Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

TSR Libertarian Party Question Time - Ask A Porcupine! Watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Would you allow a severely autistic person to give heroine to a horse?
    Not unless that horse's name is Ed Milliband.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Do you believe people with autism should be allowed to buy heroine?
    Why would autism change anything?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _gcx)
    Why would autism change anything?
    Because consent is often an important concept in Libertarian theory; but Libertarians concede that children cannot consent in the same way as adults can consent. People with autism are adults, in terms of age, but their ability to think (which I would expect to be the morally significant motivation behind the Libertarian's arbitrary distinction between children and adults) is somewhat impaired (depending on the type of autism). This might force Libertarians to make a value judgement - that actually humans that do not make rational decisions should be afforded some legal protection which trumps their putative right and freedom to 'consent'.

    That said, people seem to prefer to bite the bullet here and concede that the mentally ill should be able to do what they want so long as they pass a certain age, which is interesting, but not a position I could support.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Because consent is often an important concept in Libertarian theory; but Libertarians concede that children cannot consent in the same way as adults can consent. People with autism are adults, in terms of age, but their ability to think (which I would expect to be the morally significant motivation behind the Libertarian's arbitrary distinction between children and adults) is somewhat impaired (depending on the type of autism). This might force Libertarians to make a value judgement - that actually humans that do not make rational decisions should be afforded some legal protection which trumps their putative right and freedom to 'consent'.
    I think most humans do not make rational decisions.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    I think most humans do not make rational decisions.
    Same.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Come on guys, you don't really support the injection of heroine, heroin maybe, but not heroine
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Because consent is often an important concept in Libertarian theory; but Libertarians concede that children cannot consent in the same way as adults can consent. People with autism are adults, in terms of age, but their ability to think (which I would expect to be the morally significant motivation behind the Libertarian's arbitrary distinction between children and adults) is somewhat impaired (depending on the type of autism). This might force Libertarians to make a value judgement - that actually humans that do not make rational decisions should be afforded some legal protection which trumps their putative right and freedom to 'consent'.
    The thing is that ASD is a diverse disorder, to the point at which such blanket statements cannot really be made. You may find that some individuals with ASD have significantly above average intelligence, while others may have significantly below average intelligence. (potentially arising from an accompanying intellectual disability) The attitude that those with severe autism, without specifying intelligence levels, should not be trusted to make such decisions seems a tad patronising to me.

    To set out a foundation for this: in general I support the legislation of the large majority of drugs, provided that the individual is an adult. I am however hesitant to support legislation of drugs that cause severe impidement to one's self control (acid potentially being an example), considering the safety of others. (even while restricting usage to one's own property, there's still a risk of harm to others. It's overall a grey area for me) This is mainly concering strong hallucinogenics, like LSD, and not so much opiates like heroin. I am open to input on this matter, I'm just not so confident when a significant danger to others is posed.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Because consent is often an important concept in Libertarian theory; but Libertarians concede that children cannot consent in the same way as adults can consent. People with autism are adults, in terms of age, but their ability to think (which I would expect to be the morally significant motivation behind the Libertarian's arbitrary distinction between children and adults) is somewhat impaired (depending on the type of autism). This might force Libertarians to make a value judgement - that actually humans that do not make rational decisions should be afforded some legal protection which trumps their putative right and freedom to 'consent'.

    That said, people seem to prefer to bite the bullet here and concede that the mentally ill should be able to do what they want so long as they pass a certain age, which is interesting, but not a position I could support.
    I believe I briefly outlined your argument earlier:

    "But can a person with a profoundly life-altering set of autistic conditions truly be said to be consenting? If, via the MCA, we decide that they lack capacity surely you'd agree that they also cannot be consenting"

    Jus' sayin'.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Come on guys, you don't really support the injection of heroine, heroin maybe, but not heroine
    Injecting females with superhuman qualities sounds like an attractive proposition to me.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    I think most humans do not make rational decisions.
    Humans are, by and large, irrational beings.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _gcx)
    The thing is that ASD is a diverse disorder, to the point at which such blanket statements cannot really be made. You may find that some individuals with ASD have significantly above average intelligence, while others may have significantly below average intelligence. (potentially arising from an accompanying intellectual disability) The attitude that those with severe autism, without specifying intelligence levels, should not be trusted to make such decisions seems a tad patronising to me.
    Yeah, but my point didn't really hinge on what type of autism somebody had; just that, in principal, would there be a person with autism (of whatever severity) to whom you would deny the right to consent to take heroine, and upon on what distinction is it patronising for autistic people but not for children?

    To set out a foundation for this: in general I support the legislation of the large majority of drugs, provided that the individual is an adult. I am however hesitent to support legislation of drugs that cause severe impidement to one's self control (acid potentially being an example), considering the safety of others. (even while restricting usage to one's own property, there's still a risk of harm to others. It's overall a grey area for me) This is mainly concering strong hallucinogenics, like LSD, and not so much opiates like heroin.
    By linking the right to consent to adulthood rather than mental ability seems rather arbitrary to me. Surely the reason we deny children free choice is because of their mental capacity, rather than the age of their cells?

    Surely the harm to others is mitigated by arresting people for the crime of harming people under the influence, rather than by taking the drug itself? If you're going to arrest people because of the risk of harming others, you'd be able to use that logic for banning most things.

    By introducing "self-control" as a reason to deny liberty, you're making the concession that there is something more important at stake than one's liberty to consent, and that actually there are times when people do know what's better for other people (e.g. a person wrestling with addiction, or not thinking straight) and have a right to restrict other people's actions based on that rationale.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Yeah, but my point didn't really hinge on what type of autism somebody had; just that, in principal, would there be a person with autism (of whatever severity) to whom you would deny the right to consent to take heroine, and upon on what distinction is it patronising for autistic people but not for children?


    By linking the right to consent to adulthood rather than mental ability seems rather arbitrary to me. Surely the reason we deny children free choice is because of their mental capacity, rather than the age of their cells?

    Surely the harm to others is mitigated by arresting people for the crime of harming people under the influence, rather than by taking the drug itself? If you're going to arrest people because of the risk of harming others, you'd be able to use that logic for banning most things.

    By introducing "self-control" as a reason to deny liberty, you're making the concession that there is something more important at stake than one's liberty to consent, and that actually there are times when people do know what's better for people and have a right to restrict other people's actions based on that rationale.
    These are actually really logical points, and I'm in definite agreement with everything here.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    I believe I briefly outlined your argument earlier:

    "But can a person with a profoundly life-altering set of autistic conditions truly be said to be consenting? If, via the MCA, we decide that they lack capacity surely you'd agree that they also cannot be consenting"

    Jus' sayin'.
    But then who decides what constitutes "lacking capacity"? If a person says they want to do something, then surely that constitutes "consent". Whether you believe that "consent" was truly thought through is a different matter - but we shouldn't muddy the two concepts by defining "consent" as "rational consent". To a libertarian, consent is usually sufficient, because by introducing the notion of "rational consent", you introduce a means by which restrictive government legislation may be enacted.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _gcx)
    Injecting females with superhuman qualities sounds like an attractive proposition to me.
    Two flaws, 1: heroine=/=superhuman; 2: injecting human
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    But then who decide what constitutes "lacking capacity"? If a person says they want to do something, then surely that constitutes "consent". Whether you believe that "consent" was truly thought through is a different matter - but we shouldn't muddy the two concepts by defining "consent" as "rational consent". To a libertarian, consent is usually sufficient, because by introducing the notion of "rational consent", you introduce a means by which restrictive government legislation may be enacted.
    I'm okay with the provisions of the MCA holding; if that makes me an inconsistent libertarian than that's fine with me. I don't need consent to be particularly rational, but I want there to be some basic understanding of what consent means, and what is being consented to. A profoundly autistic person has neither. A person with some amount of low-level ASC behaviours would generally have both and can do as they please.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Two flaws, 1: heroine=/=superhuman; 2: injecting human
    If the heroine consents to being injected why should it not be allowed?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Fair enough.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Yeah, but my point didn't really hinge on what type of autism somebody had; just that, in principal, would there be a person with autism (of whatever severity) to whom you would deny the right to consent to take heroine, and upon on what distinction is it patronising for autistic people but not for children?


    By linking the right to consent to adulthood rather than mental ability seems rather arbitrary to me. Surely the reason we deny children free choice is because of their mental capacity, rather than the age of their cells?

    Surely the harm to others is mitigated by arresting people for the crime of harming people under the influence, rather than by taking the drug itself? If you're going to arrest people because of the risk of harming others, you'd be able to use that logic for banning most things.

    By introducing "self-control" as a reason to deny liberty, you're making the concession that there is something more important at stake than one's liberty to consent, and that actually there are times when people do know what's better for other people (e.g. a person wrestling with addiction, or not thinking straight) and have a right to restrict other people's actions based on that rationale.
    Ideally you would link consent with mental capacity, but since there is a strong correlation between age and mental capacity, and because nobody matures at the exact same rate, it makes much more sense to set a rough age of consent for all of society.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    What are your views on human cloning? :holmes:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    ****ing love human clothing.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 17, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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