adaher
May 18, 2013, 5:29am
81
Humans are pretty crafty animals, some of us can think three or four moves ahead and effect results indirectly. If you are granted liberty on the basis of direct harm, then you have carte blanche to cause indirect harm, because you can claim that you were not proximate. The troubling aspect to this is that it is usually not possible to determine whether the indirect harm was incidental or deliberate, so we build a complex base of legal code to avoid having the issues develop in the first place.
Except that for liberty issues, the courts generally won’t allow a law unless it’s preventing an actual harm, which is why we can’t legislate against hate speech.
In the end, it is a difficult issue that I am not smart enough to resolve. Yet, you are willing to just throw up your hands and pick the easy answer, apparently because it sounds good to you, so I would venture that you are no more qualified than I am. I even doubt that there is any one person who is (or was) smart enough, but I do believe that a bunch of us could probably figure something out together.
I’m not throwing my hands up because I like the system we live in, where there is a presumption of liberty and the burden of proof lies on those who would restrict it.
ralfy
August 24, 2014, 6:05am
82
It is not sustainable due to lack of resources, environmental damage, and risks due to the use of credit.