Personal Freedom vs. Public Welfare

[expos4ever]

Some of the "arguments" we are reading here in defense of individual rights are not simply dumb, they are "knee to the nuts" dumb.

As a greater mind than mine has opined "You can't fix stupid".

 

[Arthur Brain]

doser asks:

artie responds:

doser repeats what artie has said:

and then, inexplicably:

:idunno:

So you have difficulty with context as well then? Can't say I'm surprised. You claim to be indwelt with the Holy Spirit don't you? So aren't you harming yourself on a spiritual level by getting drunk and irresponsibly driving a car or is that something you think would be endorsed? Are you going to dodge this again?

Otherwise, if you're still bizarrely trying to claim that an outcome negates initial risk then you are indeed, dumber than fourteen boxes of rocks.

 

[quip]

[Invited to discussion by doser from Anna's thread]

Who has been harmed when you drive drunk?



Similarly, I am free of infection for the Kung Flu - who has been harmed if I decide to walk around without a mask?

This was your first relevant response to the issue at hand and it's a failed analogy.

Per the analogy: Infection = being drunk, thus it should read --

"Similarily, I AM infected by the Kung Flu - who has been harmed if I decide to walk around without a mask?"

 

[ok doser]

in short- you have no answer. Thank you for clarifying.

What I wrote was in English and used fairly common, fairly simple language that should have been understandable. What part are you struggling with?

 

[ok doser]

Some of the "arguments" we are reading here in defense of individual rights are not simply dumb, they are "knee to the nuts" dumb.

As a greater mind than mine has opined "You can't fix stupid".

Can you answer this question: How just is a law that seeks to punish me for a behavior or action from which no one is harmed?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Can you answer this question: How just is a law that seeks to punish me for a behavior or action from which no one is harmed?

Depends what the action or behaviour is. It's completely just to punish irresponsible drivers for driving while drunk because they're in no fit state to be driving a car. They're a menace who are putting lives at risk. Whether or not an accident occurs because of such reckless action is entirely moot to it rightfully being a crime. Drink driving laws are there for a reason. You might drive drunk another hundred times and nothing happens but it's still a crime to do so and if you were pulled over by the cops in such a state then you deserve all you get for being an irresponsible idiot.

 

[Yorzhik]

My apologies. I get riled up when people drag the Nazis into every discussion.

So please tell me, clearly- where exactly is that line that governments should not cross.

Edit: What is "inherently unjust"? Is being forced to stop at a traffic light "inherently unjust"?

As expalained before, the justice system can only prosecute a criminal behavior after the crime has happened. And then only if intent after or before the act, or negligence after the act can be determined.

In the case of roads, since the government owns most of them, they can create the rules and pro-act on those rules. What they cannot pro-act on is stealing, abuse, or murder or intent to commit those crimes. And therein lies why the government cannot do what they are doing in relation to infectious diseases.

In order to go over the line on roads, they would have to single out a person or group and pro-actively punish them and enact rules against them that are different than everyone else. For example, the red light laws apply to everyone evenly. But let's say they go over the line and apply an unjust road law to everyone evenly. That did happen in the Carter administration when they lowered the speed limit to 55mph. Even though less people died as seen by certain traffic accident stats, more people died by the unseen consequences of loss to the economy and frustration.

 

[Idolater]

Some of the "arguments" we are reading here in defense of individual rights are not simply dumb, they are "knee to the nuts" dumb.

As a greater mind than mine has opined "You can't fix stupid".

Please, provide your alternative "argument" in defense of individual rights?

 

[7djengo7]

Taxes are "government stealing money, like the Nazis did from the Jews", and so on.

Is this what you mean?

Taxes are "government stealing money, like [the Third Reich government of Nazi Germany] did from the Jews", and so on.

Would you call Hitler's Third Reich, "government", or not? If not, why not?

Would you call the Nazis' taxation of people living in Germany, "government stealing money", or not? If not, why not?

 

[ok doser]

Depends what the action or behaviour is.

It really doesn't, artie. ANY action or behavior that does not cause harm to another.

I know you're triggered by the example of "drink" driving, but in all of that part of your response that I cut out all you've done is channel strong emotion.

Which is all that you ever manage, which is why you're a waste of time to engage - you have nothing except emotion

 

[ok doser]

[Invited to discussion by doser from Anna's thread]



This was your first relevant response to the issue at hand and it's a failed analogy.

Per the analogy: Infection = being drunk, thus it should read --

"Similarily, I AM infected by the Kung Flu - who has been harmed if I decide to walk around without a mask?"

No, you're mistakenly equating driving drunk with being hazardous. The analogy is correct as I wrote it because it discusses a case of driving drunk in which no harm is done.

 

[7djengo7]

Please, provide your alternative "argument" in defense of individual rights?

Nice!

You've raised an interesting question: Perhaps expos4ever desires there to be no defense of individual rights?

Perhaps he would now like to come clean and say something along the lines of, "I have no burden to try to defend individual rights, for I oppose, and war against them!"

 

[quip]

No, you're mistakenly equating driving drunk with being hazardous. The analogy is correct as I wrote it because it discusses a case of driving drunk in which no harm is done.

Again fail.....you're not "free from infection" if your driving drunk.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It really doesn't, artie. ANY action or behavior that does not cause harm to another.

I know you're triggered by the example of "drink" driving, but in all of that part of your response that I cut out all you've done is channel strong emotion.

Which is all that you ever manage, which is why you're a waste of time to engage - you have nothing except emotion

It does matter because you're engaging in a criminal act that has the potential to cause harm. It's no use projecting emotion onto me because you've had the stone cold facts that you can't refute. Every time you are irresponsible enough to get behind the wheel of a car when drunk you are (more) impaired and putting other people at risk. There's a reason why it's illegal and rightly so. That you haven't yet had/caused an accident because of your recklessness doesn't negate the fact that each time you do so you you're doing the above.

You claim to be indwelt with the Holy Spirit so why are you getting drunk and driving?

:AMR:

 

[ok doser]

It does matter because you're engaging in a criminal act that has the potential to cause harm.

The conversation is about whether it is justly a criminal act. My contention is that it is not just to be considered a criminal act if it doesn't achieve its potential to cause harm. There are many actions that we take that aren't criminalized that have the potential to cause harm.

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, you're mistakenly equating driving drunk with being hazardous. The analogy is correct as I wrote it because it discusses a case of driving drunk in which no harm is done.

It's not a "fail" at all. You just don't have an answer. There's plenty of cases where accidents have been caused by people losing control of their vehicle while drunk. The behaviour that you engage in. Again, what's your defence going to be if you're pulled over by the cops and your blood alcohol levels are through the roof? That you've done it several times before and nobody got hurt?

:freak:

 

[ok doser]

It does matter because you're engaging in a criminal act that has the potential to cause harm.

Furthermore in the scenario that I was discussing with Chair the action had already been completed, no harm had happened.

 

[ok doser]

Again fail.....you're not "free from infection" if your driving drunk.

In the conversation I was having with chair the action had been completed and no harm had ensued.

 

[ok doser]

in short- you have no answer. Thank you for clarifying.

Chair, you quoted my answer. This is childish of you.

 

[ok doser]

It's not a "fail" at all. You just don't have an answer. There's plenty of cases where accidents have been caused by people losing control of their vehicle while drunk. The behaviour that you engage in. Again, what's your defence going to be if you're pulled over by the cops and your blood alcohol levels are through the roof? That you've done it several times before and nobody got hurt?

:freak:

Again, the conversation that I was having with Chair involved an action that was completed. No harm had ensued.