Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zooropa)
    That shouldn't the state's problem.

    If anything, they probably aren't responsible enough BECAUSE of the state!

    Responsibility is part of being human. For every action we take, there are consequences and one is repsonsible for those consequences. That's something that cannot really be avoided.
    No, we are PART of the state so it's is the state's problem. Otherwise one could argue that we should be able to drive as far as we like because it's not the state's responsibility to ensure safe driving but its citizens'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zooropa)
    That shouldn't the state's problem.

    If anything, they probably aren't responsible enough BECAUSE of the state!
    Well unless you're able to go back hundreds of years before the idea of the modern day nation state came about, you will have to start being a bit more realistic about human nature.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schutzstaffel)
    No, we are PART of the state so it's is the state's problem. Otherwise one could argue that we should be able to drive as far as we like because it's not the state's responsibility to ensure safe driving but its citizens'.
    Well this all depends on your view of how powerful the state should be. Considering that you chose to have the SS as your username, I am not surprised that you believe that we are a part of the state - volksgemeinschaft and all that, right? Does that mean that each of us belongs to the state and that it has the power to tell us how to lead our lives solely for its benefit?

    British culture maintains that we are NOT part of any state and that it exists only protect our liberties. It can be argued that this includes the liberty of a responsible adult to do with his or her body whatever he or she wants.. such as taking drugs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Preventing them harming another first would be better.
    So - with the respectively high number of drunk and disorderly crimes occuring - would you ban the selling, making and consumption of alcohol?

    And with that logic of prevention, where do you draw the line? Ban knives because ppl get stabbed? Ban stairs because people fall down them? Ban food because ppl choke?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schutzstaffel)
    No, we are PART of the state so it's is the state's problem. Otherwise one could argue that we should be able to drive as far as we like because it's not the state's responsibility to ensure safe driving but its citizens'.
    Non sequitur. When you drive Tony Blair doesn't control your car. YOU do. So it's your responsibility to ensure your own safety, in a de facto sense.

    Well unless you're able to go back hundreds of years before the idea of the modern day nation state came about, you will have to start being a bit more realistic about human nature.
    How is it within human nature not to be responsible? We are all responsible for something in life!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mrcheese)
    So - with the respectively high number of drunk and disorderly crimes occuring - would you ban the selling, making and consumption of alcohol?
    That wouldn't be realistic, illegalizing something is an entirely different prospect from legalizing it. The idea of preventing harm before it occurs still applies though - and I believe there should be greater police presence outside certain pubs at certain times.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zooropa)
    Non sequitur. When you drive Tony Blair doesn't control your car. YOU do. So it's your responsibility to ensure your own safety, in a de facto sense.

    but then why do the state impose driving laws? Because people are unable to take responsibility and must be told.

    (Original post by TheVlad)
    Well this all depends on your view of how powerful the state should be. Considering that you chose to have the SS as your username, I am not surprised that you believe that we are a part of the state - volksgemeinschaft and all that, right? Does that mean that each of us belongs to the state and that it has the power to tell us how to lead our lives solely for its benefit?
    Volksgemeinschaft was fundamentally a good idea...

    Yeah, each of us does belong to the state, well those that hold citizenship anyway, and so it has the right to control some aspect of our lives. If we don't like it we can leave (which is our 'freedom'). It should, in my opinion, have the power to tell us how to lead our lives for our benefit but also for its - which is pretty much what I think the state atm does. And why drugs are banned.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    That wouldn't be realistic, illegalizing something is an entirely different prospect from legalizing it.
    I don't like the idea of our legislation being created on what is convenient. We should have our ethical values and enforce them consistently.

    Currently, there is a lot of hypocrosy in our drug laws, with alcohol and cigarettes being legal and not cannabis, and it shouldn't matter how difficult it would be to change the law, a strong government should be able to do it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I agree that cannabis is potentially a different issue. I'm not particularly comfortable with the idea of all drugs being legalised though, which is what I assumed was the thrust of the argument.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schutzstaffel)
    but then why do the state impose driving laws? Because people are unable to take responsibility and must be told.
    Because a car, by its natural bigness, is a dangerous weapon and there is high chance that it will harm people if used irresponsibly (more so than drugs). However there is no blanket ban on driving, so your analogy helps my case rather than yours.

    Volksgemeinschaft was fundimentally a good idea...
    My love for freedom and individuality causes me to disagree.

    Yeah, each of us does belong to the state, well those that hold citizenship anyway, and so it has the right to control some aspect of our lives. If we don't like it we can leave (which is our 'freedom'). It should, in my opinion, have the power to tell us how to lead our lives for our benefit but also for its - which is pretty much what I think the state atm does. And why drugs are banned.
    Why is the state better at deciding what is for my benefit than I?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    Because a car, by its natural bigness, is a dangerous weapon and there is high chance that it will harm people if used irresponsibly (more so than drugs). However there is no blanket ban on driving, so your analogy helps my case rather than yours.
    I don't know; I think drugs can be dangerous and if they were all legalized the effects are very unpredictable. People might continue to go to work or they may become addicts, the economy might do very well indeed or it may fail utterly because of the lack of workers. Its all very difficult so I think the present situation is better.

    Drugs can be 'dangerous weapons' too though - people on drugs may be more likely to randomly attack others in the street (this actually happened to me), or kill, or whatever. Society needs rules to function and although, obviously, some people would use drugs responsibly with no adverse effects, I feel that a lot of people would totally abuse them and the entire country would become a very 'bad place'.


    (Original post by TheVlad)
    Why is the state better at deciding what is for my benefit than I?
    Because people cannot be trusted! And anyway, that wasn't what I said/meant; the state can decide what's best for both the individual and the rest of the state which allows it to prosper. However, the individual is far too short-sighted to see what best for both it and the state so must be told.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schutzstaffel)
    I don't know; I think drugs can be dangerous and if they were all legalized the effects are very unpredictable. People might continue to go to work or they may become addicts, the economy might do very well indeed or it may fail utterly because of the lack of workers. Its all very difficult so I think the present situation is better.

    Drugs can be 'dangerous weapons' too though - people on drugs may be more likely to randomly attack others in the street (this actually happened to me), or kill, or whatever. Society needs rules to function and although, obviously, some people would use drugs responsibly with no adverse effects, I feel that a lot of people would totally abuse them and the entire country would become a very 'bad place'.

    Because people cannot be trusted! And anyway, that wasn't what I said/meant; the state can decide what's best for both the individual and the rest of the state which allows it to prosper. However, the individual is far too short-sighted to see what best for both it and the state so must be told.
    You see, I don't believe that in the relationship between state and individual the former is the more important. The reason the state was created for in the first place was to help protect the individual. Thus all actions of the state should be aimed at giving people their liberty and letting them do what they want. The only responsibility of the individual is not to infringe on other people's liberties. So if someone chooses not to contribute to the economy, that is their right.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    The reason the state was created for in the first place was to help protect the individual.
    Or to protect the individual whilst at the same time protecting all other individuals within the state.

    (Original post by TheVlad)
    Thus all actions of the state should be aimed at giving people their liberty and letting them do what they want.The only responsibility of the individual is not to infringe on other people's liberties.
    But if you give one person what they want then other people might not want that. Again, with the car example; I want to go 120mph down a motorway but it's not allowed because although it's what I want it doesn't serve the purposes of the state nor the other people in it. However, other people may also want to go 120mph but they too are not allowed, no one is infringing on anyone else in that instance and yet still the state must enfore the law.

    (Original post by TheVlad)
    So if someone chooses not to contribute to the economy, that is their right.
    I quite disagree there; if someone is part of a state they should take pride in it and contribute to it. People who don't should, in my view, not be allowed the benefits that come with being part of it, or should leave entirely.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.