I’m thinking in terms of drug usage, but I suppose it could apply to other potentially personally dangerous activities as well.
In the US, our drug laws aren’t really based on any objective measures, but if we were to re-design our laws from the ground up, where do you draw the line?
Some would say taking any drug is a matter of personal freedom, and in general I agree with that principle, but I’m also conflicted when I think about some of the really hard drugs out there.
I can’t remember who said it first, but when the harm of the illegality of the drug is worse than the drug itself, it makes no sense to outlaw it. I think this was said by Jimmy Carter wrt Marijuana, but there are a few other currently illegal drugs (in the US) that I could see that applying to.
Does the state have a responsibility to protect its citizens from themselves in some cases?
Yes. There’s an old line that laws should be “written by Peter while sober to govern Peter while drunk”. Laws should be written using the presumption that the people following them are not necessarily going to be fully rational and competent. People can be ignorant, deceived, insane, panicked, or otherwise not competent to make decisions for themselves.
The line of reasoning that concludes it’s morally acceptable to use force to stop someone from doing something that affects no one but that person is incomprehensible to me. It’s pure evil, in my opinion.
I can understand the thought process that leads to thinking people should stay out of other people’s business, but am astonished at just how wrong you think this is. “Pure evil”! Are you saying someone who attempts to stop a friend from committing suicide is 100% evil? As evil as a mass murderer, etc (you don’t get much more evil than “pure”!)?
I read an article once that had a take I liked. The author recalled how in old movies, someone would freak out, and the level-headed character would slap them to calm them down - at which point the first character inevitably says, “Thanks, I needed that.” That, the argument goes, is how we should legislate; an example used was seatbelts vs. motorcycle helmets. Pretty much everybody is okay with seatbelts, at this point. If you get into an accident, and are wearing a seatbelt, even if only because the law requires it, you’re going to be happy you were. That’s the, “Thanks, I needed that.” On the other hand, a fairly large proportion of motorcycle riders are opposed to helmet laws*, so the government shouldn’t mandate them.
That seems like a pretty good standard to me - laws that restrict personal freedom to promote person safety are acceptable insofar as they are in line with reality, anyways. That way, you’re more supporting behavior that exists than trying to radically change how people act.
I think it’s OK for people to protect the mentally-disabled, and those that are temporarily out of their minds. But if I had a a friend that rationally decided he wished to commit suicide, then yes, it would be wrong for me to stop him. And even more wrong for a third party to do it (you and your paid government meddlers, for example.)
Yes, I believe it is pure evil. I think there are, or have been, very few people in history that commit horrible acts, but acknowledge to themselves that they are doing wrong. The worst kind of evil is not the kind wherein the the perpetrators only just deny that they are doing evil, but instead insist they are doing right. This is that kind of evil.
But many people who commit suicide do so under the influence of severe depression, so that in a sense they are indeed “temporarily out of their minds.”
If there’s a good chance the person would later (in a different frame of mind, or with fuller knowledge) thank you for stopping him from doing something, I’d say you ought to at least think about stopping him from doing that thing.
This strikes me as a slippery-slope or all-or-nothing type of fallacy. You’re saying that, because people have done evil by exerting power over others in the name of doing good and protecting people from themselves, therefore exerting power over others is necessarily evil.
In some cases, it isn’t necessarily just themselves that we protect people from when we prevent them from taking hard drugs. That fictitious drug that turned Dr, Jeckyll into Mr. Hyde didn’t cause harm only to Dr. Jeckyll, but also to Hyde’s victims.
Even if that someone is a child? If not, how do you determine the point at which stopping someone from doing something crosses the line from appropriate to “pure evil”?
That might be if it were true, but when you harm yourself you cost EVERYONE money. I rather have seatbelt laws than pay some drooling jackass disability the rest of his life because he went through a windshield. Same goes for motorcycle helmet laws, and most drug laws. You don’t live in a vacuum, this isn’t a “he brought it on himself so let him suffer” society, people who harm themselves are constantly bailed out by the rest of us.
Society is the collective interrelationship between each and every person. The purpose of society is to guide and mediate those interrelationships in order to prevent chaos and war. But it is just that, INTERrelationship. If my actions are not harming anyone else, neither society nor its governmental tools are justified in preventing that action. It’s an analog to the Interstate Commerce clause – society can only legitimately proscribe interpersonal actions, and those actions that impose costs solely on the individual are not within the role of society to control.
We in this country (and most developed countries) have recognized that freedom is something worth having, cultivating and protecting. When we regulate an action that harms no one but the actor, we are throwing that entire idea out the window, in effect saying that society knows better than an autonomous, independent actor what is best for himself.
I wouldn’t say any and every case of society regulating actions that do not harm others is “pure evil”, but it is a bad thing and well on its way towards becoming evil if not checked.
One of the issues with seat belts is that they can sometimes prevent secondary injuries to other people. If someone hits your car and you get ejected or wind up in the passenger or back seat the car will just keep going on it’s own. If you are still in the driver seat at least there’s a chance you can stop the car from rolling into something or someone else.
WRT drugs, I’ve always thought they should be legal until doing them causes problems for other people. So, you want to smoke crack after work, great, but the moment you shoot someone to steal money for more drugs, we have a problem. Heroin, go nuts. But if you lose your job and I my tax money covers your welfare check, that’s not fair to me.
That’s pretty much what i’m trying to say. I didn’t say it as well as DrCube, though.
Except that it’s not been checked. Quite the contrary; it’s encouraged, and seen to be good by many. The idea that it’s OK, even desirable, to use force to stop someone from doing something you disagree with has long since crossed the line into evil.
Do you people who still claim “my actions affect no one else” live in caves or something? Your actions affect everyone, its delusional to think otherwise.
When the action imposes costs on others then it becomes justified for society to regulate. Which actions impose costs versus actions that are totally self-contained is something we can debate, but the OP specifically hypothesized actions that harm no one but the individual actor.
And “We pay your medical bills so we get to dictate your every action” excuse only goes so far. I’ll give it leeway in limited cases, but taken to an extreme it is the most dehumanizing thing a government can do. Equivalent to the Army saying “Your body belongs to Uncle Sam, and we’ll do with it as we see fit”. Or a cattle rancher branding his steer. Or a slave-owner whipping his slaves “for their own good”. At some point we have to agree that this is my body, not yours, or else we’ll just be back to feudalism and slavery.
It is not the government’s job to protect children from themselves. It’s the parents’ job to teach them not to harm themselves. The government’s job is to protect children from their parents and others. In some cases parents letting children harm themselves is equivalent to parents harming children, in which case the government can step in, but which cases those are is up for debate. I certainly isn’t all cases.
The mentally ill are special category I haven’t quite made up my mind about, but I would rather err on the side of freedom.
BS. These are are only true because people have been forced to participate in evil things.
For example, first you pass a law requiring everyone to have insuance, and use force to enforce it. Then you say “You have to wear a seatbelt. If you don’t and get hurt, everyone pays.” Only because of your initial foolishness and immorality is this true.
Nonsense. Without insurance the government, and through it the people in general would still pay, unless you really think that “let them die on the street” is both politically and morally acceptable.