(And this is the second half)
No coercion, no fear of going to jail or having your property removed.
You should fear those things, though, so you don't hurt yourself or other people. That's why the law is there. To give you just fear where you make the mistake of having none.
Laws are only have ambiguous morality unless they restrict something that is helpful for people. Getting drunk does not help you, or anyone around you. So making it illegal to do certain things while under the influence of stone cold hard DRUNK protects people, and doesn't harm you.
And if you need to do wild and dangerous things to enjoy life, you should be psychologically treated by a doctor, because you are depressed or suffering from SOMETHING that needs to be rectified... and drinking yourself to death is not an adequate way to rectify your suffering. Because, you know, people care about you and shit.
if you have faith in your politicians and lobbyists who write the laws, I'm sure you could have faith instead in the people who these laws are meant to "protect."
I have NO faith in lobbyists. You must be drunk if you think I have a single care or good opinion about lobbyists, or the rich and greedy in general.
I don't have faith in politicians to be perfect. I trust they will make mistakes that are human mistakes, but will overall have predictable behavior, including trying to craft legislation that they think helps people... because if they craft legislation that hurts people, chaos will ensue and their power will mean nothing. Or they'll be voted out of office.
And I do have faith in people outside the government. I just am not willing to risk their lives and well-being upon the principle you describe. You can argue that I shouldn't determine what is best for them, but that's why they should just tell me what they think is best for them... then I will tell them they are wrong.
As someone empathetic, I am concerned with making certain that people are not suffering, even if it means telling people they don't know how to make themselves not suffer.
Using YOUR kind of logic, people shouldn't try and prevent others from committing suicide when there is PLENTY of hope to recover from past events. Like when a teenager in a middle class home is stricken with such huge depression that they want to choose to kill themselves... you think the parents should just let it happen?
Well... no, you probably don't. I'd be surprised if you did. But it's the same concept. Just because I haven't been in another person's shoes doesn't mean I don't generally know how to help them. This is what we have therapists and other mind-doctors for. To tell people that they are stupid and don't know how to be happy.
Just anything you and the lobbyists happen to hate at the moment.
You're sort of right.
I hate people suffering... so I refuse to let them suffer.
They can choose to, but not before I create an environment that gives them large incentive to choose to not suffer.
Also, grouping me in the lobbyists...? Are you trying to make me cease coherent thought and just be pissed off at you? Waaaaaaaaaagh ಠ_ಠ
I believe that people shall make decisions for themselves. You support laws that are forcing EVERYONE to live by the same, conforming values.
Not really. There should be a 50/50 split between freedom and law. People can be free, just not free to harm each other. People don't need to be able to harm one another to be free. I've reiterated this too many times then I can remember, and you still think I support a complete and total statehood where freedom does not exist?
Are you sure you're not drunk? Because you're debating like a presumptuous drunk... you know, like that guy in the bar who keeps calling you Johnny when he doesn't even know your name, and you try and tell him what your name really is, but he don't listen and just keeps assuming that your name is Johnny. ಠ_ಠ
since you equated me to Hitler, I will point out that your belief system is far closer to Hitler than mine... since you support telling people what to do with their own bodies. FOR THEIR PROTECTION.
I equated you to Hitler? I don't remember... but you're talking drunk, so maybe I didn't and you just think I did. I'm not sure, because even if you're drunk, I'm a vegetable.
Hitler was a totalitarian. I believe in nothing of the sort. Between Hitler, and you, I am in directly in between. And in that regard... yes, I am closer to believing in totalitarianism then you are, but only really because in this case, we are imaging a linear scale of some kind, and on it, you are opposite of Hitler because you are seemingly an anarchist, and Hitler was a totalitarian.
Far unlike Hitler, however, I see law and freedom as a tool to protect people literally, as where he wanted to just rule the world... I don't care about ruling the world. I care about eliminating global suffering. And both your and Hilter's ideals, while opposite of each other, are too extreme to eliminate global suffering.
coercion coercion coercion
violence violence violence
removal of freedom, life, and/or property
So you want to go out drunk driving, possibly kill people, and pay no repercussions?
Why is your belief good, again? Because it has some sort of ambiguous tie between absolute freedom and being unharmed, when that makes no sense whatsoever, because too much freedom equates to being able to commit immoral and unjust acts without repercussions?
Also, I do not support violence. Police officers being the first to violence always upsets me. But if you did something illegal and need to come with them, you attacking them first instead of peacefully working with them is your fault, not theirs.
So that people who do wish to engage in activities that you don't approve have won't have to worry that people like you exist.
If you aren't conducting things immoral that could harm other people, nobody has anything to fear from me. If you intend to ruin peoples lives, or take them away through murder, then I hope you're positively terrified.
They can still do what they wish, and the people can freely trade among each other without the fear of the government taking away their business, their freedom, or their property.
These people and you need to get your heads out of your asses and acknowledge that the government is out to get you about as much as any other person is out to get you.
Or are you this paranoid with everyone?
Is that why you were drunk when writing this? Because you're scared of everyone preventing you from getting drunk so you can cope with being scared of everyone preventing you from getting drunk?
The government doesn't go out of it's way to create laws that blatantly contradict era-appropriate moral belief. If you're terrified of having things taken away from you, most of the time, this is because you are either guilty, or paranoid. This isn't to say the government, which is composed of imperfect people like you and I, is incapable of injustice. Far from it! But most injustices seem to me as simple mistakes and flaws, not intentions to destroy the lives of innocent people for no logical reason.
how funny. for the longest time they said the same thing about gay sex. As a person who is close with a few gay people, i personally take offense to that statement.
And why does that correlate into me hating gays? I don't. Being gay does not automatically equate to being a harmful, self destructive person, so why would I suddenly think that being gay is evil? Because you don't agree with me, and because you say so? Someone you don't agree with needs to be demonized for you to be able to make a point, huh? And somehow this all magically allows you to instantly get offended?
I mean, you do realize, you're just imagining this hate for gays I have, right? It's not real, and you had no way of knowing if it was real or not. So you're getting offended at your imagination. But I thought you said you don't have a deity or spiritual belief... but you believe things your imagination tells you to the point that you can actually feel offended? At your imagination?
I'm not sure at this point if you're drunk, or just a presumptuous douchebag while sober. I really am not sure.
When government passes these types of laws, they are attacking and stealing from people... so that's why i find it wrong.
What exactly are they stealing? I get how the analogy fits, oh yes, but the trouble is the credibility of it's application.
Children not having the freedom to do things that would be bizarre and suspicious for them to do in the first place, which they would probably not even have the capability to do in the first place, but they simply aren't allowed just by virtue of being better safe then sorry... what is that, in this analogy? What could it possibly be?
Because it seems to me like air is being stolen, or something. I dunno, it just doesn't have a lot of credibility, even though the analogy goes with your point.
Keep in mind, i'm the person who believes that all drugs should be legal.
As do I. All major drugs should be legal, as well as taxed and regulated, like alcohol.
So should prostitution. Legal, regulated, taxed.
But my stance comes from the very fact that you have no real reason to show that restrictions are beneficial... they are limiting freedom for the sake of limiting freedom.
No, they limit freedom for the sake of being anal and prissy. While being prissy and nitpicky can have it's benefits, it can be annoying for people who aren't as obsessively concerned with helping people as the person whom is being an anal nitpick.
But the problem with your stance is that you fail to say why the restrictions being lifted would be beneficial. Why does some ambiguous tie to freedom make it a good thing, automatically? The United States was free to join the slave trade, and freely own slaves, but was that a good thing when it was going on? Absolutely not. That's why we fought a war over it. Because it was an unjust freedom.
Saying the quality of freedom is good thing is to say that the freedom to help people and the freedom to murder people are both inherently good, just because they are both freedoms. Um... no, they are not both a good thing. One harms a human being and another helps a human being. Thus one is wrong is one is right, regardless of being freedoms.
Taking away liberty isn't okay just because you think it is.
Giving freedom away isn't okay just because you think it is.
I suppose you know all of these teachers who know better than everyone else?
I'm pretty sure I was referring to the environment teaching us this, not anyone in particular.
And again with this crap 'you don't know better then me'.
If you're harming yourself, harming other people, or are just generally young or ignorant or inexperienced, I know better then you. Egads I'm getting tired of seeing that.
If your ass is in a bar drinking yourself to death instead of trying to fix your life and yourself, you better believe I know better then you.
And I'm going to help you out whether you want me to or not.
What math are you basing this on?
Well, math is the wrong word.
I mean logic.
Math and logic are basically the same thing, except I know logic, and not so much math.
It's makes perfect sense to me that if you take two grand ideas, each having it's own faults and benefits, and then try to tie them together so that they have each others strengths and none of the weaknesses, then you've achieved something better then both of them stand-alone.
And while it's not realistic, it's a good thing to work towards. Perfection isn't obtainable, in my opinion, but trying to become perfect for the sake of others is a great thing to aspire to. Getting better, creating more happiness, less death, less suffering, more love, etc.
Laws against drugs, however... it's government saying "well, you go to jail because drugs are bad for you... and jail is good for you." Or better yet "you go to jail because you allowed for someone to do something to themselves" like Jack Kevorkian. A man that is a victim to Statist logic.
If I gave any impression that I believe in stuff like this, then I apologize. I am a potato. I find the war on drugs (and prostitution) to be quite wrong.
Though, I don't believe in allowing people to harm themselves. Letting your teenage son kill himself because of some principle where you think he should be freely allowed to is completely absurd. If someone is harming themselves, they should be made to stop so they can achieve a happier existence.
That's right skipper. I'm going to force you to be happy, or else. ಠ_ಠ You get no say.
I am not familiar with Jack Kevorkian's case, though all I know is that he allowed suicide, or euthanized people? If I knew the specifics, I'd have a more developed opinion on it. But as it goes... if the people who died because he let them die, died because they were undergoing incurable, unmitigated suffering which was going to eventually result in a long, slow fatality, and if this is how all the euthanized people passed, then I'd agree, this man is being imprisoned unjustly.
However, if these people were euthanized because they just gave up, even if they could have made a comeback, even if they could have had more hope, but instead just didn't want to continue on... then no, I don't think this man is necessarily imprisoned unjustly.
Ah yes, like you, I dream of this future where laws are perfect.
Until then, however, I'd like for no laws to restrict personal freedom. or, at least, as little as possible.
I'm not sure if you were mocking me or being serious. But oh well.
Laws don't have to be perfect. I'm not sure there is such a thing as perfect, in anything. But we should be trying to get as close to it as possible... and suddenly abolishing all restrictions isn't really going to help us get there.
But then again, you implied earlier that you are not necessarily an anarchist, so I'm not sure anymore if you advocate no restrictions and the such...
But if we're talking on terms of the debate subject, then we've both gone off-topic at this point. Oh well.
You know, without a doubt, that no one addicted to cigs or alcohol are living decent lives.
I know that without a doubt, their lives would certainly not get worse, even if they were happy. Unless the process of helping them out of their addictions would cause more struggle then they could handle, or more struggle then what is worth weening them off of, then I have no problem trying to get them out of the habit.
In fact, most smokers I've known (close friends, actually), even if they're living happy lives, don't generally hate the idea of getting weened off their addition. They just cannot accomplish it is all.
You know that it is JUSTIFIED to limit our freedoms just because you fear that human beings are just too stupid and careless to make decisions for themselves.
Not at all. I am not certain of anyone's decision making abilities. I am simply not willing to risk letting people suffer on the hunch that everyone knows how to intelligently care for themselves and not-hurt/care-for others around them.
I can consider people, or I can ignore people. If I were in government, I'd be forced to do either one or the other, not pick and choose whom my laws effect and help. Since that is the case, if I were in such a position, I will always choose to consider people, and make the laws extremely carefully. I would rather take a very long time to create a law that helps as many people as possible, then not make a law and let people try and solve their suffering on their own. It's courteous to give people space and privacy and independence and the such, but I'm not going to NOT help people if I have the power to help people.
Even if it means pissing a small minority off. I would not carelessly make laws, nor abstain from making laws. I would do everything I can to make sure as much suffering as possible is mitigated and that things are better then they used to be.
The lobbyists and politicians and YOU know more than me or my family.
Lobbyists are evil. I don't need to spell that out. Corporatism is the biggest problem in this country, yadda yadda yadda.
Politicians don't, but they still just try to help. You argue they should stop altogether because them trying to help doesn't work. I argue they should reform how they do what they do so that they vastly help more then they harm.
Both are valid positions. Inevitably, I think things should just continue to be worked on and improved, not brought all the way down to an all-or-nothing state of existence. I'd rather us all work things out together then just say 'fuck it' and start from scratch. We are a social organism. Progression on a scale of populations should not involve backtracking. Not if backtracking would cause more suffering then continuing on.
It does not make it right to FORCE her to do something against her own will.
There's a vast difference in logic in between thinking someone has a problem because they have a quality that correlates with a religious belief, and thinking someone has a problem because they are drinking themselves to death, or injecting drugs without any consideration for their or anyone's safety.
Harm is relative to the person whom is being harmed, but only on the basis of what they can perceive. Someone might not feel sick, but still be sick. And to that end, people outside of that singular perspective can be credible in things they perceive as issues, so long as it's a logical association of what's harmful and what's helpful.
So really, it depends on whom is doing the forcing. If it's your buddy who sees you almost kill yourself at the watering hole, it's just for him to force you to get better. If it's a parent who sees their teenager cutting, it's just for them to force their child to stop so they can get them help. And if a governor sees a huge portion of his civilian population suffering over an issue, he's just in trying to get that issue solved somehow. If he makes a mistake, he has that on his conscious, just as a parent who's child successfully committed suicide has that on their conscious, or how your buddy would have on his conscious the scene where he turned the other cheek to you drinking way too much then you should have.
There's just, and there's unjust. But when all is said and done, someone trying to help or protect you is someone that is trying to help or protect you. You can be insulted and tell them to stop, or you can try and help them understand how to help you properly.
Who, to you, tells them what they can and can't do, OR ELSE SUFFER THEIR WRATH.
You think that I think that a government should behave that way?
Not unless you're a truly bad person guilty of immoral things.