Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    I'm not a socialist. Far from it.
    Alright then you aren't. Sorry, I assumed you were.

    What are you then?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    Alright then you aren't. Sorry, I assumed you were.

    What are you then?
    Conservative, traditionally so, more red-tory than blue tory.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Conservative, traditionally so, more red-tory than blue tory.
    Well it makes sense that we are going to be at odds on the issue of personal freedoms then. Anyway, its 2am.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TercioOfParma, you talk about 'rights' but you haven't explained where any of these rights come from.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    That's a silly opinion to have. By buying the heroin, I'm funding a trade that causes the detriment to millions, heroin is highly addictive and highly expensive. If one is doing heroin then one isn't working, so I fall into detriment because I can't fund my habit, I fall into a life of crime, and either end up in prison or dead all because I thought that injecting heroin into my penis was a good idea and my government was too liberal to stop me.

    The Government has a duty to act on behalf of all of society, in all of society's interests. Me injecting heroin into my penis is only to my own and society's detriment.
    The illegality of heroine is what makes the drug so expensive and thus a lucrative trade for criminals.

    Some people enjoy heroine, in their own homes, feeling dat pleasure yo, and they enjoy it, and don't commit crimes, etc. Why intervene?

    As soon as they commit a crime or breach the peace, then we should jail the **** out of them.

    The consequences of heroine should serve as its own deterrent. If somebody isn't deterred by the fact that you could end up as a one-toothed **** then the legal system ain't going to deter them either.

    I think the onus is on you to justify why you're restricting people's liberty. Criminalise the anti-social behaviour, but not the drug itself.

    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Therefore, try this. A body, A, has the opportunity to prevent an individual, B, from doing an action which harms them, but causes neither benefit nor harm to anyone else. Why should A not intervene?
    I don't deny that there are some strong arguments for paternalism (e.g. addicted people having two levels/orders of wants [desire for chocolate versus the desire not to desire chocolate], or lack of rationality), but the burden of justification, I feel intuitively, should rest with those wishing to restrict another human's actions.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    I don't deny that there are some strong arguments for paternalism (e.g. addicted people having two levels/orders of wants [desire for chocolate versus the desire not to desire chocolate], or lack of rationality), but the burden of justification, I feel intuitively, should rest with those wishing to restrict another human's actions.
    I start from a utilitarian presumption - it is a tautology that good has intrinsic value, but given liberty does not (or at least I see no reason to think it does), I reject that presumption.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    TercioOfParma, you talk about 'rights' but you haven't explained where any of these rights come from.
    They are inherent to every human being. They are derived from simply existing. The only way rights can be violated legally will be if you violated somebody else's first.

    Rights being:
    Rights to freedom of speech and arbitrary imprisonment
    Rights to your own body
    Freedom of assembly

    generally common sense freedoms. Not freedom from taxes like some people like to advocate

    Of course in my view, I realise my views are not realisitic, although they are something I like to strive for in my view.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I start from a utilitarian presumption - it is a tautology that good has intrinsic value, but given liberty does not (or at least I see no reason to think it does), I reject that presumption.
    Why should moral good or moral evil factor in at anything more than a personal level unless somebody is being violated?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    The illegality of heroine is what makes the drug so expensive and thus a lucrative trade for criminals.

    Some people enjoy heroine, in their own homes, feeling dat pleasure yo, and they enjoy it, and don't commit crimes, etc. Why intervene?

    As soon as they commit a crime or breach the peace, then we should jail the **** out of them.

    The consequences of heroine should serve as its own deterrent. If somebody isn't deterred by the fact that you could end up as a one-toothed **** then the legal system ain't going to deter them either.

    I think the onus is on you to justify why you're restricting people's liberty. Criminalise the anti-social behaviour, but not the drug itself.
    This is an important point, and one that I love.

    These people who enjoy shooting up in their own homes, can pay for the heroin and don't interfere with anyone else can continue doing so. The police aren't going to check up on them just in case they're shooting up. This is why the law works so well. Where someone shooting up does effect other people, that's where the state intervenes. That's how the law works well, it ensures that people know that shooting up is bad for them and it ensures that where it does effect people in a negative way the state can intervene. Libertarianism, won't really take off because it isn't pragmatic in the same way that paternalism is. It is the product of naivety. That because something is illegal, that people can't do it. It's the same with prostitution and many other things, brothels are illegal, but the police know about many brothels but let them continue as it's the better option than closing them down and putting peoples safety at risk.

    I don't deny that there are some strong arguments for paternalism (e.g. addicted people having two levels/orders of wants [desire for chocolate versus the desire not to desire chocolate], or lack of rationality), but the burden of justification, I feel intuitively, should rest with those wishing to restrict another human's actions.
    There are strong arguments for libertarianism too, but when we speak practically, paternalism wins outright.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    They are inherent to every human being. They are derived from simply existing. The only way rights can be violated legally will be if you violated somebody else's first.

    Rights being:
    Rights to freedom of speech and arbitrary imprisonment
    Rights to your own body
    Freedom of assembly

    generally common sense freedoms. Not freedom from taxes like some people like to advocate

    Of course in my view, I realise my views are not realisitic, although they are something I like to strive for in my view.
    A right, by its very nature, is absolute. Given that some of these rights are inconsistent with one another, they cannot all exist. Furthermore, it seems pretty clear to me that if any right exists, it must be a right to equal consideration, which is inconsistent with all four.

    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    Why should moral good or moral evil factor in at anything more than a personal level unless somebody is being violated?
    Because something good happens. I don't see why this has to be complicated. Morality is just a reasoning process to the optimisation of human experience.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    This is an important point, and one that I love.These people who enjoy shooting up in their own homes, can pay for the heroin and don't interfere with anyone else can continue doing so. The police aren't going to check up on them just in case they're shooting up. This is why the law works so well. Where someone shooting up does effect other people, that's where the state intervenes. That's how the law works well, it ensures that people know that shooting up is bad for them and it ensures that where it does effect people in a negative way the state can intervene. Libertarianism, won't really take off because it isn't pragmatic in the same way that paternalism is. It is the product of naivety. That because something is illegal, that people can't do it. It's the same with prostitution and many other things, brothels are illegal, but the police know about many brothels but let them continue as it's the better option than closing them down and putting peoples safety at risk.There are strong arguments for libertarianism too, but when we speak practically, paternalism wins outright.
    I thought we were talking at a conceptual level this whole time.

    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    A right, by its very nature, is absolute. Given that some of these rights are inconsistent with one another, they cannot all exist. Furthermore, it seems pretty clear to me that if any right exists, it must be a right to equal consideration, which is inconsistent with all four.



    Because something good happens. I don't see why this has to be complicated. Morality is just a reasoning process to the optimisation of human experience.
    How are any of the rights I have stated inconsistent with each other?

    How do any of those rights infringe on any other out of those 4?

    Also, how can you define good? we all have different ideas of good. Islamic morality is fundamentally different from secular morality, for instance.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    How are any of the rights I have stated inconsistent with each other?

    How do any of those rights infringe on any other out of those 4?

    Also, how can you define good? we all have different ideas of good. Islamic morality is fundamentally different from secular morality, for instance.
    The inconsistency, for instance, is freedom of expression being used to encourage violence and therefore the right to bodily integrity.

    As for good, it's largely intuitive. Happiness is obviously good. Drunkenness is not obvious.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The inconsistency, for instance, is freedom of expression being used to encourage violence and therefore the right to bodily integrity.
    That would make sense if words actually killed people, not people.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    That would make sense if words actually killed people, not people.
    Basic causation, the words can remain a sine qua non of the death. Therefore, the words can be said to have caused the death.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Basic causation, the words can remain a sine qua non of the death. Therefore, the words can be said to have caused the death.
    Well, the person doesnt have to kill somebody another person told them to kill. They ultimately decide, and thus should be accountable for their actions.

    The other person, on the other hand, only said something, and shouldnt be punished. In a lot of cases it can be open to interpretation too, like the "let him.have it" case involving a man with an iq of 60 telling his friend to give a policeman the gun, but the friend misinterpreted and shot the man.

    Either way, people who are inciting violence tend to be doing far worse things behind closed doors anyway, so they can be investigated and punished for that.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    Well, the person doesnt have to kill somebody another person told them to kill. They ultimately decide, and thus should be accountable for their actions.

    The other person, on the other hand, only said something, and shouldnt be punished. In a lot of cases it can be open to interpretation too, like the "let him.have it" case involving a man with an iq of 60 telling his friend to give a policeman the gun, but the friend misinterpreted and shot the man.

    Either way, people who are inciting violence tend to be doing far worse things behind closed doors anyway, so they can be investigated and punished for that.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Let's say you have a murderous robot commanded by voice. It's not hard to come up with situations in which any two given rights are incompatible.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    x
    That's a great way to go about drafting bills. I see how it would be different in those two scenarios. Thanks for your time.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    The illegality of heroine is what makes the drug so expensive and thus a lucrative trade for criminals.

    Some people enjoy heroine, in their own homes, feeling dat pleasure yo, and they enjoy it, and don't commit crimes, etc. Why intervene?

    As soon as they commit a crime or breach the peace, then we should jail the **** out of them.

    The consequences of heroine should serve as its own deterrent. If somebody isn't deterred by the fact that you could end up as a one-toothed **** then the legal system ain't going to deter them either.

    I think the onus is on you to justify why you're restricting people's liberty. Criminalise the anti-social behaviour, but not the drug itself.

    I don't deny that there are some strong arguments for paternalism (e.g. addicted people having two levels/orders of wants [desire for chocolate versus the desire not to desire chocolate], or lack of rationality), but the burden of justification, I feel intuitively, should rest with those wishing to restrict another human's actions.
    As with most of my disagreements with libertarianism, you have far too much faith in the rationality of people. While i accept there are many areas where the government should stay out (i have no objection to people throwing their wages away on gambling or prostitutes for example), when it comes to health i just don't think that in a world becoming ever more obese its a good idea for a government to let its citizens take harmful substances like Heroin. What's more, you correctly point out that making it legal would reduce the cost and i'm far from sold.

    But in terms of justification i guess it comes down to whether you believe the states duty is to protect its citizens from physical harm where possible.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    As with most of my disagreements with libertarianism, you have far too much faith in the rationality of people. While i accept there are many areas where the government should stay out (i have no objection to people throwing their wages away on gambling or prostitutes for example), when it comes to health i just don't think that in a world becoming ever more obese its a good idea for a government to let its citizens take harmful substances like Heroin. What's more, you correctly point out that making it legal would reduce the cost and i'm far from sold.

    But in terms of justification i guess it comes down to whether you believe the states duty is to protect its citizens from physical harm where possible.
    but the issue is that if people want to do drugs they will do them. having them illegal puts money in the hands of drug cartels who will harm people. The war on drugs is an unwinnable one so it would be far better if the government legalized drugs but made itself the only legal supplier and on top of that kept prices the same as now and put all profits into the treasury. if people are only allowed to buy and take drugs in a government owned drugs store then they can be monitored and cut off if needed and only pose a risk to themselves
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    but the issue is that if people want to do drugs they will do them. having them illegal puts money in the hands of drug cartels who will harm people. The war on drugs is an unwinnable one so it would be far better if the government legalized drugs but made itself the only legal supplier and on top of that kept prices the same as now and put all profits into the treasury. if people are only allowed to buy and take drugs in a government owned drugs store then they can be monitored and cut off if needed and only pose a risk to themselves
    So instead of the drug cartels profiting from from the opiates trade, you want the state to?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?

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.