Personal Liberty is the first topic that I would like to tackle as it is the last topic that inspired an interesting and engaging conversation I was a party to and, because it has interesting implications on virtually every political question that we as citizens are required to decide. That discussion motivated me to finish reading John Stuart Mill's essay "On Liberty" and this too has played into my decision to compose my thoughts.
The term Liberty should be further defined before advancing, as it is a complex and intangible quality. Mill's understanding of liberty and freedom are defined in his introductory as "absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects," (and the ability to espouse those beliefs publicly) "Liberty of tastes and pursuits," and "freedom to unite for any purpose not involving harm to others." These three cornerstones go a long way in defining the term but I would just like to add that Liberty often more easy to define in a negative sense. That is to say that it is more easily determined what constitutes oppression infringement of liberty than what constitutes freedom.
I apologize in advance for the mere, hasty, summary of Mill's position that follows. However Mill has composed a convincing argument and it has altered my own understanding of the subject. I would advise anyone (David) to read the essay as it is a good starting point for further discussion. Mill's Principle of Liberty is "that the sole end for which mankind are waranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self protection... [the good of a person being interfered with] either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." Mill goes on to argue that this Principle of Liberty is supported by, and is subordinate to, his Principal of Utility. He argues that over the long run it is in mankind's best interest to allow personal liberty. These appeals are largely based on the assumptions that stifling freedom in opinion, expression, and modes of life, beyond that which is necessary to protect the liberties of other members of society, results in harm being done to man individually and collectively. Individually, people are denied the ability to determine and follow the best mode of life to follow (which they are better able to do than a disinterested party) and are harmed by being forced to conform to an alternative mode of life.
Collectively society would stagnate and improvement would be impossible as originality and genius would be stifled by interference. Mill also argues that that intervention onto the life of another is equivalent to an assumption of infallibility and is much more likely to lead to moral wrongs being adopted and ingrained whereas a free society would gradually improve over time.
I affirm my approval of the sentiments laid out it this summary and would like to add my own sentiments. Mill uses utilitarian criteria to justify his principal of utility and I would contend that a similar philosophy comes into play, explicitly or implicitly, in many legal decisions today. However I would also claim that manipulation and coercion is a direct infringement upon the inherent dignity of a person.
One application of this principle of liberty would be David's decision to smoke or not to smoke. I find the act of smoking to be disgusting and foolish. David is free, and should be free, to decide whether or not he should smoke. I have in the past considered stealing and destroying David's smokes, had I done so I would have been in the wrong as this would be an invasion of David's liberty. However, I am free to hold and relate my opinions to David in attempts to convince him of the correctness of my argument. (David don't smoke. 1) It does harm to your health. 2) It does not look cool. 3) It is an unwise use of money.)
Finally, something "ground my gears" recently. I was walking around Madison the other day. I was standing alone on the north side of University ave. at Park st. waiting for a break in traffic so I could cross. A break in traffic was coming up and a little voice in my head said "CROSS." As I began to edge out into the street it was countered by another voice that commanded "WAIT." The problem was that this second voice was not my own and it was not inside my head. I looked around to acknowledge the asshole that thought he had the authority to tell me to wait. It turns out that this asshole was the street light itself. It seems that the city of Madison had installed motion sensors and speakers to this street light and it was now giving me instructions. Thats bullshit. Lets say I had followed its instructions and waited until it gave me the go ahead to cross and was promptly splattered by car that ran the red light. Would I be any less dead? In reality I crossed the street against the advice big brother and made it safely. I know better than a computer chip when it is safe to cross a street and assume all responsibility for my actions, willing to cede no responsibility to an inanimate object.
17 comments:
I find Mill's "On Liberty" to be incredibly boring, though I am working my way through it, if slower than the other books from the library.
Thus far, I find his notions of liberty a bit like those people who yell at parents when children consume high fructose corn syrup- right, but self-righteous. Does the kid have a choice as to what to drink? Sure. Should the parents instill in the child the ability to make healthy choices? Yeah. But it's still a bit out of touch with reality.
Also, I smoke because I am incredibly stressed out from finals, but many people smoke because they're freaking addicted. They have also been made to believe that smoking is cool through marketing. Having taken a marketing course, surely you would agree that there is no larger opponent to liberty today than your average marketeer. The government wants to take away your right to get fat on trans fats. The marketeer wants to take away your right to be happy without Coca-Cola.
First, let me thank you for the shout out. It’s good to know that someone is interested in these topics. It’s often difficult to gauge whether others find these topics as interesting as I do; I am thankful firstly that we met and shared a common interest in these discussions and secondly to Google Blogger to provide an appropriate venue to express our views coherently in an intellectually stimulating environment. Also, David needs to get off that livejournal bullshit. GB’s where it’s at! WOOTWOOT.
I read On Liberty about two years ago, so it is not fresh in my mind, but I am quite familiar with Mill’s Utilitarianism and his Libertarianism. My own view is that the Principle of Utility(PU) and the Principle of Liberty(PL) are not compatible but often in conflict. Consider a discussion David and I had recently. David believes that the method of determining the correct governmental policy involves four steps:
1) Consider any particular societal problem(e.g., deaths caused by car accident).
2) Next consider any set of policies that would address the problem(e.g., lowering the speed limit, raising the minimum drinking age, increased funding for law enforcement).
3) Perform a cost/benefit analysis with respect to each policy.
4) Whichever policy best solves the problem(with respect to the cost/benefit analysis) should be adopted.
Notice that David’s process is essentially Utilitarian(despite what he tells you) with respect to the cost/benefit analysis; however, it makes no mention of individual liberty. In fact, David is often willing to sacrifice individual liberty in order to coerce individuals into making the “right” decision. He believes that it is often the case that individuals do not know what is best for them, and it is up to the government to craft policies intent on making their lives better. This obviously conflicts with Mill’s view(as Jordan describes in his post) but I believe that David’s view is a more appropriate interpretation of Utilitarianism; i.e., it is often the case that people who are allowed to choose (basically) freely do not make choices that will maximize the general happiness.
That said, I reject Mill’s PU, but accept his PL as basically correct. We seem to have developed an “ends justifies the means” mentality when it comes to policy-making, and I highly doubt whether this will change in the course of my lifetime. Above all, the thing I value most is the ability to live my life as I see fit, accepting full responsibility for my life and my decisions. I expect others to do the same.
And Jordan, I don’t know where the hell you’ve been, but smoking does look cool! Also, I enjoyed your anecdote about the stoplight. Great example!
Oh, and David: Get over yourself. It’s only 100 pages! Sorry it’s not Harry Potter or the Hobbit, lol.
I think your analogy about parents yelling at their children for drinking HFCS is poor. No one believes that children are responsible for their own well-being, and this is reflected in our legal and moral code. This is also why we provide children with a free education and why we should provide them with free health-care. But adults should bear more personal liberty as well as more personal responsibility. I do think that the government has essentially become “parental” in nature, which is probably why you think they are better at making decisions for the general populace.
Andrew, you ignorant slut.
If you parse my source, you should find that "people", let's call them "Hoseheads", "yell at parents". Parents, being the direct object the verb 'yell' is referring to, are the ones being yelled at. I do not yell at children, nor do I condone it unless the kid really, really deserves it.
Therefore, id est, exempli gratia, quod erat demonstrandum, and etcetera, the government should implant microchips in your brain. They're only saving you from yourself!
Firstly I need to apologize. I did not set blogspot to email me comments left on the blog and therefore I am quite late in seeing and responding to them.
I find David's post troubling. The people who "yell" at parents of children who consume unhealthy foods are totally morally justified in their actions. Equally as justified as the parent would be to respond that they, and presumably their children don't need or appreciate a critique of their diet and in either case they want to enjoy their life and since they derive enjoyment from foods they like they will continue to do so.
The over riding principal is that both the self righteous health nazi and the incontinent and irresponsible parents have respect for the decision making capability of the other party. They disagree about nutrition and its place in a happy life but they are using arguments and rationality to convince the other party rather than using force to compel the other party to conform to their judgments. That is the key.
Furthermore, I wholly reject David's third paragraph. I feel that smoking is a terrible way to deal with stress. I have not yet found a compelling argument to support tobacco use. With that said I contend that it would be wrong of me to intervent to attempt to stop David from smoking. Unless he is in the same room with me under that circumstance he would be harming me with second hand smoke and I would be justified in preventing his smoking. I also contend that not a single person has ever been "made" to believe smoking is cool. They may have been convinced by slick marketing campaigns but the existence of marketing campaigns and arguments in favor of smoking in no way excuses their own free will in deciding to smoke. (Addiction is a separate problem.)
I don't agree that there is no larger opponent to liberty today than your average marketer. I would contend that the marketer does not wish to take away your rights to anything. It is the marketers job to convince you to buy (and only incidentally) consume a product or service. They will present as convincing a case as possible in their favor but ultimately the decision rests not in the marketers hands but the consumers.
I largely agree with Andy but would just like to say that much of the justification for public education is the perceived vitality of education in the running of a democracy.
And finally I always cringe when I read "The Government" as it refers to a entity of itself. "The Government" is nothing more than a collection of people and in the case of the United States that collection of people includes everyone legally allowed to vote. We are the government. The government is no more capable at making a decision than I am because I am the government.
I need to apologize to David for misinterpreting his comment. I am sorry for my folly, dear sir. I pray for your forgiveness.
However, I still think that it is a bad analogy for the same reason. The “Hoseheads,” as you call them, are not looking out for the well-being of other adults; they are looking out for the well-being of children, who are sweet, innocent, and bear no responsibility.
Jordan,
“The Government” refers to the bureaucracy, which is a collection of elected and unelected officials. Referring to “the government” marks a distinction between public officials and private citizens. The government can and does make decisions. Of course, we, as in you, I, and every other person legally allowed to vote, can hold elected officials accountable for making the wrong decisions; that is, we participate in the selection of officials that comprise governmental bodies, but that does not mean that we are the government. That would be equivalent to saying “Doug Melvin is the Brewers” or “Lou Pearlman is both the Backstreet Boys and N’ Sync”, and further that referring to either the Backstreet Boys or N’ Sync as entities themselves is incoherent. Were this a direct democracy, I could understand your complaint, but don’t fool yourself; we are not the government.
Gentlemen!
If you will notice, Jordan, I too declare those libertarian busybodies telling people to eat healthy foods "right". They have a perfectly defensible moral position, in the same way that God demands perfect adherence to his Law: "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach." (Deut. 30)
This sentiment is true. However, so is this one: "All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." (Romans 3)
This, I think, is where libertarianism starts to get out of touch with reality. If children ate their spinach, they would grow up to be big and strong like Popeye. But children don't eat their spinach. Adults don't eat their soy. They don't act rationally and they don't act in their self-interest, even though they should. There is an inherent weakness in humanity, a sinful nature, that libertarianism ignores.
I've couched this argument in religious terms because I'm rather religious, but I think I can argue this point from a secular position to appease you, Andy. Take the issue of smoking. A tobacco company is not coercing you to move your hand to your pocket, get out a cigarette and smoke it. You have free will. There are plenty of cases of people quitting smoking cold turkey. But these are not the majority. You get addicted to smoking. The chemicals in your brain, the dopamine and serotonin, are screaming at you to smoke. When you see a huge hunk of cheese, your brain is wired to say, "Holy Cow! Fat and protein! Food is scarce- eat it!" Your cerebrum is also wired to say, "Food is not scarce, I can go to the store tomorrow. Let's be rational." But animal instinct wins this battle a lot, no?
Let's take another secular example: abstinence only education. You don't like abstinence only education, if I remember correctly. But it should be enough. I get upset every time I hear people or pundits (Steve does this all the time) argue: "Kids will be kids. They're going to have sex. It's inevitable." Inevitable? People have no control over their actions? Whatever happened to free will in this case?
The answer, of course, is that people are weak and give into temptation. Shouldn't there be a strategy that recognizes this reality, rather than moralizes from afar?
Jesus makes this argument in Luke 11: "Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them."
Dear Sirs,
David, I thank you for framing your reply in religion because it opens up a key point that Mill asserts in "On Liberty" but which I did not address. You have clearly assumed your own infallibility. Even in your so called secular argument you have discounted the possibility that you even could be wrong. What you may view as weakness and a surrender to temptation another might view as a rational decision. I hinted at this with my health nazi/irresponsible parent example. If your presume that you have complete moral supremacy and no possibility of being wrong then using utilitarian ethics it would be permissible to impose your will upon others.
I reject that you, or any person, is infallible. I further reject that you have any better understanding of my life that I do. Specifically soy is lousy and not even all that healthy. Besides as I understand it you dont hold utilitarianism.
I guess I am not entirely clear what you are advocating in your later "secular" examples. Should diets and nutrition be subject to the realm of government or is that something that is a personal preference? The Principal of Liberty would favor the latter case and I would agree.
It seems that you view teenage sex, more probably premarital sex, to be amoral. You seem to disagree that this amoral act is inevitable. Are you arguing for or against abstinence only education?
Im not even sure if you are taking a subtle jab at free will or affirming it. In my own view, free will is affirmed in your example. There is a choice, namely to have, or not to have, sex. Some people choose to have sex and others do not. That is what we would expect from free will. It would help a great deal if you clarified your position here including your view of where a brain "wired" with "animal instinct" fits in free will. Perhaps that deserves its own blog post. Great time to break in that brand spanking new blogspot account eh?
One final question as it relates to your final bible passage. Is free will, assuming it exists, the burden that people can hardly carry?
(You left out the full passage citation so I read Luke myself. I assume you are referring to Luke 11: 46. I don't claim to speak for Jesus however I don't think that Jesus was arguing that the pharisees and lawyers take over the decisions of the people he was speaking of. In fact Luke 11:52 which reads "Woe to you lawyers! for you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter yourselves and you hindered those who were entering." seems to argue that it is the hinderance of knowledge that Jesus objects to. I would also like to point out that Jesus rebuked the pharisees rather than taking control and dictating their decisions. And we are not even gods.)
And finally returning to "The Government." Bodies obscure institutions do not make decisions. People make decisions. Private citizens may disagree with a decision made by an elected or appointed officials but they share collective responsibility for that decision. I take back the assertion that any individual person is the government but only to replace it with the assertion that when one refers to "the government" it encompasses every citizen, even ones who do not vote or do not care.
Re: Luke 11,
Free Will is NOT the burden placed by the Pharisees on other people. The Pharisees were the Religious Right of their time- they created a large series of laws that they demanded people follow. They were hypocrites, not following the laws themselves, but were quick to judge others.
Let me refer you to my strawman example. Remember the Hoseheads saying that the kids should use their willpower to Just Say No to sugar water? This is how many Libertarians operate: rather than addressing social problems, they create a system that absolves them of any responsibility to solve the problem at all.
Why are you poor? You made bad decisions. You should hoist yourself up by your bootstraps like I did.
Why are you pregnant? You screwed up. If you'd had a little more discretion, you wouldn't be in this mess.
Why are you alcoholic? There's no such thing as alcoholism. No one's put an electrode in your brain to make you pick up that bottle.
Why are you a criminal? Social reasons for crimes are reprehensible. It's all your fault.
Why do people die in car crashes? They should know better and buckle up. But you can't make them.
Why is there filth in our food? Surely the market will correct for this. It did in the past, right?
Note that every single one of these examples contain a hint of truth: people should accept personal responsibility for their actions. In the same way, many of the Pharisees' laws were valid. But they were hard-hearted.
I quote again from Luke 11: "Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter WITHOUT LEAVING THE FORMER UNDONE." (emphasis mine)
Jesus here argues for a more complete message: both condemnation of sin (which was all the Pharisees had), as well as the forgiveness of sin through the substitutionary death of Christ.
Re: infallibility
Don't give me this post-modern moral relativist garbage. You watched Star Wars episode III, didn't you? Do you remember the part where Anakin monotones, "In my eyes, the Jedi are evil."
Except they're not evil. That's the thing.
You cannot successfully argue that, in your words, "Equally as justified as the parent would be to respond that they, and presumably their children don't need or appreciate a critique of their diet and in either case they want to enjoy their life and since they derive enjoyment from foods they like they will continue to do so."
Childhood obesity kills, man. Poverty is a problem. Teen pregnancy is a problem. Alcoholism, crime, safety, and consumer protection are all problems that need more answers than simply, "It's your dishwashing liquid- you soak in it."
In your words, "What you may view as weakness and a surrender to temptation another might view as a rational decision."
They might view it as a rational decision. But they'd be wrong in the same way that if you and I got two different answers to a math problem and didn't have the answer key on hand, we wouldn't both be right. We might both be wrong.
Don't let this confuse you. I argue a little more than, "No man is infallible" when I argue the inverse, "Every man IS fallible."
But to infer from this that no clear action can be prescribed is silly. Just because we don't have good rules for Instant Replay doesn't mean we shouldn't play football.
Re: abstinence education.
I used this example to point out a logical inconsistency. If personal responsibility is all that can be (or should be) appealed to, then abstinence only education should appeal to libertarians.
In Chapter 1 of On Liberty, Mill writes: “The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
Now, it is perfectly within a libertarian’s rights to instruct others with hypothetical imperatives of the form “if you want x, do y.” I am perfectly within my right to share what I believe to be successful strategies in achieving certain goals to others. For example, I can say “David, if you want to live healthily, you should abstain from smoking.” However, if David does not wish to live healthily, then he is within his right to continue smoking, so long as it does not cause harm to others. There is a difference between explaining how to maintain a healthy life and coercing all individuals into doing so.
Now, David wants to justify coercion simply by effectively saying “Not all children will eat their spinach; but, it would be good if all children did eat their spinach, so we must coerce them to do so.” I submit, on the contrary, that the fact that not every individual will act according to the goals society deems valuable is not sufficient warrant for coercing them to do so. He argues that people do not act rationally; they do not eat their soy or spinach. Acting rationally is acting in one’s self-interest. This is a rather simplistic understanding of rationality(e.g., it completely ignores altruistic acts), but let’s just go with it. Let’s consider David’s notion of rationality within the context of an example. David’s smoking example will suffice. Is it in my self-interest to smoke? Well, it depends upon what my goals are. If my goal is to live a long healthy life, then it is not in my self-interest to smoke. However, if my goals are to (1) be cool, (2) socialize, (3) enjoy the sweet pleasure of delicious cancer sticks, and I value these over a healthy life, then it is in my self-interest to smoke. The point is that, under David’s own definition, rationality is subjective. It follows that it would be irresponsible to coerce everyone to act in the same way. Different individuals have different values. Our friend Steven, for example, enjoys watching golf, reality TV, pond hockey and shouting in physical anger at his favorite sports teams. I, on the other hand, value none of these things. Because Steven and the majority of Americans value these things, should they be able to coerce me into participating in such activities?
Your Popeye-Spinach mischaracterization that you’ve frequently used before is a naïve mischaracterization of Libertarianism. If humans were not sinful, there would be no need for a moral or legal code; there would be no need for a Liberty Principle. Let’s be fair.
I also disagree with your account of a person as a sort of continual battle between rational forces and animal instincts where animal instincts win the majority of the battles. Freudian psychoanalysis was discredited quite a while ago. I’ll save my account of personhood for a later discussion.
Smoking. Everyone is free, and completely free to decide not to smoke. Now, there is such a thing as physical addiction, such as addiction to nicotine, where the consequences of quitting are physically worse than for a person who is not addicted. But this is not a denial of freedom. Every person has it within them to stop smoking and suffer the negative consequences if they so choose.
Abstinence-only education. You seem to shift tone here. I am not exactly sure what you’re arguing, but I think I might agree with you on this one. You seem to keep coming back to children for some reason; to clarify, this is not what Mill is concerned with. Children do not and should not bear responsibility for their actions(to the same extent as adults). My own view regarding AO-education is that we should coerce children under 16 to not have sex, not become pregnant, and not contract venereal diseases. And we should employ whatever strategy is found to be most effective in doing so.
Jordan, you made a great point about infallibility. I concur. I think David’s statement is that teenage sex is immoral, not amoral.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorality
I stand by my characterization of “The Government” as the bureaucracy. I agree that people make decisions. But the decisions that private citizens and the decisions that bureaucratic officials make are very different. Private citizens do not and should not bear responsibility for the actions of public officials. I actually think this is quite an obscure notion of responsibility. Consider all the actions taken by Texan representatives last year in the House of Reps. Under your definition, it would mean that private citizens in Madison, WI are responsible for everything that Texan reps did. Responsibility implies that the person responsible could have, within reason, prevented the event from occurring. Now, it may be true that a citizen from Madison could have gone to some great length to prevent the election of Texan reps, but this is distinct from our ordinary notion of responsibility. For example, I could have donated both my lungs and saved the lives to two patients who recently died from lung cancer. I didn’t, but it doesn’t follow that I am responsible for their deaths.
David, I disagree with your interpretation of Libertarianism, especially Mill’s Libertarianism(in accordance with his Utilitarianism). I am actually quite unsure who you are referencing with the answer to those questions. My guess is you just made them up yourself in order to make Libertarianism as weak as possible, so it’s easy for you to attack. With these questions, you’re not just dealing with when we should coerce people into acting a certain way, you’re dealing with notions of rights, free will v. determinism, social deviance theory, etc. Let’s keep the discussion focused.
Briefly, Libertarianism is not descriptive, it’s normative. Libertarians do not aim to give an explanatory account of why people are poor, pregnant, or alcoholic. Your examples are irrelevant.
Again, children and teens are not relevant to the discussion. They bear no responsibility, but you continue to come back to that. If poverty is a problem, then I’m accepting donations buddy. I’ve been legally in poverty since I turned 18, but I’m still able to live fairly comfortably. Poverty will always exist because they continually redraw the line. For those who view poverty as a problem, which I believe is the vast majority, they should do everything they can to end it. This is not inconsistent with the Liberty Principle. What they shouldn’t do is say, “Hey, I think poverty is a problem, so you have to do everything you can to end it too.”
I agree that I should be more focused. I am attacking the libertarianism of von Mises, Ron Paul, Rothbard, Rockwell, and especially Ayn Rand. ("I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." is as complete a rejection of Christ as any I've ever heard.) You know, the kind put in practice.
Let's take an issue that is significantly less gray to reduce equivocation: heroin.
Questions for you to answer:
1. Is heroin-use so reprehensible and morally unambiguous that you two can agree that it is objectively wrong to use, possess, or sell? You yelled at me for drawing the line around corn syrup, will you protest again for heroin?
2. Should the government forcibly forbid you from using it?
In helping you answer, keep in mind that "you are not your own; you were bought at a price."
(1) No, it is not morally wrong to use, possess, or sell heroin, unless of course, it's sold or given to a minor, or it's associated with some other morally wrong act such as deceit. I do believe its incredibly stupid and I would never do it; I would never associate myself with anyone who does it. But when I think about someone who has done heroin, my first thought is not “Wow, what a morally reprehensible act; that person must be really evil;” it’s “that guy is an idiot.”
(2) No, the government should not forcibly forbid me from using heroin. I think there should be an age of consent as with other drugs, but no I do not believe use of any drug is so morally egregious that it should be forbade by the government.
Well great. That was a good clarification, Andy.
Let's move on to the tragedy of the commons, shall we?
Or perhaps the tragedy of the anticommons. Hmmm...maybe you should write your own blogpost. Proceed.
Thank you gentlemen this discussion has far surpassed my expectations.
1) Possession, use, and sale of Heroine is reprehensible.
2) Assuming that you are of age and are capable of making decisions the government should not forcibly forbid you from using it.
I have not come to this conclusion lightly and it is one that I do not like but I cannot see any other solution. I return this inquiry to you: What is untouchable? Where can the line be drawn? When is intervention unacceptable? For your answer keep in mind that nothing is so precious and important as your immortal soul. What is your answer for my INQUISITION?
David, every man, woman, and child is fallible. Moral diversity exists. Who then is capable of determining which actions are and are not moral? This is a very real problem which you have yet to address.
I do contend and will continue to argue that both the irresponsible parents and the health nazi are equally justified in their positions. I understand that obesity, poverty, addiction, and crime are problems. I deeply desire to help. I want the solution. However oppression is a historically larger problem.
Life is not math and I dont have the answer key. I have no control over the consciousness nor conscience of any other person. I have two options convincing and coercion.
Moving on to the problem of the commons. I am totally in favor in forcing people to accept the consequences of their actions. The tragedy of the commons arises when people do not pay the full price of their actions. The accepted solution for this problem is to assign and enforce property rights. If a party must face the whole cost of their actions the tragedy does not occur. I really don't know where you are trying to go with this one.
It is apparent that "The Government" requires its own post. I will leave the topic and take it up immediately following the exhaustion of this one.
Good thread y'all.
I've bowed to your pressure and written a post of my own. Now we all have google-sanctioned blogs! If you have a googleblog, you can be a rugged individualist, too!
http://usul-miller.blogspot.com
Post a Comment