a very real danger to others even in their proper usage. There is a compelling reason for their limitation. Such limitation would not apply equally to things like pot or nudity.is it safe for me to assume then that the standards of Background checks and waiting period (as well as a need to have a licence and permit) will be status quo?

No, I didn't. In fact, I listed the actual definition of harm and included several examples of victimizing people monetarily. Some of which are legal in current society. I consider harm, in terms of what we're discussing, to be anything that damages a person financially, physically or psychologically. I consider people to be liable for harm only if they perform a positive action that was avoidable and that reasonably could be expected to cause such harm. If the harm is a result of law, then it is the fault of society that such harm exists, not the individual. this I misunderstood and I apologize.

No, I didn't. I said it is an individual right. I didn't actually say they would be legal and I mentioned that some individual rights must be infringed upon in a society but that it should be avoided unless a compelling reason exists. This is all explained in the OP which one would think you would read.

What is that? A joke? The degree would depend on the situation and the activity, just as it does now. When did I suggest we change the meaning of the term consent? Or do you just not know what it means?I did read it, however you did only give the far extreme of what will limit those rights. the minimal was left... well very vauge. and other posts you also said that no one will be forced to do what they don't want to do. while that does include rape, kidnapping and such, it still left alot vague when in reference to Individual rights and when they infringe on others. some overlapping will occure but becuase you did come off (to me anyway) as not wanting any government infringement (or minimal as I am seeing now) that leaves alot open for interpretation.

for instance, Religous areas blasting hymnals and calls to worship over loudspeakers... not just ringing of church bells, but actual words calling people to come and praise god.

People having their pictures taken when they neither have knowledge nor given concent, Civilians placing others under survaliance for no other reasons then their paranoia. not an intrusive breaking of rights but still an infringement of rights not by the government but by civlians.

They also don't consent to hearing freedom of speech, by your definition. Consent is a much different concept on property that is public versus property that is private. It's also a much different concept depending on the activity.

However, they did consent to being in public, however. Here's a tip for people in public, there are other people there. And some of them, hell, even most of them, are going to be saying things and doing things that you don't like. Unless those things directly affect you or are paid for with your taxes then you get no say in what other people do or say provided it does not inhibit your rights.ok.

He hasn't forced them to do anything. Seeing other people behaving in a manner you don't get to decide is a part of being in public. It's a part of the social contract we all sign. The only time you should be allowed to inhibit those activities are if they provide a real danger to you or if they are unnecessarily intrusive (e.g. screaming).ok...

Most of which were answered if you were reading, but, hey, I won't try to have unrealistic expectations of you.several users got me pissed off at work, took a long break so now I'm trying again. forgive me.

You don't want to go down this path. You're not going to come out of this happy you went in.would rather be unhappy but seeing clearly than the other way around, don't you think?

I agree with everything but walking around nude in public. I just know that wouldn't be good. But I picked I agree with everything anyway.

Your "right" to think what you like is not a right so much as it is a property of yourself. You cannot give up this right for even a moment and allow someome else to control your thoughts even if you should attempt to.

Your right to religion most certainly does compete against others rights to religion if the two religions colide upon some issue. You dont have to search this forum long to see that.

Try again.

False. Trying to alter the views of others is not a necessary component of my freedom of religion. There is no part of my freedom of religion that requires me to prevent others from freely excercising theirs. Freely engaged in communal activities are not a violation of rights nor a competition. We choose to be here and discuss our religious beliefs. Unless you were forced to come our rights are not competing.

Try again.

true and I apologize, I should've left it with 'Your'.

who would regulate, Federal Health organizations? Private companies? and would there be at the same level as food. or will it be closer to what it is now?

They would require similar regulations to food. Honest packaging, clearly labeling of components, consistent creation.


so perscription strength and stronger drugs will be as available as OTC drugs? most OTC drugs don't need a perscription to obtain. it's the stronger stuff that require prescriptions to get and to refill.

I know how it works. OTC's are prescribed at times. If you go to a doctor with a back pain they may very well prescribe an OTC. When drugs are all legal, a prescription will never be necessary, but desired, for those that aren't looking to experiment.


is it safe for me to assume then that the standards of Background checks and waiting period (as well as a need to have a licence and permit) will be status quo?

Yes.


this I misunderstood and I apologize.

I did read it, however you did only give the far extreme of what will limit those rights. the minimal was left... well very vauge. and other posts you also said that no one will be forced to do what they don't want to do. while that does include rape, kidnapping and such, it still left alot vague when in reference to Individual rights and when they infringe on others. some overlapping will occure but becuase you did come off (to me anyway) as not wanting any government infringement (or minimal as I am seeing now) that leaves alot open for interpretation.

It left a lot vague because formulating a society was not the point, but the actual discussion of rights. You shanghaied the point by claiming that I cannot discuss such rights without forming the society they would be permitted in. A bunk requirement that prevents the discussion, but there it is.



for instance, Religous areas blasting hymnals and calls to worship over loudspeakers... not just ringing of church bells, but actual words calling people to come and praise god.

Again, there is reason to limit such things because they violate the rights of others. Your right to freedom ends where my skin begins. In public spaces we have rights within reason. And in private spaces we have rights provided our rights don't violate other private spaces. Blasting the hymnals most certainly would violate those private spaces. I maintain that so do church bells, in fact.


People having their pictures taken when they neither have knowledge nor given concent, Civilians placing others under survaliance for no other reasons then their paranoia. not an intrusive breaking of rights but still an infringement of rights not by the government but by civlians.

You don't have the right to not be photographed. However, if the 'surveillance' violates your right to privacy then that is a whole other matter. I believe your right to privacy ends when you enter public space, however.

several users got me pissed off at work, took a long break so now I'm trying again. forgive me.

would rather be unhappy but seeing clearly than the other way around, don't you think?
Well, when you begin the post with 'my perfect society' then what do you think I expect? You are still hijacking the conversation because if a society where these rights can exist, then we should go back to a basic discussion of individual rights. Listing out what rights I would give and exactly how I would regulate them is not germaine to the point.

Well, when you begin the post with 'my perfect society' then what do you think I expect? You are still hijacking the conversation because if a society where these rights can exist, then we should go back to a basic discussion of individual rights. Listing out what rights I would give and exactly how I would regulate them is not germaine to the point.
yeah, I did break my cardinal rule of posting while pissed. again forgive me for that.

however some points of contention, one being the totally leaglizing of drugs. I can't be convinced that it's ever a "good thing"

I've seen people addicted to cough medicine, sleep aids and other drugs one can buy without a perscription, add to that the idea of freebasing cocaine, escasy, Ice, PCP and other substances just gives me nightmares. the fact that people are rushing to kill themselves with the substances already legal just shows me that they are not responsible enough to handle a free drug society. but that is my opinion.

there are others that I disagree with but I won't argue them. I didn't vote in your poll yet, but I did change my opinion to one of I agree with some/most of what you propose, but not all.

the key words, Involving. now unless he can get the concent of the police (an officer maybe.) Doctors and so forth for they will be involved in something like shooting yourself in the leg. then it's illegal. (in using this current system)

in Jocabia's system (from what I gather) it will still be illegal since the investigating officers, doctors and so forth did not give their consent to be involved. now the only way around that is to not seek medical help after shooting yourself in a limb. that in turn places a health risk to him and possibly those near him.

And as I said, but you ignored:

"Police is a public service. Its cost does not reflect on individual rights, as they will investigate any problem regardless of individual compensation (theoretically)."

"Yes, three public services that operate free of individual compensation"

The police and hospitals are public services (to varying degrees depending on where you live) and consent to serve the public, and as such consent to serve the individual.

Unless, of course, you believe that the police can routinely choose not to serve certain individual.

should said person die, the parents will sue those who knew about it for not rendering aid. (I never said they would succeed, just that the action will take place.) Now if I understand Jocabia's society, this is now an illegal action since those his parents are suing did not concent to be sued. thus rendering their action illegal and void.

Those who are not guilty will pay no price and will probably recieve compensation for being brought into legal action. Those who bring wrongful suit will pay the costs.

The court is a public service that has already consented to bringing service.

so the parents are now haunted by What if's but in Jocabia's society that's ok, since no PHYSICAL HARM came to those parents.

It depends on what we mean by "physical harm".


EDIT: The issue of individual rights (or simply rights) and the harm principle is so muddled that it is extremely difficult to have a definitive line as to where they apply. The fact that no one has come up with said line is proof of that.

Mostly I would say that Junii is on to something with going after certain situations and pointing out differing levels of involvement and harm (although he isn't doing a great job), but that does not actually address the concepts behind Jocabia's argument. Of course, Jocabia invited the argument by listing specific situations in the OP.

How many people really support individual rights or how many would vote to outlaw some activity that does not actually affect them in any way, such as gay marriage or anti-drug laws?
I "really" support individual rights ... all of the ones listed in the US Constitution, plus a few more besides. Where the problem comes in is determining wheather an individual action impacts the general society. IMHO, if you use drugs, for example, you degrade the body politic. Some things that adults do lead to children doing the same things, or even taking those things to their logical ( illogical? ) extreme. Try to keep in mind that making an action legal for a consenting adult gives a permissive cache for children ( and virtually anyone else ) to do the same thing.

The bottom line is, as long as you do not harm another have fun!

Yes, I do. Simply put as long as you don't hurt anyone with what you do, they have no right to stop you, imo. You can always just look the other way if you don't like it..A fact so often forgotten, or ignored, today.

I "really" support individual rights ... all of the ones listed in the US Constitution, plus a few more besides. Where the problem comes in is determining wheather an individual action impacts the general society. IMHO, if you use drugs, for example, you degrade the body politic. Some things that adults do lead to children doing the same things, or even taking those things to their logical ( illogical? ) extreme. Try to keep in mind that making an action legal for a consenting adult gives a permissive cache for children ( and virtually anyone else ) to do the same thing.

And, yet, in the case of drugs, drug use has skyrocketed since the laws that made them illegal were put into place. The crime surrounding the use of those drugs has also skyrocketed since that time and we've proven in the past that this occurs through prohibition which I believe you lived through ;) All evidence points to the fact that some things are illegal (mostly those actions that we could easily define as individual rights) are not only not discouraged but become more dangerous and more problematic to society by being illegal. Abortion is another example.