Comments on: The Moral Consequences of Paternalism http://www.ldsliberty.org/the-moral-consequences-of-paternalism/ Advancing the cause of liberty in light of the restored gospel. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:55:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Skyler Collins http://www.ldsliberty.org/the-moral-consequences-of-paternalism/#comment-284 Skyler Collins Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:46:04 +0000 http://www.ldsfreemen.com/?p=1698#comment-284 It is my understanding that the development of these "harder" drugs is an unintended consequence of the War on Drugs. The higher the risk taken, the higher the reward needs to be. Plenty of great resources on the War on Drugs can be found here via LibertySearch.info: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=004244432897794916980%3Ajtm420j1ej0&ie=UTF-8&q=war+on+drugs&sa=Search It is my understanding that the development of these “harder” drugs is an unintended consequence of the War on Drugs. The higher the risk taken, the higher the reward needs to be. Plenty of great resources on the War on Drugs can be found here via LibertySearch.info: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=004244432897794916980%3Ajtm420j1ej0&ie=UTF-8&q=war+on+drugs&sa=Search

]]> By: Carl Uhl http://www.ldsliberty.org/the-moral-consequences-of-paternalism/#comment-283 Carl Uhl Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:32:49 +0000 http://www.ldsfreemen.com/?p=1698#comment-283 Without the 'war on drugs' would we have ever heard of Meth, meth-labs or even the new portable meth labs made from used 2-liter bottles? Without the ‘war on drugs’ would we have ever heard of Meth, meth-labs or even the new portable meth labs made from used 2-liter bottles?

]]> By: Skyler Collins http://www.ldsliberty.org/the-moral-consequences-of-paternalism/#comment-282 Skyler Collins Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:20:49 +0000 http://www.ldsfreemen.com/?p=1698#comment-282 This issue obviously comes back to who owns the roads? On private roads, the roads' owners set the rules and if they outlaw drunk driving, then anyone doing it is trespassing. The violation is not aggression, but trespassing. It becomes a violation of aggression if they violate the physical integrity of another person or another person's property. The government owns most roads, at least in the US, so they set the rules. Are they just? Maybe, but the real question is whether or not the government building, owning, many cases monopolizing, the roads is just. Since they get the funds through coercive taxation, the answer is obvious. Driving drunk requires somewhere to drive. Where are they driving? Should someone be arrested for driving drunk on their own property? This issue obviously comes back to who owns the roads? On private roads, the roads’ owners set the rules and if they outlaw drunk driving, then anyone doing it is trespassing. The violation is not aggression, but trespassing. It becomes a violation of aggression if they violate the physical integrity of another person or another person’s property.

The government owns most roads, at least in the US, so they set the rules. Are they just? Maybe, but the real question is whether or not the government building, owning, many cases monopolizing, the roads is just. Since they get the funds through coercive taxation, the answer is obvious. Driving drunk requires somewhere to drive. Where are they driving? Should someone be arrested for driving drunk on their own property?

]]> By: Skyler Collins http://www.ldsliberty.org/the-moral-consequences-of-paternalism/#comment-281 Skyler Collins Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:09:21 +0000 http://www.ldsfreemen.com/?p=1698#comment-281 No, because the intention was not in violating the physical integrity of others, but in sending a message, putting on make-up, etc. No, because the intention was not in violating the physical integrity of others, but in sending a message, putting on make-up, etc.

]]> By: Tertium Squid http://www.ldsliberty.org/the-moral-consequences-of-paternalism/#comment-280 Tertium Squid Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:02:18 +0000 http://www.ldsfreemen.com/?p=1698#comment-280 “action that intentionally violates or threatens to violate the physical integrity of another person or another person’s property without that person’s consent.” You're setting the bar pretty low on that one. Actually sounds like an argument for paternalism. Driving while texting, eating, talking on the phone, putting on makeup, and any other number of distracting activities most certainly "threatens" the health and property of others, some of them probably more than if the person was inebriated! Should those activities then be restricted by a paternalistic government for the common good? “action that intentionally violates or threatens to violate the physical integrity of another person or another person’s property without that person’s consent.”

You’re setting the bar pretty low on that one. Actually sounds like an argument for paternalism. Driving while texting, eating, talking on the phone, putting on makeup, and any other number of distracting activities most certainly “threatens” the health and property of others, some of them probably more than if the person was inebriated!

Should those activities then be restricted by a paternalistic government for the common good?

]]> By: Skyler Collins http://www.ldsliberty.org/the-moral-consequences-of-paternalism/#comment-279 Skyler Collins Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:17:11 +0000 http://www.ldsfreemen.com/?p=1698#comment-279 This is somewhat relevant here: http://www.ldsfreemen.com/mises-on-drug-paternalism/ This is somewhat relevant here: http://www.ldsfreemen.com/mises-on-drug-paternalism/

]]> By: Skyler Collins http://www.ldsliberty.org/the-moral-consequences-of-paternalism/#comment-278 Skyler Collins Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:19:27 +0000 http://www.ldsfreemen.com/?p=1698#comment-278 I would define it as an "action that intentionally violates or threatens to violate the physical integrity of another person or another person’s property without that person’s consent." There are two types, initiatory aggression and retaliatory aggression. If the driver intentionally got drunk and violates or threatens to violate the physical integrity of another person or another person's property, then it's aggression. Same for the mother, in this case her children's possible death. The act of using meth isn't what she should be charged for, but for the resulting aggression, or threat of aggression, against her children. Same goes for the drunk driver. (On that, we should really look to why, with so many laws against it, and getting more serious, drunk driving continues to be a problem. Perhaps regulation in alcohol and other areas is to blame? An interesting look at this angle found here: http://truth.skylerjcollins.com/2009/04/how-to-convince-men-to-drive-drunk.html) I would define it as an “action that intentionally violates or threatens to violate the physical integrity of another person or another person’s property without that person’s consent.” There are two types, initiatory aggression and retaliatory aggression.

If the driver intentionally got drunk and violates or threatens to violate the physical integrity of another person or another person’s property, then it’s aggression.

Same for the mother, in this case her children’s possible death. The act of using meth isn’t what she should be charged for, but for the resulting aggression, or threat of aggression, against her children. Same goes for the drunk driver.

(On that, we should really look to why, with so many laws against it, and getting more serious, drunk driving continues to be a problem. Perhaps regulation in alcohol and other areas is to blame? An interesting look at this angle found here: http://truth.skylerjcollins.com/2009/04/how-to-convince-men-to-drive-drunk.html)

]]> By: Tertium Squid http://www.ldsliberty.org/the-moral-consequences-of-paternalism/#comment-277 Tertium Squid Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:24:59 +0000 http://www.ldsfreemen.com/?p=1698#comment-277 Hard to know what you mean by "aggression". Does this imply intent? Or an active violent role, whether intentional or not? There is nothing particularly "aggressive" about a fellow getting drunk and, in his inebriated and disinhibited state, deciding to drive home. Or more insidiously, a mother getting high on meth and trading her children's food for drugs, so they go hungry for a while. Nothing particularly violent or aggressive, just appallingly negligent and self-centered. Hard to know what you mean by “aggression”. Does this imply intent? Or an active violent role, whether intentional or not? There is nothing particularly “aggressive” about a fellow getting drunk and, in his inebriated and disinhibited state, deciding to drive home.

Or more insidiously, a mother getting high on meth and trading her children’s food for drugs, so they go hungry for a while. Nothing particularly violent or aggressive, just appallingly negligent and self-centered.

]]> By: Skyler Collins http://www.ldsliberty.org/the-moral-consequences-of-paternalism/#comment-276 Skyler Collins Wed, 13 Jan 2010 21:48:31 +0000 http://www.ldsfreemen.com/?p=1698#comment-276 I personally feel it's a matter of aggression. Not mere "harm", but aggression. Does the act initiate aggression against the person or property of another? If not, what right do others have to prevent it? To do so would requiring initiating aggression, and be unjust. I personally feel it’s a matter of aggression. Not mere “harm”, but aggression. Does the act initiate aggression against the person or property of another? If not, what right do others have to prevent it? To do so would requiring initiating aggression, and be unjust.

]]> By: Tertium Squid http://www.ldsliberty.org/the-moral-consequences-of-paternalism/#comment-275 Tertium Squid Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:32:21 +0000 http://www.ldsfreemen.com/?p=1698#comment-275 The question of how far paternalism should go in restricting choices can be turned around to ask how far we should go in countenancing the reckless harm that can so often arise from wrong choices by individuals. We try to stop evil and designing men from inflicting suffering on others. Well, all the morbidly obese and functional alcoholic are a part of a family cohort, and the lives of others are indissolubly linked to them. Their bad choices affect plenty of people but themselves; should there be no application of state power just because the harm comes out of negligence rather than malice or spite? This is a much more difficult question than what the author addressed above. The question of how far paternalism should go in restricting choices can be turned around to ask how far we should go in countenancing the reckless harm that can so often arise from wrong choices by individuals.

We try to stop evil and designing men from inflicting suffering on others. Well, all the morbidly obese and functional alcoholic are a part of a family cohort, and the lives of others are indissolubly linked to them. Their bad choices affect plenty of people but themselves; should there be no application of state power just because the harm comes out of negligence rather than malice or spite?

This is a much more difficult question than what the author addressed above.

]]>