|
hot4bondage -> RE: Ireland to decriminalise drug use ...... (11/8/2015 2:19:48 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
quote:
ORIGINAL: hot4bondage
Interesting discussion. Bounty is being inconsistent because he's conflating direct harm with indirect potential harm. Tweak rightfully calls him out on it, but throws limited government under the bus in the process. A perfect example of why liberty requires eternal vigilance. Thanks for keeping watch, Desi.
as I didn't give any examples of what I was thinking, you have no basis from which to make any judgments as to my "conflating" things.
and um, no---drug users DIRECTLY harm the people around them and its DIRECTLY related to their drug use.
as to the "potential" part, i'll grant you a little bit of that...but when so much evidence exists that it actually occurs, I feel free throwing "potential" out the window and saying, if not "more often than not" or, "as often as not", then "too much for my liking."
and even if I have "indirect" harm in mind---so what? you might enjoy reading on john stuart mill's "harm principle." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle
when you can refute that, then you can maybe call me "inconsistent"...
Well, I'm with you on "too much harm for my liking." In that context, it doesn't really matter if it's direct or indirect harm. But in the context of maintaining a consistent political philosophy, it does matter.
I've read Mills' On Liberty and whole-heartedly agree with most of it, but not all. From your wiki link:
"The maxims are, first, that the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself. Advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance by other people, if thought necessary by them for their own good, are the only measures by which society can justifiably express its dislike or disapprobation of his conduct. Secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishments, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection." (LV2)
"Prejudicial to the interests of others." That's where Mills runs off the rails. Not only could many things be defined that way, but it holds our inherent rights hostage to whatever political climate is in vogue at the time.
One of my favorite quotes from Jefferson: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
The quote acknowledges the necessity of constraints (no man is an island) but only against specific injuries to specific individuals, so there's no grey area like there is between the harm and offense principles. There has to be a clear line that the government can never legitimately cross, or else there's no limit to its power. As Desi explained, that line was drawn with a number of very restrictive and very expansive constitutional limits. The problem is we're taking our sweet time acknowledging all of them.
|
|
|
|
