NationStates Jolt Archive

Before you read this, understand that I am expecting few, if any, to actually agree with me. What I'm really looking for is the alternate viewpoints. Why? I seem to have convinced myself that this is the only right answer, and I don't like blindly agreeing with anything, even if it's myself I am agreeing with.


I think that every sane (this is importaint) person of legal age should be allowed to do what ever they want with/to themselves that does not affect anyone else detrimentally, with no interference from government officials whatsoever. I believe that no one should tell anyone what they can and cannot do with themselves, and only you should decide what is right and wrong for yourself. However, society would determine what is socially acceptable and what is not, as that is one of its purposes. Of course whether you decide to follow suit with society is completely up to you.

Is this terribly wrong? Have I convinced myself into agreeing with something incredibly terrible? Or have I convinced myself to agreeing with something that is incredibly correct?

I don't agree with you...and I haven't even read your post. So there

Umm...you do realize like everyone on NSG agrees with you, don't you?

Umm...you do realize like everyone on NSG agrees with you, don't you?

I was afraid of that...

I really need to find an active conservative board to troll. Not that I'm trolling now, of course.

Before you read this, understand that I am expecting few, if any, to actually agree with me. What I'm really looking for is the alternate viewpoints. Why? I seem to have convinced myself that this is the only right answer, and I don't like blindly agreeing with anything, even if it's myself I am agreeing with.


I think that every sane (this is importaint) person of legal age should be allowed to do what ever they want with/to themselves that does not affect anyone else detrimentally, with no interference from government officials whatsoever. I believe that no one should tell anyone what they can and cannot do with themselves, and only you should decide what is right and wrong for yourself. However, society would determine what is socially acceptable and what is not, as that is one of its purposes. Of course whether you decide to follow suit with society is completely up to you.

Is this terribly wrong? Have I convinced myself into agreeing with something incredibly terrible? Or have I convinced myself to agreeing with something that is incredibly correct?

The problems arise from attempts to define the bolded terms.

The trouble is with those grey areas of things that cause harm indirectly. If you take drugs, you may be feeding the dealers, or the suppliers; if you hurt yourself, you may need medical treatment at taxpayers expense, and so on. What do you do about actions such as these?

Everything you do has some effect, both positive and negative, on the people you interact with. So if everything that is detrimental to someone in someway is illegal... well, nothing would be legal.

there are some things that even with the presumption of sanity society shouldnt allow.

you shouldnt have the right to sell yourself into slavery.

you shouldnt be able to cripple yourself to the point where you become a burden to society.

ill think of some more after a while.

The problems arise from attempts to define the bolded terms.

I never said this was anarchy, there could still be a governing body. Just one that doesn't touch civil rights. At all.

The trouble is with those grey areas of things that cause harm indirectly. If you take drugs, you may be feeding the dealers, or the suppliers; if you hurt yourself, you may need medical treatment at taxpayers expense, and so on. What do you do about actions such as these?
The drugs would be legal, so it wouldn't matter if you are feeding the dealers or not. As for the other part, see above. There could even be taxes with something like this, which would take care of that.

Everything you do has some effect, both positive and negative, on the people you interact with. So if everything that is detrimental to someone in someway is illegal... well, nothing would be legal.
I'm not saying everything you do that affects someone else is illegal, if that happened talking politely to another person or shaking hands would be illegal.

there are some things that even with the presumption of sanity society shouldnt allow.

you shouldnt have the right to sell yourself into slavery.

you shouldnt be able to cripple yourself to the point where you become a burden to society.

ill think of some more after a while.

You could argue that crippling yourself to become a burden to society would be a mark of insanity. As for selling yourself into slavery, http://www.silgrad.com/wbb2/images/smilies/shrug.gif

I never said this was anarchy, there could still be a governing body. Just one that doesn't touch civil rights. At all.

Well, I guess I was not clear: part of the problem is, who defines those terms and how do people agree on them. I wasn't even considering a government having any say. Why would we let them? Who decides?

You could argue that crippling yourself to become a burden to society would be a mark of insanity. As for selling yourself into slavery, http://www.silgrad.com/wbb2/images/smilies/shrug.gif

you could argue that but then you could argue it for every act that you consider distasteful and thus deny your entire thesis.

people are already free to do extreme modifications of their bodies. think sex change. at what point do we say "no thats crazy" when we allow people to cut up their genitals and create new ones?

Well, I guess I was not clear: part of the problem is, who defines those terms and how do people agree on them. I wasn't even considering a government having any say. Why would we let them? Who decides?

Representatives? Direct democracy? A benevolent dictator who is bound to the terms of a written document not unlike the Magna Carta? Take your pick.

Before you read this, understand that I am expecting few, if any, to actually agree with me. What I'm really looking for is the alternate viewpoints. Why? I seem to have convinced myself that this is the only right answer, and I don't like blindly agreeing with anything, even if it's myself I am agreeing with.


I think that every sane (this is importaint) person of legal age should be allowed to do what ever they want with/to themselves that does not affect anyone else detrimentally, with no interference from government officials whatsoever. I believe that no one should tell anyone what they can and cannot do with themselves, and only you should decide what is right and wrong for yourself. However, society would determine what is socially acceptable and what is not, as that is one of its purposes. Of course whether you decide to follow suit with society is completely up to you.

Is this terribly wrong? Have I convinced myself into agreeing with something incredibly terrible? Or have I convinced myself to agreeing with something that is incredibly correct?

You have reached an entirely logical, but sometimes very awkward, position. If you argue that people should be allowed to smoke pot, drink, have sex, get abortions done, have birth control, have their religion respected, because they are the sole owners of themselves and have the right to do with themselves what they please, this is the eventual conclusion of that line of logic. It's one I've sort of come to, as well.

In a way, it's really the only way to respect everyone's differing views of morality as much as possible and impose as little as possible upon everyone.

However, it can dictate some extremely uncomfortable positions.

You have reached an entirely logical, but sometimes very awkward, position. If you argue that people should be allowed to smoke pot, drink, have sex, get abortions done, have birth control, have their religion respected, because they are the sole owners of themselves and have the right to do with themselves what they please, this is the eventual conclusion of that line of logic. It's one I've sort of come to, as well.

In a way, it's really the only way to respect everyone's differing views of morality as much as possible and impose as little as possible upon everyone.

However, it can dictate some extremely uncomfortable positions.

I'd like to see you state these, not because I don't believe they exist, but because I just want to see whats wrong with this opinion.

Before you read this, understand that I am expecting few, if any, to actually agree with me. What I'm really looking for is the alternate viewpoints. Why? I seem to have convinced myself that this is the only right answer, and I don't like blindly agreeing with anything, even if it's myself I am agreeing with.


I think that every sane (this is importaint) person of legal age should be allowed to do what ever they want with/to themselves that does not affect anyone else detrimentally, with no interference from government officials whatsoever. I believe that no one should tell anyone what they can and cannot do with themselves, and only you should decide what is right and wrong for yourself. However, society would determine what is socially acceptable and what is not, as that is one of its purposes. Of course whether you decide to follow suit with society is completely up to you.

Is this terribly wrong? Have I convinced myself into agreeing with something incredibly terrible? Or have I convinced myself to agreeing with something that is incredibly correct?

Dude, agreeing with this is the first step in getting an NS Secret Decoder Ring

Dude, agreeing with this is the first step in getting an NS Secret Decoder Ring

Why? So Little Orphan Annie will tell me to always drink my Ovaltine? No thanks.
:p

I guess this is just more proof that I need an active conservative forum to troll.

The trouble is with those grey areas of things that cause harm indirectly. If you take drugs, you may be feeding the dealers, or the suppliers; if you hurt yourself, you may need medical treatment at taxpayers expense, and so on. What do you do about actions such as these?
While I can see the general point, your specific example isnt all that sound particularly with regards to 'feeding the dealers, or the suppliers'. We do this all the time with countless commodities, some of them psycoactive drugs (take alcohol as a prime example). It's not really a big deal, in fact in a capitalist society 'feeding the dealers, or the suppliers' is par for the course.

Why? So Little Orphan Annie will tell me to always drink my Ovaltine? No thanks.
:p

I guess this is just more proof that I need an active conservative forum to troll.

you should have been here a few years back. This place used to be rife with debates on the merits of the different forms of anarchism/consevatism/socialism/etc...

you should have been here a few years back. This place used to be rife with debates on the merits of the different forms of anarchism/consevatism/socialism/etc...

I was actually. Unfortunately I was like, 13, and convinced anyone who disagreed with Georgie was unamerican and wrong. Needless to say, I was at II quite a bit more than General.

Accidental incidents can be dealt with in the same way they are now. And obvious incidents that affect people would be illegal. Not that hard.

While I can see the general point, your specific example isnt all that sound particularly with regards to 'feeding the dealers, or the suppliers'. We do this all the time with countless commodities, some of them psycoactive drugs (take alcohol as a prime example). It's not really a big deal, in fact in a capitalist society 'feeding the dealers, or the suppliers' is par for the course.
That is a point that has been leveled against the capitalist mindset. One can never ensure that suppliers are not acting in a manner detrimental to those around them, but even those who openly do so will continue to benefit as long as there are those who wish to purchase from them.

I think that every sane (this is importaint) person of legal age should be allowed to do what ever they want with/to themselves that does not affect anyone else detrimentally, with no interference from government officials whatsoever. I believe that no one should tell anyone what they can and cannot do with themselves, and only you should decide what is right and wrong for yourself. However, society would determine what is socially acceptable and what is not, as that is one of its purposes. Of course whether you decide to follow suit with society is completely up to you.


Great idea. In theory it would be wonderful. The problem is enforcement. The problem is where one draws the line.

I'd like to see you state these, not because I don't believe they exist, but because I just want to see whats wrong with this opinion.

I never said anything was wrong about it. It's a position I somewhat awkwardly hold, as well.

However, if I am to be consistent with my position, it leads to a position on Polygamy that is uncomfortable for me. Personally, I find polygamy "icky," for lack of a better word. However, if everyone in such a relationship/marriage participates willingly and is happy with the arrangement, then there is no rational, logical reason for me to be against it. It just kinda grosses me out. The only non-icky argument I can think of against voluntary polygamy is that it would make things a bit complicated, and even that's a bit of a weak argument. Especially since I think, beyond granting hospital visitation rights and such, that the state should get out of marriage anyway.

Note, I would only support polygamy's legal recognition if it was equal (as in, both women and men had the right to marry how ever many of whoever they wanted to). Still, it's kinda gross and an extremely uncomfortable issue for me. However, my basis of thinking people should have the right to do with themselves what they wish as long as they harm no other dictates that if people want to get into polygamous relationships/marriages, that I have no right to interfere unless I can find a real reason to do so, beyond my own personal distaste for such.

Does that explain what I mean sufficiently?

The main, well, not flaw, but I'm not sure what word to use, "problem" with that position is that there are a number of actions that are detrimental to others that most people don't realise. Take wearing a seatbelt. Might think that it only effects you if you don't. But it doesn't, since without it, you become an airbone projectile moving at up to 100 kph or more, and will almost certainly kill anyone in your path.

snip
You've explained yourself enough, but you also made your own point moot.
I find anal sex between two consenting males to be icky, but I have no problem supporting them in that venture.

The very core of this entire theory is this powerful statement: Who am I to decide what is right for you?

You've explained yourself enough, but you also made your own point moot.
I find anal sex between two consenting males to be icky, but I have no problem supporting them in that venture.

The very core of this entire theory is this powerful statement: Who am I to decide what is right for you?

I don't think I made it moot. I don't think you really understand what I'm saying. I support the right of a woman or man to have as many husbands or wives as she or he wants as long as consent is there.

It's just the thought is extremely gross to me. But I can't explain why. I support the right of people to shoot up heroin, as long as they're not harming other people by doing it. Even though I detest the practice and to some extent both hate and pity those who participate in it. That's what I mean by uncomfortable. You seem to think I wouldn't support people's rights to do what they wanted with themselves and that I am somehow arguing against the position that we both in actuality hold.

I'm not disagreeing with you, so please, stop acting like I am.

You've explained yourself enough, but you also made your own point moot.
I find anal sex between two consenting males to be icky, but I have no problem supporting them in that venture.

The very core of this entire theory is this powerful statement: Who am I to decide what is right for you?

I'm trying really hard to make an argument against it. I hate the government trying to live our lives for us. If I want to have an orgy, smoke some pot, then ride my motorcylce home without a helmet I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed.

Exactly. The government seems to want to hold a parental position on our rights, when it should really be parents who hold that position exclusively.
Using your own argument, what right do the parents have to do that?

I don't think I made it moot. I don't think you really understand what I'm saying. I support the right of a woman or man to have as many husbands or wives as she or he wants as long as consent is there.

It's just the thought is extremely gross to me. But I can't explain why. I support the right of people to shoot up heroin, as long as they're not harming other people by doing it. Even though I detest the practice and to some extent both hate and pity those who participate in it. That's what I mean by uncomfortable. You seem to think I wouldn't support people's rights to do what they wanted with themselves and that I am somehow arguing against the position that we both in actuality hold.

I'm not disagreeing with you, so please, stop acting like I am.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you/picked the wrong phrasing for certain points, and I wasn't trying to act like you were disagreeing with me, I'm sorry if I made it seem that way. I think I was just arguing against certain points you made which I actually just misunderstood. Or something like that.

I'm trying really hard to make an argument against it. I hate the government trying to live our lives for us. If I want to have an orgy, smoke some pot, then ride my motorcylce home without a helmet I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed.
Exactly. The government seems to want to hold a parental position on our rights, when it should really be parents who hold that position exclusively.

Using your own argument, what right do the parents have to do that?
Parents have a duty to protect there children and teach them the ways of the world. If we denied them the right to do so, the world would become an awful place. Can you imagine 3 year olds running around completely unsupervised, potentially on crack? That's the kind of thing that would happen if you denied parents that right. Well, maybe.

Exactly. The government seems to want to hold a parental position on our rights, when it should really be parents who hold that position exclusively.

Certain arguments would work for certain behaviors. For example, one could argue that the legalisation of all drugs would create more drug problems. This could affect job performances, family life, ect (it's a weak argument, but it's the only rationale I can come up with).

Certain arguments would work for certain behaviors. For example, one could argue that the legalisation of all drugs would create more drug problems. This could affect job performances, family life, ect (it's a weak argument, but it's the only rationale I can come up with).

It's the same thing as riding your motorcycle with no helmet. If you crash, it's your fault.

But I commend you on the attempt. I want to try try to counter myself here, but I just can't think of anything rational.

You have reached an entirely logical, but sometimes very awkward, position. If you argue that people should be allowed to smoke pot, drink, have sex, get abortions done, have birth control, have their religion respected, because they are the sole owners of themselves and have the right to do with themselves what they please, this is the eventual conclusion of that line of logic. It's one I've sort of come to, as well.

In a way, it's really the only way to respect everyone's differing views of morality as much as possible and impose as little as possible upon everyone.

However, it can dictate some extremely uncomfortable positions.

I agree completely with the awkward part, but not necessarily the logical part.

My rejoinder is really fairly simple: what exactly is it about someone's "views" that carries with an automatic claim to my respect for it? If someone has the view that it's commendable to cut off a little girl's clitoris before she turns 10 or so, why exactly am I supposed to view that as just another choice that a sane, rational person could make? Let's take a less extreme example: say your view is only that you shouldn't pay taxes because you use no government services. What is it about the nature of that thought that makes it inviolable to attack and sanction by the government? Let's take an even more benign example: someone believes two men have the right to marry. While I certainly agree with that sentiment fof my own reasons, I don't see anything in the thought that makes it somehow beyond the purview of society to accept, reject, or retaliate against if you tried to implement it.

A thought is a thought is a thought. There is nothing in them that makes them worthy or not worthy of respect. The solidness of the logic behind them might, in my mind, make a thought worthy of respect, but then again that seems to set up a Rubicon you don't want to cross, because applying a metric of logic to thoughts makes illogical thoughts unacceptable.

There are things that would obviously be illegal still. Again, this isn't anarchy, just hugely extended civil rights. A person who cuts off her daughters clitoris is blatently infringing on her rights, and a person who refuses to pay taxes is infringing on the rights of others to use those services, not to mention it is an obligation. [/weak argument]

There are things that would obviously be illegal still. Again, this isn't anarchy, just hugely extended civil rights. A person who cuts off her daughters clitoris is blatently infringing on her rights, and a person who refuses to pay taxes is infringing on the rights of others to use those services, not to mention it is an obligation. [/weak argument]

So long as we're talking about weak argumentation, it's important to mention both that you missed the entire thrust of my point, and substituted a straw man instead.

My point was not about legality of action per se, but why I am obligated to respect someone else's opinion; I see nothing in an opinion that makes it prima facie worthy of respect. This runs counter to the point mentioned here:

In a way, it's really the only way to respect everyone's differing views of morality as much as possible and impose as little as possible upon everyone.

The statement implies that we ought to respect everyone's differing views of morality; I am questioning why. The legal issue only follows as a consequence of this central question: if I truly "respect" someone else's opinion, on what grounds can I sanction it? Callisdrun himself admits this part is problematic, which is what the "awkwardness" in his post refers to. I merely agreed.

So, to recap: my focus was not on legality or the violation of rights, although that certainly comes into play. My focus is on the unspoken assumption that opinions ought to be respected, and to bring that into relief, I brought in two major points: One, if opinions ought to be respected, then I ought to respect the views of a person who supports FGM, when as a fairly committed feminist I am going to respond by saying "Over my dead f%$&ing body." Two, if opinions ought to be respected, and it seems logical that respected opinions cannot be sanctioned, on what grounds do we sanction. Your point, which by the way I agree with, was that violation of rights trumps respect for opinion. To this I say bully for you, but I also say it doesn't follow from the logic presented above: on what grounds would be we say that someone's physical right to her clitoris trumps someone else' inviolability of opinion? The natural conclusion I'm reaching for is that opinion is not in fact inviolable.

I can't possibly think of a counterargument while simultaneously writing a main quest for a humongous Oblivion mod that wouldn't make my brain implode.

Congrats, you win the thread. http://www.silgrad.com/wbb2/images/smilies/worship.gif

I can't possibly think of a counterargument while simultaneously writing a main quest for a humongous Oblivion mod that wouldn't make my brain implode.

Congrats, you win the thread. http://www.silgrad.com/wbb2/images/smilies/worship.gif

This thread was hardly a contest. For what it's worth, thank you for making me refine and clarify my point.

I dont agree with you. I am a very independent person who despises influence in my life and doesnt try to impose himself on others but lines like: "society would determine what is socially acceptable and what is not," always gives me the shivers. Rights need to be protected from imposition by others, even when a greater amount of the populations thinks otherwise. I wouldnt be comfortable with what I should do changed everytime a new generation took over- especially with the adolescent-centric state US culture is in right now.

I dont agree with you. I am a very independent person who despises influence in my life and doesnt try to impose himself on others but lines like: "society would determine what is socially acceptable and what is not," always gives me the shivers. Rights need to be protected from imposition by others, even when a greater amount of the populations thinks otherwise. I wouldnt be comfortable with what I should do changed everytime a new generation took over- especially with the adolescent-centric state US culture is in right now.

Perhaps you didn't understand me, society would dictate what is right and what is wrong in the same way it does now. Whether you follow society as a whole is completely up to you.

edit: Nevermind, I just reread your OP, I agree entirely.

You'll have to give me some more information here then. Are you advocating anarchy of sorts? Or are you just saying the government should just be completely without intervention.

Anarchy in a sense, you wouldn't be able to kill people or anything like that. And there would still be a government, to keep order and accomplish things that can't be accomplished easily without a central governing body (utilities, city planning, defense, things of that nature)

What I'm really looking for is the alternate viewpoints.

Say I come to you, ten years after you let me do something really stupid that ended up ruining my life, and say, "Damn, I wish you hadn't let me do that."

How would you respond?

Say I know for a fact that if a given person were fully aware of the consequences of his or her action, he or she wouldn't do it - and, indeed, would prefer that I intervene and stop her by force over her doing it.

Why shouldn't this sort of intervention be permitted... at least in theory? (Obviously there would be difficulties in terms of practical implementation.)

Say I come to you, ten years after you let me do something really stupid that ended up ruining my life, and say, "Damn, I wish you hadn't let me do that."

How would you respond?

Under this, your success or failure as a person would depend almost completely on yourself, and the decisions you choose to make. While I allowed you to ruin your own life, you were the one who did so.

So I guess I would say something along the lines of 'Sucks for you.'

While I allowed you to ruin your own life, you were the one who did so.

So?

My life is still ruined... and you still could have prevented me from ruining it.

Why shouldn't you have? My "freedom"? But while I did indeed choose to do the act, I certainly didn't intend the consequences that followed... and indeed, if I had the chance to do it again, I wouldn't do it. My educated choice differs from my uneducated choice.

The "freer" one would be the one where I'm aware of all the factors - the one I make after the fact.

Why should you respect my desires before I do something stupid, but not my probable later desires after I do it?

So I guess I would say something along the lines of 'Sucks for you.'

Ah, callousness.

But while you (and society) may have no obligation to intervene, why do you (and society) have an obligation not to intervene?

Accidental incidents can be dealt with in the same way they are now. And obvious incidents that affect people would be illegal. Not that hard.
Sorry for deleting the original; Philosopy made my point for me in the time it took me to send it off.

My problem is that it seems as though the legitimacy of the "You can do what you like as long as you know it won't hurt anyone" approach relies on the subtle underlying assertion that "It is possible to know whether or not a given action will cause harm". The notion of "detriment to others" is one that varies with circumstance, and that requires the insight of the conditions relative to which the decision occurs that is impossible to get perfectly right.

As an example, allow me to suggest overeating, in the sense of enjoying food at the expense of one's own physical well-being. In a scenario where food is in abundance, overeating is simply a matter of personal recklessness. However, overeating also has the effect of depriving others of a resource, so when supplies are limited overeating begins to become a demonstrable detriment to those around you. The justification to overeat is, by the standard you suggest, based on the knowledge of the current status of whether or not doing it is harmful to others, which is that it's fine in the first case but not in the second.

Unless you know this kind of information, you're going to miss the criteria by which your actions will be detrimental. And information like this is all over the place. Who provides the food I eat and how do they do it? Is anyone going to be inconvenienced by the actual act of my overeating? What are the effects of accommodating my lifestyle around an indulgent diet on those around me?

This step-by-step evaluation of circumstance is necessary in order to determine whether an action is suitable given the conditions, and missing any of them (as I've no doubt done) is going to result in an incomplete decision. What's more, from our limited viewpoints, we are verifiably incapable of knowing all such knowledge. So I don't think that any sense of "Do whatever as long as nobody gets hurt" is actually possible. You can make approximations, but these are open to the massive failure of the concealment of information, and, surprise surprise, the deliberate withholding of information is often justified using these very approximations.

Parents have a duty to protect there children and teach them the ways of the world. If we denied them the right to do so, the world would become an awful place. Can you imagine 3 year olds running around completely unsupervised, potentially on crack? That's the kind of thing that would happen if you denied parents that right. Well, maybe.

Subsitute "governments" for "parents" and "people" for "children".

Say I know for a fact that if a given person were fully aware of the consequences of his or her action, he or she wouldn't do it - and, indeed, would prefer that I intervene and stop her by force over her doing it.

*snip*

Excellent. I like how you're feeling around the issue and trying to find something substantial for the opposing position.

This is indeed something that people do in real life. Hiding your friend's car-keys when they want to drive drunk, verbally confronting or even physically restraining them when they're a bit hot under the collar and about to do something stupid. If your judgement is better than theirs just then, you intervene and bugger their individual freedoms ... and you have a test of that later, by whether they say thanks.

Importantly, it's something that friends do for each other (family too I guess.) It requires a degree of trust between you. Like "you're my friend, what happens to you is important to me so I'm going to interfere in what is really entirely your business. A bit of me belongs to you, and a bit of you belongs to me. If that's still allright with you."

That's a terribly valuable thing, people taking responsibility for each other.

I wrote a few hundred words trying to prove that a part of every individual belongs to society, but it just wouldn't fly like that. There's too many individuals who I wouldn't trust with one of my toenail-clippings, and anyway "society" is an emergent concept and argument by analogy with relations between individuals isn't reliable.

Excellent. I like how you're feeling around the issue and trying to find something substantial for the opposing position.

Broadly, I accept the doctrine.

But it's very far from an absolute rule for me. I don't support the legalization of some drugs, for instance, and believe that even drugs like alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana should be taxed to pay for treatment programs.

This is indeed something that people do in real life. Hiding your friend's car-keys when they want to drive drunk, verbally confronting or even physically restraining them when they're a bit hot under the collar and about to do something stupid. If your judgement is better than theirs just then, you intervene and bugger their individual freedoms ... and you have a test of that later, by whether they say thanks.

Exactly.

There's too many individuals who I wouldn't trust with one of my toenail-clippings, and anyway "society" is an emergent concept and argument by analogy with relations between individuals isn't reliable.

The fact that the principle breaks down on the personal level shows us that the principle is flawed... and gives us some clues as to how the principle might break down elsewhere.

While certainly the government should not be intervening paternalistically on a regular basis, there are some cases where the negative consequences are so severe and unambiguous that I think an exception can be made - because no one (or a negligibly few people) in his or her right mind, knowing the full consequences of the action, would ever commit it.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you/picked the wrong phrasing for certain points, and I wasn't trying to act like you were disagreeing with me, I'm sorry if I made it seem that way. I think I was just arguing against certain points you made which I actually just misunderstood. Or something like that.


Exactly. The government seems to want to hold a parental position on our rights, when it should really be parents who hold that position exclusively.

Yeah, basically, my example was that I don't like polygamy, but my position that we all have the right to do with ourselves what we wish as long as it's not harming anyone, takes precedence over that inexplicable distaste.

I'll make an honest attempt to be the devil's advocate. Please no-one get too angry with me ...

You don't have the right to do what you want with your body, or to think what you want with your mind. Your body is not your exclusive property, and nor is your mind.

To grow to adulthood (granting that the thesis applies only to adults, a clearly defined state as long as you have a birth-certificate) you require sufficient food and you need to be protected from mortal danger. In a cold climate, you need clothing and/or shelter to survive to adulthood, you need to be physically protected from dangerous creatures and human predators (eg baby-eaters.)
These needs are usually provided adequately by parents, but increasingly by the State in the form of family allowance and the legal protection of children's rights. But it really makes no difference to my point: a newborn would simply starve without support from others. Growing children become increasingly able to fend for themselves, but even where they do (working children for instance) that would count for nothing without conception, being carried in their mother, and being fed as an infant.
No, you can't point to an arm or a leg and say "this part of the person belongs to their parent." But it's a part of their existence, the most fundamental part without which the rest wouldn't be there. As such there is, and remains, a part of their physical body and their existence which is not theirs. A temporal part, if you will.

I argue this point entirely as regards parents and children. That the State contributes is interesting: does it serve the interests of the State to claim partial parenthood of children? Does more children = more taxpayers? Does the State think it has something to contribute to the raising of children which parents don't? Or can it simply not resist doing what in personal terms what is almost universally regarded as a good thing, raising children?
In any case, despite being devil's advocate, I can't see any way to cede sovereignty of any part of the individual to the State, based on their involvement in parenting.

I turn to education. Educating children is begun by parents, whether they mean to or not, whether they know that they're doing it or not. Education of some kind is impossible to avoid, and falls to anyone in the presence of a growing child (hell, of anyone, child or no.)
That the State mandates obligatory formal education from a certain age (5 or so) is startling. It's utterly weird: yet we persist with it because ... because ... why do we anyway? If we believed in education, surely we'd do it ourselves, and not just in our spare time but all the time, in our workplaces and with our friends and on our way to Mars, and we'd find a place in our real life for children where they could contribute and feel valued for the skills they already have and the labour they could contribute, as well as just for being kids.
Parents have an interest in schooling: it allows them to work or play without the kids around for six hours a day, more than half the year. Children have an interest in schooling: lots of kids their own age, and stuff to learn which isn't too confusing. But above all, schooling serves the interests of the State: it creates uniformity and predictability of thought, it creates citizens who stay sitting down, citizens who have fun among themselves but don't take themselves too seriously, citizens who look for the one person in a room of thirty who has the authority.
Nope, for jailing our kids and teaching them all the same thing, the State deserves no stake at all in their persons. Screw that.

Adulthood. Let's turn to a free adult, secure and independent in society. They work hard, earn every cent they spend. Perhaps they had a good education, perhaps bad, perhaps they still carry some baggage from their childhood. But they've had a few years to think things through for themselves, they've made some decisions and acted on them, they've earned their stake in all the worldly things and pretty much feel they don't owe anyone. Is their body theirs to do with as they please? Is their mind?

I say no! Here's three things: their childhood still. Without someone to give birth to them, without care as an infant, they simply wouldn't exist. This never goes away, even when parents die. You owe someone, always, for life.
Secondly: They may be in a relationship, or have family, or even simply have good friends. The individual's welfare, the integrity of their body and mind, matter to their partner or their family in the same way (probably less intensely) as their own welfare, body or mind. Caring for someone, you have a stake in their life. Even outside these personal relationships, people feel duty and committment to causes or organizations, as a soldier to his troop. To die or suffer harm is to harm your cause as well.
Thirdly: Whether it's called 'society' or 'the economy' or simply identified as other individuals with material relationships to the individual, being part of society has enourmous survival and personality benefits for the individual. Without specialized labour roles, mechanization, ethical behaviour and above all the knowledge and practice of thousands of generations, a hard day's work would gain the individual barely enough to eat. In some localities, not even that.
If you must reduce this social benefit to the actions of individuals, consider the individuals now dead who built a railway or invented a vaccine. Whatever they got out of it, they have no more: it's been distributed amongst us, a common wealth. And I see far more synergies than just "he cleared a forest, she cured a disease" in the past: the past has taught us everything we need to know. Doesn't the individual owe someone for that? Or something?

Granted, it's not the State which gives us the individual benefits of living in human society. But we owe someone, and not just our parents. I choose to call it 'society.'

So where does this thing called "society" reside? It resides in human beings, it resides in the health and security of their physical body, it resides in the magnified productivity of their labour, and it resides in the part of their consciousness which says "well of course, everyone knows that."
It resides in that part of an individual which acts out of duty, out of a sense of obligation, even the part that strives only to earn respect. We are a social animal, and without our society, we are only animals.

Now we turn to the mind, and the question of freedom of thought. Classical philosophers held the mind to be the seat of freedom, in the form of will. The mind demonstrates to itself its freedom, finds that gratifying, and looks no further. Modern philosophers quite rightly look for freedom instead in society, looking at freedom as empowerment, but still there's an assumption that individuals know what they want before taking steps to get it, and all the quibbling is about how that can be achieved without abridging someone else's freedom. Isn't it curious how that is exactly what happens? That after apparently "freely choosing" to pursue something, it turns out that almost everyone wants the same thing and it can't be had without denying it to someone else.
What is really happening is that individuals are competing with each other. What they want is heavily decided not by a pure process of their mind but by the realization that others want that thing, and in order to be a success in the eyes of others they must go get some.
In a different age, that social bone of contention might have been piety, or respect in the village. Now it's just money.
Of course there are valuable things to be had without money. We all like a night's sleep or a bit of pleasant weather, the love or at least respect of others, and all of these can be had without having to compete for them. Consequently, they are virtually ignored when people speak of freedom. We almost never examine our actual freedom, but rather argue about the limits of it. Freedom for most people is a negatively-defined quality: all that we can do, all that we are not prevented from doing.

That was piss-poor, gotta read some more before I can express exactly why I believe freedom of thought to be an illusion. I'll just point out that we speak a language we did not individually invent, to express our thoughts; we consume far more media than we produce, and all about us are sights and sounds created piecemeal by others. Unless you've lived your entire life in a warm cave meditating, your thoughts are not entirely your own.

Also, the moment you commit a crime you become liable for your own thoughts. Motivation is quite rightly a factor in considering whether something is a crime, a misdemeanor, and accident, or no fault at all. Why should this apply only to crime? Shouldn't the individual be obliged to think through their actions and try to anticipate the consequences? Should we look into an individual's thoughts only after they act on them and the consequences are irreversible?
If there is any freedom at all in thought, then in thought is where the individual should be held responsible

The problems arise from attempts to define the bolded terms.
Agreed. It's very difficult to agree on a definition for them.

I disagree with you.

Of course I accept that certain freedoms and rights are very important, but I don't see why that should extend to giving you the right to do anything that causes others no harm. (One objection of mine is that there are very few things that really cause others no harm, unless you live as a hermit on a mountain.)

Now first, I should say that I agree in principle that liberal democracy works precisely because people feel they are free and secure, so allowing invention and free thought. So there has to be a good reason to take freedoms away.

The choices of government are based on compromise. Say we estimate that 2 million lives would be free of addiction if heroin was banned. Though I wouldn't like taking away that freedom, I think it's a good compromise to make for the good of the people.


The very core of this entire theory is this powerful statement: Who am I to decide what is right for you?

I have vaguely Kantian morals. I think moral relativism is very foolish. How can you think to yourself 'Becoming a drug addict is a bad thing', but then be unprepared to impose that judgment on the outside world? It is impossible to accept something as a maxim, but then ignore its consequences. That's like deciding 'I will stand up' but then not willing movement. So to answer your question - if I can decide what's right for me, then that same decision must at the same time decide what's right universally.

I think that every sane (this is importaint) person of legal age should be allowed to do what ever they want with/to themselves that does not affect anyone else detrimentally, with no interference from government officials whatsoever. I believe that no one should tell anyone what they can and cannot do with themselves, and only you should decide what is right and wrong for yourself. However, society would determine what is socially acceptable and what is not, as that is one of its purposes. Of course whether you decide to follow suit with society is completely up to you.How does society determine what is acceptable or not and let people know this without 'tell[ing] anyone what they can and cannot do with themselves'?

I dont agree with you. I am a very independent person who despises influence in my life and doesnt try to impose himself on others but lines like: "society would determine what is socially acceptable and what is not," always gives me the shivers. Rights need to be protected from imposition by others, even when a greater amount of the populations thinks otherwise. I wouldnt be comfortable with what I should do changed everytime a new generation took over- especially with the adolescent-centric state US culture is in right now.How are rights determined if not by the decision of the greater amount of the population? Even in the case of Constitutional rights, a majority of people have to support it before it makes it into the Constitution.

How does society determine what is acceptable or not and let people know this without 'tell[ing] anyone what they can and cannot do with themselves'?
Well it doesn't. Society doesn't have a voice.
I'm not even sure you mean by 'society' what I do. Living in different places, our circumstances different, I almost certainly perceive "how people treat me, what is expected of me and what is offered to me" differently, and perhaps my own perceptions, the individual contract I have struck with all other people I know, has given me a distorted impression of how it treats others, what it expects of them and what it offers them.
I quite like society, btw.

How are rights determined if not by the decision of the greater amount of the population? Even in the case of Constitutional rights, a majority of people have to support it before it makes it into the Constitution.
That is a very cynical view, that rights are only those granted by law. Surely UNIT is talking of an inherent right? A right to the disposition of the body and the whim of the mind which can be only limited by law ... a right (in the body) inherent in control of the muscles of the body and a right (in the mind) equal to the personal perception of free will?

Are you claiming there are no inherent rights in being a person? That rights are an artifact of the state, or that rights are an artifact of society?

I'm the devil's advocate, btw. I'm trying to put a case that the individual does not entirely own their body, nor entirely control their mind, and therefore must cede to someone or something some part of that sovereignty, though it affect no-one else.

EDIT: Ugh. I never appreciated before how hard it is to represent an opinion you don't in fact hold. I have a new-found respect for trolls.

I think that every sane (this is importaint) person of legal age should be allowed to do what ever they want with/to themselves that does not affect anyone else detrimentally, with no interference from government officials whatsoever. I believe that no one should tell anyone what they can and cannot do with themselves, and only you should decide what is right and wrong for yourself. However, society would determine what is socially acceptable and what is not, as that is one of its purposes. Of course whether you decide to follow suit with society is completely up to you.

As an anarchist, I agree. Welcome to the political left, comrade. :D

Although I think you're not going far enough, what with all that stuff about 'legality' and 'government'... :(

people are already free to do extreme modifications of their bodies. think sex change. at what point do we say "no thats crazy" when we allow people to cut up their genitals and create new ones?

Well, bit late for that....Try to get a few issues of "Modern Primitive". Where once there was one, there was then two....."Spooky"....

I disagree, people are stupid and need to be properly controlled.

Before you read this, understand that I am expecting few, if any, to actually agree with me. What I'm really looking for is the alternate viewpoints. Why? I seem to have convinced myself that this is the only right answer, and I don't like blindly agreeing with anything, even if it's myself I am agreeing with.


I think that every sane (this is importaint) person of legal age should be allowed to do what ever they want with/to themselves that does not affect anyone else detrimentally, with no interference from government officials whatsoever. I believe that no one should tell anyone what they can and cannot do with themselves, and only you should decide what is right and wrong for yourself. However, society would determine what is socially acceptable and what is not, as that is one of its purposes. Of course whether you decide to follow suit with society is completely up to you.

Is this terribly wrong? Have I convinced myself into agreeing with something incredibly terrible? Or have I convinced myself to agreeing with something that is incredibly correct?

Getting completely wasted and driving home doesn't detrimentally affect anyone. A legal substance was used, no one has been harmed, and no one has died. It is a victimless crime; and yet, the person is still a criminal. Why?

Is it because society deems drunk driving socially unacceptable? Well, apparently, in Oklahoma sex for any reason other then procreation is illegal even for married couples. In that state, sex is "socially unacceptable.” What do people do? They break the law.

What I'm getting at here, is that your first point - sane people should be able to do with they want as long as no one else is harmed - is contradicted by your point that society is to dictate what is and isn't socially acceptable. You either give people free reign to disregard social standards altogether (a dangerous notion, see drunk driving) or allow society to dictate its own standards (which conflicts with your idea of complete freedom).

Basically, to use a cliché, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Well, bit late for that....Try to get a few issues of "Modern Primitive". Where once there was one, there was then two....."Spooky"....

uh, no thank you.



im quite confused bout what unitihu is proposing, he seems to want radical freedom for individuals but then allows society to decide what is really acceptable. how is that different from what we have now?

im quite confused bout what unitihu is proposing, he seems to want radical freedom for individuals but then allows society to decide what is really acceptable. how is that different from what we have now?

No difference at all, which is why I reckon he was half asleep when he was typing it up etc.

Well it doesn't. Society doesn't have a voice.
I'm not even sure you mean by 'society' what I do. Living in different places, our circumstances different, I almost certainly perceive "how people treat me, what is expected of me and what is offered to me" differently, and perhaps my own perceptions, the individual contract I have struck with all other people I know, has given me a distorted impression of how it treats others, what it expects of them and what it offers them.
I quite like society, btw.Society has a voice, usually through the legislature.

Are you claiming there are no inherent rights in being a person? That rights are an artifact of the state, or that rights are an artifact of society?Yes, the latter. Or perhaps the former as well.
Without society, there are no rights, merely abilities.

you shouldnt have the right to sell yourself into slavery.
.

Wouldn't that be quite pointless? I mean as soon as the money changed hands you'd be a slave and unable to spend it, surely?

Say I come to you, ten years after you let me do something really stupid that ended up ruining my life, and say, "Damn, I wish you hadn't let me do that."

But isn't there a big difference between a moral obligation and a legal one? For example: If one of my friends starts drinking a bit too much, I've a moral obligation to 'step in', but that doesn't mean alcohol should be banned.

Wouldn't that be quite pointless? I mean as soon as the money changed hands you'd be a slave and unable to spend it, surely?



which is perhaps why it shouldnt be allowed.

but really, one might sell themselves into slavery for any number of good reasons.

if you have a huge debt that is going to ruin the rest of your family. if you need to get out of the place you are now but have no resources (china, certain african countries). if you want to provide your children with the money to get a good start in life. i can probably think of others but they all would involve being impoverished and in desperate need of cash that would go to that need instead of into your pocket.

I understood that and I agree with you but, like they said earlier, it's hard to place a legal definition on what "society deams as acceptable" or "not detrimental to others".

I'll stick to the status quo for now and see what NSG comes up with.

Is this terribly wrong? Have I convinced myself into agreeing with something incredibly terrible? Or have I convinced myself to agreeing with something that is incredibly correct?

Hardly. Most on NS believe that a person should be able to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't directly impact someone else. Hardly a big thing. Though some would be against your legal age restriction. There are a few on the forum who think six year olds should be able to use crack if they want, after all.

Well it doesn't. Society doesn't have a voice.
Society has a voice, usually through the legislature.
OK, I see where you're coming from. Government = society. I think that's a very limited definition, implies that without a suitably representative government, society ... wouldn't exist?. Ten people on an island can't be a society unless and until they form a government? ... and that weekly vote on whether to build a boat (for instance) is the only expression of their society?

Are you claiming ... that rights are an artifact of the state, or that rights are an artifact of society?
Yes, the latter. Or perhaps the former as well.
Without society, there are no rights, merely abilities.
How about a primitive definition of rights: "I have whatever rights I claim and can enforce."
I consider them rights, I have them (at least until someone tries to muscle me out of them) ... but here's you saying they aren't rights at all until they are granted to me by a government?
I've got to be suspicious about why a government would voluntarily grant me rights. "Because government is made by people, who personally claimed such rights themselves" perhaps? That might apply in the US, but most democracies came about gradually by a collective of less-powerful interests wresting what they saw as "their" rights from autocrats.

"We hold these rights to be self-evident ..." Could there be any simpler expression of the idea that rights exist before being granted by the State? "We" make rights for ourselves, even if we look to government to protect them.

But isn't there a big difference between a moral obligation and a legal one? For example: If one of my friends starts drinking a bit too much, I've a moral obligation to 'step in', but that doesn't mean alcohol should be banned.

As I said in an earlier post:

The fact that the principle breaks down on the personal level shows us that the principle is flawed... and gives us some clues as to how the principle might break down elsewhere.

While certainly the government should not be intervening paternalistically on a regular basis, there are some cases where the negative consequences are so severe and unambiguous that I think an exception can be made - because no one (or a negligibly few people) in his or her right mind, knowing the full consequences of the action, would ever commit it.

I don't agree with you...and I haven't even read your post. So there
I'm in the same boat, you were saying something about free choice and butt rapeing Zebra's, right?

I'm in the same boat, you were saying something about free choice and butt rapeing Zebra's, right?

Close enough. :p

uh, no thank you.



im quite confused bout what unitihu is proposing, he seems to want radical freedom for individuals but then allows society to decide what is really acceptable. how is that different from what we have now?

I see you're all a little confused about that part, I probably worded it incorrectly. What I mean is that while you can do whatever you want, society as a whole or in part would determine what you SHOULD do and not do. Here is an example of that part in practice today:
It is legal to eat fifteen pizza's a day, and do nothing but watch television. However, society would say that you probably shouldn't do this. But you can if you want.

Get it?

OK, I see where you're coming from. Government = society. I think that's a very limited definition, implies that without a suitably representative government, society ... wouldn't exist?. Ten people on an island can't be a society unless and until they form a government? ... and that weekly vote on whether to build a boat (for instance) is the only expression of their society?No, I said that the government is the voice of society. I imagine that in a society without a government (if such a thing is possible), society would have another way of voicing its opinions.

How about a primitive definition of rights: "I have whatever rights I claim and can enforce."
I consider them rights, I have them (at least until someone tries to muscle me out of them) ... but here's you saying they aren't rights at all until they are granted to me by a government? Yes. It's not a right if you can claim and enforce it, it's merely an ability. Whenever someone else agrees to help you protect your claims, and you theirs, then it can be said that the two of you have rights. But not before.

I've got to be suspicious about why a government would voluntarily grant me rights. "Because government is made by people, who personally claimed such rights themselves" perhaps? That might apply in the US, but most democracies came about gradually by a collective of less-powerful interests wresting what they saw as "their" rights from autocrats.It doesn't have to be an agreement between people and their state, it could simply be an agreement between various people, independent of a state.

"We hold these rights to be self-evident ..." Could there be any simpler expression of the idea that rights exist before being granted by the State? "We" make rights for ourselves, even if we look to government to protect them.Yes, it's an expression of such an idea. The idea isn't correct, but this is an expression of it.

Before you read this, understand that I am expecting few, if any, to actually agree with me. What I'm really looking for is the alternate viewpoints. Why? I seem to have convinced myself that this is the only right answer, and I don't like blindly agreeing with anything, even if it's myself I am agreeing with.


I think that every sane (this is importaint) person of legal age should be allowed to do what ever they want with/to themselves that does not affect anyone else detrimentally, with no interference from government officials whatsoever. I believe that no one should tell anyone what they can and cannot do with themselves, and only you should decide what is right and wrong for yourself. However, society would determine what is socially acceptable and what is not, as that is one of its purposes. Of course whether you decide to follow suit with society is completely up to you.

Is this terribly wrong? Have I convinced myself into agreeing with something incredibly terrible? Or have I convinced myself to agreeing with something that is incredibly correct?

I agree in spirit, but understand that in practice reuglation sin tihns in many ways neceesary. I think that al ot if things like LSD, which have been shown to have no harful physical effects, and psychological negative rside feects in some small cases should be legally . but there are plenty of theings that are clearly addictive and harmful (meth comes to mind) that should be banned because of the detrimental effects they can have on p[eople around them. Granted every action is cause-effect and affects other people no matter how minutely, but for these you can draw more direct and apparenty causal links.

I disagree with the spelling in the title of this thread.

HA!

I win at internet!

As I said in an earlier post:

The fact that the principle breaks down on the personal level shows us that the principle is flawed... and gives us some clues as to how the principle might break down elsewhere.

While certainly the government should not be intervening paternalistically on a regular basis, there are some cases where the negative consequences are so severe and unambiguous that I think an exception can be made - because no one (or a negligibly few people) in his or her right mind, knowing the full consequences of the action, would ever commit it.

I don't think my example shows the principle 'break(ing) down on a personal level'.

Neither do I think it's as clear cut as saying 'no-one, knowing the full consequences of said action, would ever commit it' in the vast majority of cases of government intervention.

Lots of people get involved with drugs, alcohol, gambling or (arguably) prostitution, as examples, without having or causing any problems. Lots of people also get into trouble with the aforesaid.

The point being no-one can know the consequences until after the event, so you're effectively saying the government can intervene if the potential consequences are severe enough, but how likely do these negatives have to be? If I leave my flat a potential consequence is that I get run over and killed, should I be prevented from going to the shops? Or just from crossing the road? Or should everyone else be prevented from driving for an hour every time I run out of tea bags?

Or is it, as I asked a second ago, dependent upon the likelihood of negative consequences? How do you define likelihood, as a percentage? What percentage is acceptable?

Perhaps it's a combination of likelihood and severity? Maybe consequences could be judged on a points system, with points awarded for both - If the combined total is more than, say, 7 out of 10 that action gets banned? So an action that has a slight chance to go horribly wrong would score the same as an action which is very likely to result in a bruise?!

Perhaps it's a combination of likelihood and severity? Maybe consequences could be judged on a points system, with points awarded for both - If the combined total is more than, say, 7 out of 10 that action gets banned? So an action that has a slight chance to go horribly wrong would score the same as an action which is very likely to result in a bruise?!

That might be sarcasm, but it's pretty much what I think is right. We have to make compromises, and don't like taking away rights, but some things are just too damaging.

However, society would determine what is socially acceptable and what is not, as that is one of its purposes. Of course whether you decide to follow suit with society is completely up to you.

Is this terribly wrong?Society should not try to determine what's acceptable behaviour. It could - and should - act to safeguard the autonomy of the individuals, and of course that imposes some limits on what individuals can get away with. But other than that, society should piss off.

No, I said that the government is the voice of society. I imagine that in a society without a government (if such a thing is possible), society would have another way of voicing its opinions.
I still don't think society has "opinions." I don't think it makes any sense to speak of society "debating" or "negotiating" with an individual. The process of debate or negotiation is a part of society, and an individual expressing an opinion, debating or negotiating is participating in society.

Yes. It's not a right if you can claim and enforce it, it's merely an ability. Whenever someone else agrees to help you protect your claims, and you theirs, then it can be said that the two of you have rights. But not before.
Well there you are then. I'd never have thought of this approach to refuting the OP, but you've done it very elegantly.
I do not, by your definition of a "right," have the right to do anything I like with/to myself or my body, unless I have negotiated a contract with some other person to protect that "right."
My contract with the State does not assure me of any such right, if the activity is illegal in the place I live.
Yes, it's possible for me to secure a "right" to some use of my own body, but it is not assured. That right apparently does not exist until I have negotiated with some other party to protect it.

It doesn't have to be an agreement between people and their state, it could simply be an agreement between various people, independent of a state.
And this would happen already. Even Pol Pot couldn't have completely eliminated private agreements between individuals. Er ... I'm saying I agree.

Yes, it's an expression of such an idea. The idea isn't correct, but this is an expression of it.
OK. Since your approach to "rights" is to define them as a morally-neutral thing, a contract, and moreover to define them entirely negatively by a need to defend them to make them exist, I feel that we are no longer talking about the same thing.

If you want the last word, go for it. I'm done.

That might be sarcasm, but it's pretty much what I think is right. We have to make compromises, and don't like taking away rights, but some things are just too damaging.

It wasn't really sarcasm, I was just taking things to the extremes of sillyness to illustrate my point.

I understand that a lot (perhaps even all) of my actions have an effect on those around me and that, because of that, compromise is necessary. But where do you draw the line?

Does society really ban things on the basis of how harmful they are, anyway? Cannabis is illegal, supposedly because it's bad for you, but tobacco is not. Gambling, apparently, is OK if the government are taking a cut, but otherwise it's a risk to the very fabric of society.

And does (for example) the prohibition of drugs actually do anything to limit the harm they cause anyway? I know people who have taken all sorts of drugs and people who've never touched any. But the decision not to take drugs had nothing to do with the law, either from the fear of arrest or because prohibition has limited the supply.

And that's just things that are demonstrably harmful. What about gay marriage or polygamy or any number of other things that whilst some people might find 'icky' really don't effect anyone but willing participents?

Obviously, the government has a legitimate responsibilty to protect me from others (assuming we accept the concept of government as legitimate), and to protect others from me, but does the government or any abstract body of people (society/community/whatever) have a responsibilty (or even the right) to protect me from myself?

I see you're all a little confused about that part, I probably worded it incorrectly. What I mean is that while you can do whatever you want, society as a whole or in part would determine what you SHOULD do and not do. Here is an example of that part in practice today:
It is legal to eat fifteen pizza's a day, and do nothing but watch television. However, society would say that you probably shouldn't do this. But you can if you want.

Get it?

by which you mean society CAN tell you not to take an ax to your neighbor when he parks his car slightly onto your grass, but it CANT tell you not to spend all day every day smoking dope?

(assuming you would say a general YES to that question)

how would the line be decided? as several people pointed out, its possible to argue that things that are personal decisions can have unexpected negative impacts on other people -- you decide not to wear a helmet when riding your motorcycle, when we collide in an accident the sight of your brains on the pavement gives me nightmares for years. (no i dont want to argue this particular case)

so when its a grey area, who decides if its personal freedom or infringement on the rights of others?

by which you mean society CAN tell you not to take an ax to your neighbor when he parks his car slightly onto your grass, but it CANT tell you not to spend all day every day smoking dope?

(assuming you would say a general YES to that question)

how would the line be decided? as several people pointed out, its possible to argue that things that are personal decisions can have unexpected negative impacts on other people -- you decide not to wear a helmet when riding your motorcycle, when we collide in an accident the sight of your brains on the pavement gives me nightmares for years. (no i dont want to argue this particular case)

so when its a grey area, who decides if its personal freedom or infringement on the rights of others?
Again, the still-existent government, whatever system it may be, would determine what is crossing the line.

As for the other part, I don't know. Personally, I would say that it should only be illegal if it causes someone else physical harm, and tell people to grow a skin. But that's me, and I'm sure to get flak for that.

I suppose this is more of a work in progress ideology than a finished one.

I think that every sane (this is importaint) person of legal age should be allowed to do what ever they want with/to themselves that does not affect anyone else detrimentally

The problem arises when trying to determine exactly what counts as harming someone else. Some might say that the immense emotional stress produced in the family caused by the son addicted to heroine counts, others say it doesn't count.

Again, the still-existent government, whatever system it may be, would determine what is crossing the line.

As for the other part, I don't know. Personally, I would say that it should only be illegal if it causes someone else physical harm, and tell people to grow a skin. But that's me, and I'm sure to get flak for that.

I suppose this is more of a work in progress ideology than a finished one.

we could use a dose of this attitude in our current government.

this attitude that the government needs to run your life to SAVE MONEY is shockingly ridiculous. the government never saves money. ever.

but NOOO, you have to quit smoking because smoking costs us money. there are proposals to regulate what restaurants can serve because THEY are responsible for you getting fat. fat people cost money! oh for gods sake, they seem to think that if we just live right we will never get sick and never die.

can you tell im very tired of the government suggesting that we live for IT rather than it existing to serve us?

we could use a dose of this attitude in our current government.

this attitude that the government needs to run your life to SAVE MONEY is shockingly ridiculous. the government never saves money. ever.

but NOOO, you have to quit smoking because smoking costs us money. there are proposals to regulate what restaurants can serve because THEY are responsible for you getting fat. fat people cost money! oh for gods sake, they seem to think that if we just live right we will never get sick and never die.

can you tell im very tired of the government suggesting that we live for IT rather than it existing to serve us?
I dare you to try and find someone on NSG who didn't agree with you completely. MTAE doesn't count. :D

I dare you to try and find someone on NSG who didn't agree with you completely. MTAE doesn't count. :D

m pretty sure that i have seen people (outside of this thread) who argued that smoking should be made illegal because its too expensive a health problem. ...


hmmmm lemme see if i can find a post.

I guess that means I should lurk a little moar.

just to show that i didnt blow off your challenge:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12463623&postcount=38

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12463809&postcount=49

not excellent examples. same thread and same poster.


im going to plead time. i have a very slow connection and i have trouble with the jolt search functions. its so hard to figure out what to put into the search box.

Since when are an obvious troll and Darknovae one and the same? :D

But it actually brings up a good point. Does smoking infringe on a nonsmokers rights?

I say no. Grow some balls, nonsmokers.

I still don't think society has "opinions." I don't think it makes any sense to speak of society "debating" or "negotiating" with an individual. The process of debate or negotiation is a part of society, and an individual expressing an opinion, debating or negotiating is participating in society. And the opinions that the majority of people hold would be the opinions of society.

Well there you are then. I'd never have thought of this approach to refuting the OP, but you've done it very elegantly.
I do not, by your definition of a "right," have the right to do anything I like with/to myself or my body, unless I have negotiated a contract with some other person to protect that "right."Certainly. You may have the ability to do so, but not the right.

My contract with the State does not assure me of any such right, if the activity is illegal in the place I live.
Yes, it's possible for me to secure a "right" to some use of my own body, but it is not assured. That right apparently does not exist until I have negotiated with some other party to protect it.Exactly.

OK. Since your approach to "rights" is to define them as a morally-neutral thing, a contract, and moreover to define them entirely negatively by a need to defend them to make them exist, I feel that we are no longer talking about the same thing.

If you want the last word, go for it. I'm done.Wait, are you no longer playing devil's advocate?
If that's the case, then to revert to your own original definition of rights, which was "I have whatever rights I claim and can enforce", means that if I kill you, and get away with it, means that I have the right to do so, wouldn't it?