16 votes

"Personal Behavior that does not Harm Others Should never be Regulated"

"Personal Behavior that does not Harm Others Should never be Regulated"

- What do you think of this statement?

- Does this allow for environmental regulations?

- Do you think this applies to drugs, gay marriage, and other social issues?

- In general, do you think it a good policy?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

​Life exceeds violent

​Life exceeds violent interaction. Violence is a tool of misery. It must be realized that violence can be attributed to the actions of individuals. Those individuals who act with force, those who are not doing so as an act of defense, should be personally condemned, regardless of whether or not that act of violence was the result of a "superior command", or not. One is one's own superior command. Individuals act and violence is an act of the individual. Defense is not violence; defense, rather, is a force which defeats violence. The means for defense should be achievable for all individuals equally so long as no one is permitted the use of violence. All individuals should be capable of the ability to exercise force with any means desired so long as the force is never used for any purpose other than that which is defensive. Unless force is used to discourage violence, to exercise defense, then that force is violent and morally reprehensible to utilize. To violently discriminate against any individual in a way which would inhibit his or her ability to acquire the means to exercise force, to give some individuals the right to certain methods of force while preventing others from the same right, gives rise to an environment with a discrepancy of force; offensive violence follows with misery not far behind.

i like it.

.

Government = sanctioned violence

I don't think you can have an honest conversation about enacting new public safety laws until you first acknowledge (to borrow a phrase from my favorite childhood movie*) "the violence inherent in the system." The promise of enforcing any law with violence, if need be, amounts to sanctioned violence. Whether or not this is preferable to criminal-unsanctioned violence does not alter the fact that the sanctioned violence inherent to any government is still violence. Hence, any argument for new public safety laws which criminalize any behavior amounts to a further justification for even more sanctioned violence added to the violence already sanctioned by law. While an argument to decriminalize any behavior may amount to arguing for circumstances that predispose some individuals to violent behavior, the same can be said of arguments to criminalize behavior. In neither case do such arguments in themselves actually sanction unlawful violent behavior, but regardless of intention, all arguments to criminalize behavior, in their implicit sanction of state violence, exemplify a violent mentality, however sublimated and rationalized in the rule of law they may be. Unless this violent mentality is acknowledged, it only justifies itself and is want to ignore the question: How much violence do I want to sanction, if any? This is an honest place to begin a discussion on the need to change public safety laws. (* http://youtu.be/dOOTKA0aGI0)

Sounds a lot like

Larkin Rose.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

When you put it that way

Makes enforcing morality by violence sound asinine doesn't it?

apply to progressives liberally - i mean really rub it in

I've been testing this notion on some of my democrat friends - you know the type - so condescending toward anyone who would challenge any aspect of gun control - so seemingly non-violent - while neglecting the inherent violence of criminalization. They really don't like being characterized as having a violent mentality.

A classic example here is the criminalization of cannabis - which they are more apt to relate to than incremental criminalization of bearing arms.

Should've been in the Constitution

Or was it? I suppose by precedent, the ninth amendment is dead, but it seems to be the founding principle of liberty, period. John Stuart Mill's harm principle was almost certainly on the minds of the drafters.

The last two questions are easy, absolutely, with the exception of drunk driving and the like. Involuntary morality is no longer moral.

Environmental protections are a tough question. Nuisance is a common law tort and courts have always upheld the rights of individuals to be free from pollution and all kinds of interference with personal rights. You might even say that environmental regulations simply give industry free reign to pollute up to agency determined levels, while courts would otherwise punish anyone damaging another's person or property. On the other hand, access to justice is rarely equal, and more difficult to obtain for the poor or those with small damage claims. I don't see a whole lot of practical difference but from where we are, I would move away from the EPA and towards judicial enforcement.

The only problem I see with your statement

is that it seems to condone personal behavior untempered by morality and virtue. Liberty isn't worth a dime when a society is degenerated.

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
Patrick Henry

"Liberty can no more exist without virtue and independence than the body can live and move without a soul."
John Adams

"The diminution of public virtue is usually attended with that of public happiness, and the public liberty will not long survive the total extinction of morals."
Samuel Adams

"So true is this, that civil liberty cannot be long preserved without virtue."
John Witherspoon

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Right ... I certainly would

Right ...

I certainly would NOT want my kids exposed to an environment where homosexuals flaunted their perversion in PUBLIC. However, I would insist that regulation of such behavior be done at the level of the county or below since much of a youth's experience is confined to the family, city, and county. One really needs to define the term, harm, especially in regard to youth. Not all harm is directly physical.

While this makes sense, especially on a libertarian website

ironically tho some people on here still have a problem with the idea of "live and let live"

If you have kids, and your

If you have kids, and your neighbor runs around naked masturbating all over his yard for 2 hours per day, just let him live and tell your kids he is a weirdo?
What if your neighbor buries mines in his yard? It is his private property after all and your kids shouldn't be on it. But kids have a way of wandering off.

Where does harm begin and end? Is this only physical harm, or mental harm as well?

I could say that public school harms my child, but others wouldn't agree...

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

hey

I am not your neighbor, so why are you talking about my personal behavior and my yard mines. Now, stop telling everybody.

This is exactly what I mean

This is exactly what I mean when I say most of America is deathly afraid of freedom. Kids wander off and there's all sorts of dangers out there naturally, it's up to you to raise your kids to have good judgement. In the event of some neighbor beating off in his front yard or something, (which would be pretty rare) well then let him know that you don't appreciate it, and ask him to keep it in his house, and yeah tell your kids he's a freaking weirdo, which I'm sure if you've been raising them right they will be probably be able to make that judgement themselves.

Beep beep boop beep... I am a Paulbot... prepare for liberty and prosperity!

If my neighbor were running naked and spanking the monkey

I would never know. I would have built a fence the moment I realized I had a neighbor who might catch me out running around naked... I have no monkey.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

Looks like you are presenting

Looks like you are presenting a series of extreme imaginary situations that would never happen.

You dont like it?

put up a fence...

"What light is to the eyes - what air is to the lungs - what love is to the heart, liberty is to the soul of man."
-Robert Green Ingersoll

mental harm... lol

mental harm... lol

It really IS funny! But these

It really IS funny!

But these days EVERYONE is offended by almost anything!

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

Perfect Policy in my book!

The environmental concerns can be handled with property rights.

You basically will have no right to pollute others property, personal or otherwise.

So buy some cheap land and

So buy some cheap land and pollute the hell out of it and move on to the next parcel. As long as it is contained, great! We can have piles of dangerous waste everywhere!

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

If the contained piles of waste are not

If the contained piles of waste are not infringing upon anyone else's life or property I don't understand who they'd be 'dangerous' to?!?

Kids wander around and

Kids wander around and explore and don't wear shocker collars to keep them inside a radio fence like a dog.

Also, terrorists could just go grab some poisonous waste and spread it around in a nearby city.

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

this type of argument is nauseating.

"imagine if people were allowed to have guns! why, they'd just go around murdering people left and right. there would be anarchy. no one would pay for gasoline. they'd just pump gas and shoot the clerk. prove me wrong."

here's the thing: your world view is completely askew and the combined brain power of every human on earth couldn't solve every illogical hypothetical situation you dream up. nor should they be required to.

pick up a book. try and get an understanding of what it is that motivates people (hint: it isn't a penchant for chaos. not within the private sector, at least). want somewhere to start? try rothbard or woods or mises or ron paul.

but it is ridiculous to propose an endless array of hypothetical situations in which all human beings are irrational and then expect others to have to unravel the rat king that is your understanding without you taking the first step.

Oh brother...

Oh brother...

I didn't realize kids wandering around and exploring the area was illogical and hypothetical.
This type of argument is nauseating? That's probably because your best response is dismissing my "world view" and telling me to read a book instead of actually thinking.

I understand perfectly that people are generally at least partially logical and generally pursue comfort, security, safety, etc. I am playing the devil's advocate, and I got several well stated responses. Perhaps you could give them a read and see what that entails?

And, the limits of a system of morality are most easily determined through the examination of hypothetical situations. Critical thinking is a nice skill to possess.

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

Attractive Nuisance

Believe it or not, the courts are pretty well set up to enforce most environmental concerns. You can look up the above, but basically, you can't put a big shiny bear trap in your front yard and laugh when the neighbor's kid loses a leg. Kind of sounds dumb to imagine that that wouldn't be part of the common law, doesn't it?

I know I already replied to

I know I already replied to your other post, but I wanted to make my point very clear. When I was growing up, there was a small period of time (I was 7 to 10 years old) when we lived in an apartment complex, and and across the parking lot of that apartment complex there were train tracks. All the time my parents stressed "DON'T PLAY BY THE TRAIN TRACKS!" you know what I did? This will blow your mind, but I never played by the damn train tracks.

Beep beep boop beep... I am a Paulbot... prepare for liberty and prosperity!

Enough of this "for the children" crap

If parents are concerned about their children's safety, then PAY ATTENTION TO THEM. I'm sick of people wanting to take the rights of others away because they're too lazy/stupid/uninterested to be proper parents to their kids.

It's really that simple.

Also, presenting extreme imaginary situations, as VU put it, doesn't really hold water.

PS: If a "terrorist" wanted to cause harm, they'd find a way to do it no matter what laws, regulations, or restrictions were in place.

A signature used to be here!

What he said.

That is the crux of the matter. If your neighbor is doing something that HARMS you, that is one issue. If you neighbor is doing something that BOTHERS you, that is just not his problem. Throwing in "for the CHILLLLLDRENNNNN" to justify tyranny is enough to make people start to hate children.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.