Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!pesnta!greipa!decwrl!decvax!yale!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <28200024@inmet.UUCP> Date: Sat, 6-Jul-85 03:53:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.28200024 Posted: Sat Jul 6 03:53:00 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 12-Jul-85 03:41:01 EDT References: <669@whuxl.UUCP> Lines: 82 Nf-ID: #R:whuxl:-66900:inmet:28200024:177600:3808 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Jul 5 01:53:00 1985 >/**** inmet:net.politics.t / whuxl!orb / 8:49 am Jul 1, 1985 ****/ >> >> Excuse me, but challenging you to find a person who can know your wants >> better than you do consistently seems to me to be a perfectly valid >> question to ask of those who claim that governments should have the power >> to force their decisions on you for your own good. For any choice >> you face with respect to your own interests, another person may >> >> A) Feel you are qualified to make the choice better than he is. >> >> B) Feel that he knows better than you what the choice you should >> make is (and be right). >> >> C) Feel that he knows better than you what the choice you should >> make is (and be WRONG). > >Again, I should like to point out that I don't think government has any >business intruding in my private decisions which affect primarily only >*my* self-interest such as the decision to smoke or not to smoke tobacco, >the decision to smoke or not to smoke marijuana, the decision to engage >in whatever sexual activity I may prefer (so long as it involves no >physical harm to another) > >On the other hand, my right to commit suicide by smoking tobacco does not >include my right to kill others with my tobacco smoke and the same for >marijuana smoke. > >Libertarians have talked a lot about "straw-men" - I think it is a blatant >strawman to insist that democratic socialists on this net support the >suppression of individual liberties which involve solely the individual. I trust everyone will forgive me for quoting Sevener's entire article up to this point, but I wished to avoid any possibility of quoting out of context. Mr. Sevener -- who has claimed this? Can you give quotes in context? Also, what of the right of people to commit suicide by smoking tobacco in a society where there is socialized medicine? In that case does the government have the right to restrain the smoker in order to save money? It seems to me that a similar point arose over the seat belt issue regarding the right of the government to regulate seat-belt use in order to limit its trouble in cleaning up after accidents. In short, what significant, self-affecting actions may a person take affecting "primarily only" himself/herself? What if habitual drug use is thought to lower labor efficiency? May farmers take drugs (in a socialist system) under such conditions? Even if there's famine? In socialist societies (NOT the same as what has been presented by "democratic socialists on this net") the government habitually controls every facet of people's economic lives, and a great deal of behavior that is not directly economic (such as regulating political demonstrations). > >On the other hand I also think I have the right as the citizen of a >democracy to join with other citizens to enact laws which benefit all of us. Sort of a slippery statement there: if you refer to laws which are only enforced on those who agree freely (perhaps indirectly) that those laws should be binding, you are correct. If you mean that you and a bunch of legislators may get together and arbitrarily enact laws without the consent of the governed, you are incorrect. >Stopping at red lights is not a question of simply my own interest but >in every motorists interests. For government to enforce such a law >benefits all motorists. GIVEN that the government owns the roads, it is reasonable to expect it to regulate the use of the roads. However this "law" need not be a creature of government but a matter of implicit contract among those using the road and the owners of the road. > >Speaking of civil liberties: what do Libertarians think about the New Jersey >law to force high school students to take drug tests? This is the first I've heard of it. Sounds like it bites the wad to me.