Who the fuck are you...

[Phil Theehor]

to tell another person what he or she can and cannot do?

Where do humans, and societies, derive the right to dictate rules to other people that prevent actions that do not directly affect them?

Obviously, we need rules. Things we do affect other people. I get that. Murder is bad. Stealing is bad. Speed limits exist so we kill fewer people in car accidents. We all need to pay taxes. Pollution laws are a good idea.

Even beyond that, nuisance laws are a good idea, too. Your fellow man has the right to be left alone and laws should exist that prevent you from bothering him (noise laws, zoning). That’s all just fine.

But what burns my ass are laws which protect people from themselves (helmet laws, drug laws) or even worse, laws against victimless crimes (like prostitution). The common arguments for such laws usually focus on the secondary effects of these activities:

“What about women forced into prostitution?” Well, forcing someone into prostitution is a crime. An adult woman freely choosing to sell her ass should be allowed to do so.

“What about a guy who scrambles his brains on a motorcycle because he wrecked without a helmet? We have to take care of him, Phil”. Bullshit. No, we don’t. That was his choice, the results are his responsibility.

"What about people who steal to fuel their drug habits?" Well, stealing is a crime. Why you are stealing is immaterial.

My feeling is that we should be free to do whatever the fuck we choose—providing that we are not directly harming anybody else.

This is my first crack at an OP here in Philosophy. My point is fairly simple, so I’ll really be interested in the thoughts of those who disagree with me.

So GMF, what gives you the right?

[Archetype]

to tell another person what he or she can and cannot do?

Where do humans, and societies, derive the right to dictate rules to other people that prevent actions that do not directly affect them?

Society does not end or begin in "me"?
Even beyond that, nuisance laws are a good idea, too. Your fellow man has the right to be left alone and laws should exist that prevent you from bothering him (noise laws, zoning). That’s all just fine.

Why? What gives anyone the right to be left alone? To not have to interact with anyone at any given point in time?

But what burns my ass are laws which protect people from themselves (helmet laws, drug laws) or even worse, laws against victimless crimes (like prostitution).

Why?

“What about women forced into prostitution?” Well, forcing someone into prostitution is a crime. An adult woman freely choosing to sell her ass should be allowed to do so.

Do you get to define force? Do you know what influence is?


“What about a guy who scrambles his brains on a motorcycle because he wrecked without a helmet? We have to take care of him, Phil”. Bullshit. No, we don’t. That was his choice, the results are his responsibility.

Social morale and state of mind. If you can't muster up the will to at least fake feeling bad about a situation as harsh as watermelon flavoured pavement, why would you care about anything else that effects anyone beyond yourself?

"What about people who steal to fuel their drug habits?" Well, stealing is a crime. Why you are stealing is immaterial.

Look up the history of opium trade. Drugs don't just affect the people who do them. Also, they wouldn't be half as fun if legal, same goes for prostitution.

My feeling is that we should be free to do whatever the fuck we choose—providing that we are not directly harming anybody else.

Welcome to civilized culture. That will never happen here. Ever.

[freegood]

Type in a font that doesn't make me squint.

AND DO IT NOW

[Blue]

Type in a font that doesn't make me squint.

AND DO IT NOW

Fixed, it annoyed me too.

[mongo]

Originally Posted by Mr. Marcus
your post has more holes in it than face's pizza-hut card.

[Archangel]

Prostitution IS legal in most of the civilised world: I can't help it if your country's sexual morals are stuck in the 18th century. Hell, showing titties on magazine covers is illegal. Whom the fuck does that harm?
As far as drugs, the problem is mostly the infrastructure behind them. Using is one thing, but by purchasing them, you finance criminal empires. If they never had been illegal in the first place, things might be different, but now, people like the Mafia, the Taliban, and the cartels profit immensely from them.

[Phil Theehor]

Perhaps I erred in pointing out specific examples. It appears to have distracted you folks from the original question.

So, I'll ask again to see if anybody has an answer: What gives people the right to regulate other people's actions (providing those actions do not directly impact others)?

[Archangel]

It's in society's interest to keep its populace alive, healthy, productive and competitive?

Most actions do impact others - or society - in some manner. If you hurt yourself, you affect healthcare. If you cannot work, you're a drain on society.

Look at it historically; most of these norms are from a time when competition between nations was a life-or-death thing. So you don't want the peasants drug-addled, disease-ridden, and worst of all, idle, or even dead. The fact that society provides you with hospitals, disability funds, and pensions means that you have a responsibility towards society not to abuse those things.

[Phil Theehor]

It's in society's interest to keep its populace alive, healthy, productive and competitive?


Yes. Of course it is. But you are still not answering the question. I am asking where the right comes from. Of course, society benefits if everyone keeps to the straight and narrow—but does that make it right to force individuals to do so? Does society have the right to subjugate the individual? And if so, how is that authority derived?

I understand the pragmatic arguments. I said in the OP that some rules are necessary, and that individual responsibility must accompany individual freedom. However, I am asking this from a philosophical standpoint. I am asking if it is right.


As an aside: This could be a difficult conversation to have with a socialist, because your focus is on the whole, whereas mine is on the individual. Your social contract provides many services, and as a result, dictates terms. If you are wired to trade autonomy for comfort, then this question might seem plain silly.

[freegood]

Individuality is a relatively young construct. Almost everywhere else in the world is there a social and personal responsibility to maintain the decorum of your standing. If you were a noble, fucking a barmaid is okay, but marrying one is a no no.

This is why I'm fascinated with the thought that society is a living organism which self regulates itself. Is individuality a cancer, or are the afflicted, the brains of the operation?

It's a pretty open ended question. We could go into a discussion how societies self monitor through morality or social norms. Or it could be about how laws stand the test of its idealistic conception in real world conditions.

[Archangel]

Society, as a concept, is around 8,000 years old. Individuality has only been around for 250 or so.


Also, did Phil call me a socialist?

[Phil Theehor]

Society, as a concept, is around 8,000 years old. Individuality has only been around for 250 or so.


Also, did Phil call me a socialist?

Call would connote that I was throwing it like an epithet. I believe you have identified yourself as such in threads past, no?

[Limp]

Who the fuck is this guy?

[Phil Theehor]

Who the fuck is this guy?

I snuck in while you were floating among the debris.

And you've asked that question a few times in the past, numbnuts. Sorry that I am not so memorable. Still the same guy, however.

[Limp]

Who the fuck are you to comment about me floating in or around debris?

And another thing, my nuts are not numb.

[Madrum]

From a philisophical point of view, the right of society to fuck with an individual is based in common law. This can be either based on the community making those rules or the community backing authorised rulers/law makers to create those rules to look after their well being, in some cases whether they like it or not, for the benefit of the community.

Thats from a philisophical point of view. As for individual laws of today one can debate the right or wrong of them all you like, it won't make the slightest difference without action or majority view.

Archangel's statement "It's in society's interest to keep its populace alive, healthy, productive and competitive" is exactly right, that is the intent of the laws. Whether that is the actual working fact may be debatable on or in individual matters/laws.

The only way you are not going to be fucked with today by anyone is if you find a unappealing small deserted island with absolutely nothing going for it, no water source and no discernable minerals. I think there might be one or two free in the South Pacific...the French have finished with them anyway. You can't miss them at night, they glow in the dark.

Other than that from a philisophical point again, as soon as you put two people together your going to get rules, thats a fact of life, just ask my wife.:D

[Morfin]

The question must first be addressed at the fundamental level, not at the societal level.

Phil is correct, that no one has the right to be told what to do unless that person has agreed to submit to a set of rules.

HOWEVER, by being a member of a society, you have agreed to live by that society's rules. No one is forcing you to be a member of a society -- you are doing it by choice. For instance, Phil does not like it that prostitution is illegal in 49 of the 50 American states. Fine. Move to Nevada.

Maybe Phil does not like to be told that he cannot drive greater than 70 mph on any American highway. Fine, find a country where you can drive faster. The point being that no one is forcing Phil to be a member of the U.S. society -- he is here by choice. And by virtue of his decision to stay within the U.S., he is agreeing to live by the rules that the United States, and the state within which he resides, have set (which, incidentally, are actually decided by all of the adult members of the U.S. or state).

Phil: By choosing to live wherever you live, unless it is in some uninhabited island or jungle forest, you are choosing to live by the rules set out by that society/country. And that society/country, at least in a democratic one, sets out the rules to live by. If you do not agree with the rules, then you need to either leave or work within the system to change them -- you have to convince a majority of the people just like yourself that they would be better off with a different rule.

So, in answer to your question of "Who the fuck are you to tell another person what he can or cannot do?" My response is "I am the person who you agreed to give me that power."

[Phil Theehor]

Good answer, Morfin. You speak to the social contract. I agree with that. However, people imposed their own behavioral codes on others long before the concept of social contracts existed. People ruled other people long before the concept that the ruled must agree to it existed.

I am square as hell, by the way. I am not fighting a compulsion to buy a hooker, but not doing so because Connecticut says I can't. In fact, I would follow all of the victimless crimes rules anyway, because I think the behavior they mandate are largely good ideas.

[Stax]

Good answer, Morfin. You speak to the social contract. I agree with that. However, people imposed their own behavioral codes on others long before the concept of social contracts existed. People ruled other people long before the concept that the ruled must agree to it existed.

I am square as hell, by the way. I am not fighting a compulsion to buy a hooker, but not doing so because Connecticut says I can't. In fact, I would follow all of the victimless crimes rules anyway, because I think the behavior they mandate are largely good ideas.

By living within a society you accept that society as a whole, in the same way in voting for a candidate you maybe agree with on 80% of the issues you are accepting that other 20%. If prostitution is important enough to you, move somewhere where it is legal. If it isn't, sit down and shut up or take political action (if you live somewhere like the US where it's possible) to change the law.

The social contract exists because without it societies do not exist. It is the difference between the Articles of Confederation where all demands on the states to work together were optional requests and the Constitution where the united government had real powers. Pure government control, say socialism/communism for a simple example, tends to fail but so would absolute anarchy and individualism.

[Phil Theehor]

By living within a society you accept that society as a whole, in the same way in voting for a candidate you maybe agree with on 80% of the issues you are accepting that other 20%. If prostitution is important enough to you, move somewhere where it is legal. If it isn't, sit down and shut up or take political action (if you live somewhere like the US where it's possible) to change the law.

The social contract exists because without it societies do not exist. It is the difference between the Articles of Confederation where all demands on the states to work together were optional requests and the Constitution where the united government had real powers. Pure government control, say socialism/communism for a simple example, tends to fail but so would absolute anarchy and individualism.

Right. But the social contract is only 350 years old. Prior to that, there was no thought given to the consent of the ruled. Yet, governments still imposed their wills on people since the dawn of time. You are viewing this from a Western Democratic mindset.

And again, I understand the rules that exist to maintain order. I'm fine with that. But what about moral codes? What gives governments the right to legislate that?

At what point did the gay teens that the Iranians just strung up agree to live under the sharia? Where was their consent to be ruled? Who were they hurting?

I realize that I'm picking too easy a target there. However, it is a fair example, albeit an extreme one, of government legislating what people can and cannot do, when the action in question does not affect other people.

Why do we as people feel that 1) We know better 2) You need to live like us and 3) We have the right to enforce it?

[Archangel]

I AM NOT A MOTHER FUCKING SOCIALIST. I HAVE GONE ON RECORD ON THESE VERY BOARDS SAYING THAT IN MY OPINION, SOCIALISM IS A FORM OF MENTAL ILLNESS.

n

[Limp]

Arch is getting all socialist on us again....

[Phil Theehor]

I AM NOT A MOTHER FUCKING SOCIALIST. I HAVE GONE ON RECORD ON THESE VERY BOARDS SAYING THAT IN MY OPINION, SOCIALISM IS A FORM OF MENTAL ILLNESS.

n

Apologies. That's a lot of CAPS.

I think we're caught up in semantics, here. My definition of Socialist is, I am guessing, different than yours.

[Morfin]

I AM NOT A MOTHER FUCKING SOCIALIST. I HAVE GONE ON RECORD ON THESE VERY BOARDS SAYING THAT IN MY OPINION, SOCIALISM IS A FORM OF MENTAL ILLNESS.

n

Okay, you're not a socialist. But Goddammit, stop using the lowercase "n". That pisses me off.

[Schillke]

But what burns my ass are laws which protect people from themselves (helmet laws, drug laws) or even worse, laws against victimless crimes (like prostitution). The common arguments for such laws usually focus on the secondary effects of these activities:


America was founded by prudes.

[dick_darlington]

America was founded by prudes.
you got that from euro-trip!

[Schillke]

god damn right I did, just watched it haha

[Archangel]

Some thread-bumping retard n00b AND dick darlington in Philo.


Jesus fucking Christ.

[Mustard]

http://www.atheistsavior.com/images/Jesus_Fucking_Christ.jpg

[Archangel]

You're not helping, Sink.

[Mustard]

Oh trust me, I know...

[Satan]

lolhaha