[This post is directed at Gooberman, and is in reaction to two of his posts about freedom in the thread about the Freedom Tower.]
Goob, you've said several times that you think people ought to be able to do anything they like so long as it doesn't create a victim, or harm anybody else. I'm not entirely sold on that idea--it has always seemed to me that a legitimate government can make whatever rules it feels like, regaurdless of whether they actually do any good in the world. (Much the same as the admins can make whatever rules they feel like for this board.) I'll admit I haven't thought too much about the moral foundations of government, though, so I can't say I know much when it comes to that. But even if I accept that anyone ought to be allowed to do anything that doesn't harm someone, there's something I don't understand and have always wanted to ask you:
How do you define harm? Who gets to decide exactly what it means to be hurt?
The question may seem stupid, so let me ask some motivating questions. Is it harmful to be denied a job due to your race? Or is it harmful to not be allowed to hire people according to any criteria you think appropriate, possibly including race? It's obvious the way most of us think the law should be in this case, but you could make the argument that you're hurting someone either way. Either you're allowing the hirer to hurt the applicant by denying him a job he deserves, or you're allowing the applicant to hurt the hirer by forcing him to take an employee he doesn't want. Neither one of those forms of harm is very tangible, so I'm wondering which you think should count, and why?
Or, something like noise pollution. Suppose you'd like to play loud music and your neighbors would like it quiet. Either way you make the rule, you could argue someone's being hurt. What I'm curious about is, do you have a principle by which you decide which form of hurt "counts"?
It doesn't seem to me that it's even a simple question whether you'd want to bar people's freedom to hurt each other physically. Shouldn't parents still be allowed to spank their children? And what if consenting adults want to be able to get into a fight with each other? And that's just the most tangible form of hurt--there are certainly others: economic harm, emotional harm, moral affront, for starters. Where do you go with those?
For one of the examples you gave, I could even think of a way in which it did harm somebody else. Smoking a joint at home may not hurt anybody immediately, but drug use in general can be a burden on society, due to the medical needs of the users and sometimes their need for support. And the drug user often hurts himself--both physically and in terms of limiting options in life. It seems to me that you wouldn't have made the statement if you didn't feel that that sort of harm "doesn't count"--so mostly I'm curious about what makes it not count.
I myself am not bothered by laws that restrict people from doing things that don't hurt others. I know there are many reasons to make laws, and keeping people from hurting each other is only one. In general, laws build, defend, and define a society, and many such laws are going to be morally neutral. But that's probably why I find your way of thinking so curious--precisely because it is so foreign to me. If you reduce everything to hurt, it seems to me that exactly what sort of hurt you think counts (and how much) is going to make a very large difference, so I am curious if you have principles here.
What counts as hurt, under this system? And who gets to decide it? And why is that right? I'd especially like to know what you think about people hurting themselves (drug use, euthenasia, alcoholism, stupid speeding, etc.), people hurting each other in intangible ways (noise pollution, denied economic opportunities, offensive language), and people hurting intangibles (such as society (think treason), marriage (think polygamy (or something weirder, like marrying yourself, if you approve of polygamy)), or freedom (think censorship)).
Law based on victimhood
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
i brainstormed this a little on usenet when i was researching drug laws.
i found that prettymuch all laws, that don't have a victim (as in, a seperate party to the perpetrator), are laws of a questionable nature anyway.
drug laws.
you can do whatever you want to your own body and mind, you own it. society doesn't OWN you, and you have no obligation to society to keep yourself in the most "fit for work" condition, you are NOT a slave. your life is your own, and you are free to move in and out of your society.
euthenasia laws.
if you want to kill yourself (or help someone who does), you do it. are the victims all the sad people you leave behind? arguable.
sex laws.
prostitution.
they all involve NO victim, or the victim is same person as the perpetrator.
is it co-incidence that drug, sex, and euthenasia laws are heavily disputed and argued over in societys? i think it has something inherently to do with how they are VICTIMLESS crimes.
the state doesn't have a responsability to enforce laws against this kindof stuff, generally it's a religous issue, and therefore different people feel differently on it. the seperation of church and state should wipe these victimless crimes off the law register, leaving it to your respective religious beliefs to govern these things.
(note: my religous beliefs are similar to your's drak, but i don't think it's the government's position to mandate religion)
a victim is someone who can complain. if the victim doesn't want to complain, then as far as the law should be concerned: there is no victim.
there are some exceptions:
- cases where the where the victim is DEAD (murder) of course.
- and also there are cases where ppl don't consider the victim to be of sound enough mind to be able to accuse anyone (drug laws are often the forcing of this loophole on people who actually ARE of completely sound mind. mental illness is a scary thought for most people, so law policys concerning it are often extremely outdated).
i found that prettymuch all laws, that don't have a victim (as in, a seperate party to the perpetrator), are laws of a questionable nature anyway.
drug laws.
you can do whatever you want to your own body and mind, you own it. society doesn't OWN you, and you have no obligation to society to keep yourself in the most "fit for work" condition, you are NOT a slave. your life is your own, and you are free to move in and out of your society.
euthenasia laws.
if you want to kill yourself (or help someone who does), you do it. are the victims all the sad people you leave behind? arguable.
sex laws.
prostitution.
they all involve NO victim, or the victim is same person as the perpetrator.
is it co-incidence that drug, sex, and euthenasia laws are heavily disputed and argued over in societys? i think it has something inherently to do with how they are VICTIMLESS crimes.
the state doesn't have a responsability to enforce laws against this kindof stuff, generally it's a religous issue, and therefore different people feel differently on it. the seperation of church and state should wipe these victimless crimes off the law register, leaving it to your respective religious beliefs to govern these things.
(note: my religous beliefs are similar to your's drak, but i don't think it's the government's position to mandate religion)
a victim is someone who can complain. if the victim doesn't want to complain, then as far as the law should be concerned: there is no victim.
there are some exceptions:
- cases where the where the victim is DEAD (murder) of course.
- and also there are cases where ppl don't consider the victim to be of sound enough mind to be able to accuse anyone (drug laws are often the forcing of this loophole on people who actually ARE of completely sound mind. mental illness is a scary thought for most people, so law policys concerning it are often extremely outdated).
This is indeed a very complex issue. How do we maintain order in the face of individual rights? How do we strike a balance that respects not only the rights of the individual with the rule of law? We cant. All we can do is try to strike a decent balance, which is very difficult to say the least.
Victim based law is a good start. Society really should have no right to tell a person he cant do something just because its not good for him, or just because he cant. A valid reason would be more along the lines of 'you cant do this, because it will bring harm to your neighbor (your nation, your state, these peoples pension funds, etc)', but never because it hurts themselves. Once people have reached an age where they can make decisions for themselves, they should be able to do harm to themselves at will. This includes smoking, doing drugs, driving your car at obscene speeds, and even comitting suicide.
As for the "burden on society" point, why should itbe a burden? Society should have every right to shun a drug abuser. The drug abuser has made his choice, and there is a consequence. When he decides to straighten up and do something more constructive, society should be willing and waiting for him to come back and contribute in some way. However, society has no right to take away his freedoms just because he is a drug user, they just have absolutely no obligation to help the drug user at all. Anything that society does give, like assistance for a program to help drug users get cleaned up, is voluntarily offered by society, and is therefor a conscious choice by society to take on burden.
What of other victimless crimes, such as speeding on public roads? The simple answer is to treat the state as an entity, and the public road is the states property that it has made availible for use by all persons. As such, the rules on the road should be considered valid. Also, any rules made for public buildings, such as post offices, court houses, motor vehicle departments etc, should also be considered valid. You dont smoke in your friends house if he asks you not to, right? Its his house, its his rules, and he can throw you out if you break the rules.
This is not to say the state should have the right to throw you out of anywhere it wants for no reason. The state should be treated as an entity, yes, but the state is not a conscious entity. It should not be biased at all. It cannot take johns license away just because it doesnt like persons named john. It has to have a just reason to do anything. Just as your friend invited you into his house for a game of poker or something, when you earn a drivers license the state is inviting you to use the roads it has laid out for public use. If you break one too many laws, the state takes away your license and bars you from using the roads just as your friend would probably throw you out if he finds that Ace hidden up your sleeve.
What if the state becomes biased in some way and makes laws that are unjust? If laws dont have a just reason behind them, or they interfere with the rights of the individual to manage his own affairs, they are not laws that are worth obeying. If the state makes a law such as "No blacks may play on public golf courses", its a garbage law, and needs to be broken so that people can see how rediculous it is.
What if an owner of a country club makes a rule that states that no black can play on his golf course? Well thats obviously unjust, but that is his right to be unjust if he so chooses. His property is his business, and no entity can force him to use it otherwise. He has made a consious decision that he does not want any black person on his property for whatever reason, and while despicable, that is his perogative.
The individual does not have the same moral obligation that the state does. The individual was not created for the same purpose that the state was created for. The State must always be held to the highest standard. The individual may be as immoral as he chooses. Likewise, society may shun him for it. Any other private businessman may choose to ban him from their establishment. Society may punish him in that way.
What of corporations? Where do they fall in this whole jumble? Well, there are similarities between the State and a corporation. The State is run by a collection of people who make decisions in a semi collective manner, just as corporations do. So corporations should then be considered an entity just as the state is. An unconscious entity. Like the state. Corporations should never have the same powers as the individual. Corporations should also never be given any powers that the states have. Corporations should be treated as entities, yes, but rightless entities. Any abilities they are given should be considered privleges. Crimes comitted against a corporation should be considered similarly like crimes against a person. But a corporation should not be able to pressure a person, or have the same rights as a person. It is the states duty to keep corporations on leashes so that they cannot harm people.
What about person to person crime? A person steals something. Is that wrong? Yes, but only if the person whom it was stolen from says so. Roid made many good points here and I will defer to him.
I am tired, and Ive written a lot more than I useually write. I'll wrap it up then, I guess. The state should be considered an entity. It should be held to the highest standard possible. Its duties are to protect the individuals and preserve their righs. At the same time it cannot interfere with their rights. Yes, this means people would be allowed to do almost anything they want in their own home, but thats how things should be. Yes, a lot of itwill be despicable, but if you dont like what that person is doing, shun them. Social darwinism, gotta love it.
Victim based law is a good start. Society really should have no right to tell a person he cant do something just because its not good for him, or just because he cant. A valid reason would be more along the lines of 'you cant do this, because it will bring harm to your neighbor (your nation, your state, these peoples pension funds, etc)', but never because it hurts themselves. Once people have reached an age where they can make decisions for themselves, they should be able to do harm to themselves at will. This includes smoking, doing drugs, driving your car at obscene speeds, and even comitting suicide.
As for the "burden on society" point, why should itbe a burden? Society should have every right to shun a drug abuser. The drug abuser has made his choice, and there is a consequence. When he decides to straighten up and do something more constructive, society should be willing and waiting for him to come back and contribute in some way. However, society has no right to take away his freedoms just because he is a drug user, they just have absolutely no obligation to help the drug user at all. Anything that society does give, like assistance for a program to help drug users get cleaned up, is voluntarily offered by society, and is therefor a conscious choice by society to take on burden.
What of other victimless crimes, such as speeding on public roads? The simple answer is to treat the state as an entity, and the public road is the states property that it has made availible for use by all persons. As such, the rules on the road should be considered valid. Also, any rules made for public buildings, such as post offices, court houses, motor vehicle departments etc, should also be considered valid. You dont smoke in your friends house if he asks you not to, right? Its his house, its his rules, and he can throw you out if you break the rules.
This is not to say the state should have the right to throw you out of anywhere it wants for no reason. The state should be treated as an entity, yes, but the state is not a conscious entity. It should not be biased at all. It cannot take johns license away just because it doesnt like persons named john. It has to have a just reason to do anything. Just as your friend invited you into his house for a game of poker or something, when you earn a drivers license the state is inviting you to use the roads it has laid out for public use. If you break one too many laws, the state takes away your license and bars you from using the roads just as your friend would probably throw you out if he finds that Ace hidden up your sleeve.
What if the state becomes biased in some way and makes laws that are unjust? If laws dont have a just reason behind them, or they interfere with the rights of the individual to manage his own affairs, they are not laws that are worth obeying. If the state makes a law such as "No blacks may play on public golf courses", its a garbage law, and needs to be broken so that people can see how rediculous it is.
What if an owner of a country club makes a rule that states that no black can play on his golf course? Well thats obviously unjust, but that is his right to be unjust if he so chooses. His property is his business, and no entity can force him to use it otherwise. He has made a consious decision that he does not want any black person on his property for whatever reason, and while despicable, that is his perogative.
The individual does not have the same moral obligation that the state does. The individual was not created for the same purpose that the state was created for. The State must always be held to the highest standard. The individual may be as immoral as he chooses. Likewise, society may shun him for it. Any other private businessman may choose to ban him from their establishment. Society may punish him in that way.
What of corporations? Where do they fall in this whole jumble? Well, there are similarities between the State and a corporation. The State is run by a collection of people who make decisions in a semi collective manner, just as corporations do. So corporations should then be considered an entity just as the state is. An unconscious entity. Like the state. Corporations should never have the same powers as the individual. Corporations should also never be given any powers that the states have. Corporations should be treated as entities, yes, but rightless entities. Any abilities they are given should be considered privleges. Crimes comitted against a corporation should be considered similarly like crimes against a person. But a corporation should not be able to pressure a person, or have the same rights as a person. It is the states duty to keep corporations on leashes so that they cannot harm people.
What about person to person crime? A person steals something. Is that wrong? Yes, but only if the person whom it was stolen from says so. Roid made many good points here and I will defer to him.
I am tired, and Ive written a lot more than I useually write. I'll wrap it up then, I guess. The state should be considered an entity. It should be held to the highest standard possible. Its duties are to protect the individuals and preserve their righs. At the same time it cannot interfere with their rights. Yes, this means people would be allowed to do almost anything they want in their own home, but thats how things should be. Yes, a lot of itwill be despicable, but if you dont like what that person is doing, shun them. Social darwinism, gotta love it.
I get the feeling like your trying to pin me down, and that since we both know my position canâ??t be, then my argument must be void. I canâ??t make the definition rigorous, you know this, and so do I. I will never be able to come up with a phrasing that will escape the endless, â??but what aboutâ?¦.â?How do you define harm? Who gets to decide exactly what it means to be hurt?