True or false: any personal freedom that brings harm to society in general should...

[jon_berzerk]

the best society is a free society

Why?

ask yourself that question

 

[Oddball]

People seem to see society as some kind of alien creature.

No, certain people rooted in reality see society for the subjective abstraction that it is, rather than some kind of magical quasi-god.

It's us. It's the community, the tribe, whatever you want to call it. It's all of us living in coordination with each other. What happens in a community across the country from me affects me, because I am part of that society.

That's just your opinion.

I don't grow my own food, I don't make my own clothes. Other people do that. Without those other people my life is entirely different, so those other people affect me. They benefit me. As far as I am concerned, that creates an obligation.

If you feel obligated to some mythical entity, for whatever reason you want to dream up, that's your burden to bear...That imparts no obligation upon me or anyone else to feel the same way.

 

[editec]

But let me answer your question as to who invented English ?

The society of English speaking people invented it.,

They are collectively the entity of people (Angloglots)who are still reinventing it, every day.

In other words, the definition of "society" depends on what you're talking about. If you are talking about language, it refers to one group of people. If you're referring to technology, it refers to another group of people. According to your theory, a person can belong to hundreds of different societies simultaneously. So when you buy a house or watch a television program or board a plane to visit your mother, who do you owe for these benefits of "society?"

What you apparently are having trouble getting is that mankind is a SOCIAL species.

Each new generation stands on the shoulders of the previous generations.



so·ci·e·ty
/səˈsīətē/
Noun
The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
The community of people living in a particular region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations.
Synonyms
association - company - community - fellowship - club

 

[PratchettFan]

People seem to see society as some kind of alien creature.

No, certain people rooted in reality see society for the subjective abstraction that it is, rather than some kind of magical quasi-god.

It's us. It's the community, the tribe, whatever you want to call it. It's all of us living in coordination with each other. What happens in a community across the country from me affects me, because I am part of that society.

That's just your opinion.

I don't grow my own food, I don't make my own clothes. Other people do that. Without those other people my life is entirely different, so those other people affect me. They benefit me. As far as I am concerned, that creates an obligation.

If you feel obligated to some mythical entity, for whatever reason you want to dream up, that's your burden to bear...That imparts no obligation upon me or anyone else to feel the same way.

Yes. I understand your position. Which is why society also creates laws in order to impose those obligations upon people who think those benefits should be free. You don't have to feel the same way as I do, but that does not remove the obligation.

 

[jon_berzerk]

People seem to see society as some kind of alien creature.

No, certain people rooted in reality see society for the subjective abstraction that it is, rather than some kind of magical quasi-god.

It's us. It's the community, the tribe, whatever you want to call it. It's all of us living in coordination with each other. What happens in a community across the country from me affects me, because I am part of that society.

That's just your opinion.

I don't grow my own food, I don't make my own clothes. Other people do that. Without those other people my life is entirely different, so those other people affect me. They benefit me. As far as I am concerned, that creates an obligation.

If you feel obligated to some mythical entity, for whatever reason you want to dream up, that's your burden to bear...That imparts no obligation upon me or anyone else to feel the same way.

it is that mysticism that has led folks

to be so dependent on the government

that one could not even have prepared themselves

for a major upcoming storm

to store the most basic of items

matches

in the wake of the eastern storm

the government had to hand out

matches to hundreds of

folks to make fires to survive

 

[Skull Pilot]

We look at the word "obligation" differently. If I meet my obligations that does not mean those obligations do not exist. I simply have met them. I pay my mortgage, but that does not mean my obligation to pay my mortgage goes away.

Saying it is interaction does not mean you are not dependent. Take away your access to that interaction and you will quickly see just how dependent you are. The infrastructure and interaction is society. Your entire way of life is utterly dependent upon your participation in that society. Look around yourself and ask what is it that you produce by yourself which will keep you alive. Do you grow your own food, make your own cloth, build your own shelter - all using raw materials you obtained on your own? Unlikely. Do you even have access to potable water? Most people don't. Take away society and the vast majority of us die in a matter of weeks. If that is not dependence, I have no idea what is.

"Society" didn't build my house.

No. But it did make it possible to build your house. Did you cut down the trees and saw the lumber? Did you mine and smelt the ore and then make your own nails?

So you define "society" as any other person but you?
Individuals cut down the trees. A private company made the nails. etc etc etc

Society does not build anything. People do. Society is that infrastructure and interaction which allows you to take advantage of something someone else did on the other side of the world. If you pick up a phone and call someone hundreds of miles away, the conversation is between you and the other person. But without the phone the conversation is not possible. It is the medium which makes that conversation possible. Society is the medium which made building your home possible.

And as I said people pay for roads via taxes. So I don't really call that any mystery.

And I could build a home without "society" to say that it's not possible is ridiculous.

People seem to see society as some kind of alien creature. It's us. It's the community, the tribe, whatever you want to call it. It's all of us living in coordination with each other. What happens in a community across the country from me affects me, because I am part of that society. I don't grow my own food, I don't make my own clothes. Other people do that. Without those other people my life is entirely different, so those other people affect me. They benefit me. As far as I am concerned, that creates an obligation.

There are only individual transactions. A person does not interact with "society".

 

[Unkotare]

the best society is a free society

Why?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx8LAFSY3Ws]That Detective Is The Right Question - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Oddball]

People seem to see society as some kind of alien creature.

No, certain people rooted in reality see society for the subjective abstraction that it is, rather than some kind of magical quasi-god.


That's just your opinion.

I don't grow my own food, I don't make my own clothes. Other people do that. Without those other people my life is entirely different, so those other people affect me. They benefit me. As far as I am concerned, that creates an obligation.

If you feel obligated to some mythical entity, for whatever reason you want to dream up, that's your burden to bear...That imparts no obligation upon me or anyone else to feel the same way.

it is that mysticism that has led folks

to be so dependent on the government

that one could not even have prepared themselves

for a major upcoming storm

to store the most basic of items

matches

in the wake of the eastern storm

the government had to hand out

matches to hundreds of

folks to make fires to survive

You've swerved right into the nut of the matter.

Lolberals look upon "society" as a god, and gubmint as Pope.

 

[dblack]

the best society is a free society

Why?

ask yourself that question

I have. I'm curious what your view is. I'm leary about making claims of what makes the 'best' society. The entire point of freedom, in my view, is that everyone has different ideas on what makes up the good life, and that we have a better shot at peaceful coexistence if we accept that.

To express my concerns another way, what if it could be shown that the 'best' society (strongest, richest, smartest, nicest, etc... ) was more often a result of authoritarian state control of all aspects of our lives? Would you acquiesce to such a plan? I wouldn't.

 

[Oddball]

People seem to see society as some kind of alien creature.

No, certain people rooted in reality see society for the subjective abstraction that it is, rather than some kind of magical quasi-god.


That's just your opinion.

I don't grow my own food, I don't make my own clothes. Other people do that. Without those other people my life is entirely different, so those other people affect me. They benefit me. As far as I am concerned, that creates an obligation.

If you feel obligated to some mythical entity, for whatever reason you want to dream up, that's your burden to bear...That imparts no obligation upon me or anyone else to feel the same way.

Yes. I understand your position. Which is why society also creates laws in order to impose those obligations upon people who think those benefits should be free. You don't have to feel the same way as I do, but that does not remove the obligation.

Society doesn't impose jack shit.

Nosy busybody dickweeds who can't mind their own fucking business, like you, do.

That you blame this knuckle-dragging thuggery on "society", merely indicates your refusal to take responsibility for being a nosy busybody dickweed who can't mind his own fucking business.

 

[PratchettFan]

"Society" didn't build my house.

No. But it did make it possible to build your house. Did you cut down the trees and saw the lumber? Did you mine and smelt the ore and then make your own nails?

So you define "society" as any other person but you?
Individuals cut down the trees. A private company made the nails. etc etc etc



And as I said people pay for roads via taxes. So I don't really call that any mystery.

And I could build a home without "society" to say that it's not possible is ridiculous.



There are only individual transactions. A person does not interact with "society".

You interact with society constantly. You're doing it right now. That you are not aware of it only means that metaphorically you have your eyes closed, not that you aren't doing it.

 

[PratchettFan]

No, certain people rooted in reality see society for the subjective abstraction that it is, rather than some kind of magical quasi-god.


That's just your opinion.
If you feel obligated to some mythical entity, for whatever reason you want to dream up, that's your burden to bear...That imparts no obligation upon me or anyone else to feel the same way.

Yes. I understand your position. Which is why society also creates laws in order to impose those obligations upon people who think those benefits should be free. You don't have to feel the same way as I do, but that does not remove the obligation.

Society doesn't impose jack shit.

Nosy busybody dickweeds who can't mind their own fucking business, like you, do.

That you blame this knuckle-dragging thuggery on "society", merely indicates your refusal to take responsibility for being a nosy busybody dickweed who can't mind his own fucking business.

Uh huh. Then by all means refuse to pay your income tax. I'm sure the courts will understand that there is no obligation. Unfortunately, that would mean I would become obligated to pay even more for your room and board.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No. But it did make it possible to build your house. Did you cut down the trees and saw the lumber? Did you mine and smelt the ore and then make your own nails?

You interact with society constantly. You're doing it right now. That you are not aware of it only means that metaphorically you have your eyes closed, not that you aren't doing it.

No I am interacting with individual people not some amorphous "society"

 

[Billy000]

No, we don’t know that you are right. I don’t believe that the evidence is in your favor either but as I do not have sufficient evidence to state it as fact, I have not. There are places that we could look if we wanted to sink the time. Holland for one has legalized pot and shrooms as well as unofficially ‘legalizing’ cocaine (you can openly purchase and sell cocaine in red light districts and no one will question you). Canada has made some interesting laws in regard to heroine as well.

All that is beside the point though. Whether or not more are getting high or using is not actually the end determination as to how harmful the drug is. As pointed out, controlled substances and open treatments are beneficial to the users particularly if you are changing to that from prison. Prison where continued use is actually encouraged by the grater hardships that you are going to face for damn near the rest of your life.

Regulation is not really a compromise. It is a reality of any commercial product and would be integral to legalizing drugs. Unregulated drugs would look like, well, what we have now

It is not a matter of ‘acceptable’ level. It is more a matter of general safety. I said, directly, that rugs would never be good. We are not regulating them to a positive or benign substance BUT there is no argument that what Joe the crack dealer bakes in his basement would be safer than a regulated and controlled product.

You realize that we actually do regulate, control and distribute such hard drugs already, right? Methamphetamines and opium are already legal in very specific instances. They are not as harmful as the street variety of the same drugs. Here is a shocker also; meth is not administered as a medical solution either all the time. There are other uses that the federal government uses it for.

The reality is that people are going to get high. I have seen people smoke banana leaves and tea bags. People smoke bath salts and sniff whip cream cans or refrigerants (all far more dangerous than the hard drugs out there btw). They huff paint cans and markers. There are plenty of options in the world around us to get high that are not illegal at all. Most are far more dangerous though. The idea that we need to outlaw these few substances is crazy as we are not preventing anything. They still get high, get hooked and die. Instead, we need to practice openness, regulation and treatment, not prison, concealment and black markets.

I do believe the more people get high, the more harmful the drug is for society. Yes, people still get high now, but legalizing these drugs increases the accessibility. What helps mitigates addiction to these drugs is the challenge of obtaining them. Prevalence of addiction and overdose would skyrocket. Call it conjecture if you want, but what i am saying is common sense.

I am aware that there is medicinal use for drugs like methamphetamine, but the issue we are discussing is recreational use. The dangerous kind of use.

I get what you are saying about the benefit of selling a regulated product verses buying it off the street, but i don't believe that would prevent these drugs from ruining lives. I'm all for having the right to do whatever you want to your own body, but hard drugs like meth or cocaine don't just affect the people who take them. It affects other people. It affects society at large.

I still want you to define society, and explain how freedom, or anything else, harms it.

I do believe the more people get high, the more harmful the drug is for society.

That statement is absolutely silly though. You are taking a complex issue and trying to oversimplify it. Other effects matter and they matter more than the drug itself tbh.

We could certainly reduce the drug use if we just lined up anyone that was suspected of drug use and shot them. Would that be positive for ‘society?’ Of course not. There are real factors that are not as crazy that we are dealing with in relation to drug abuse. The destructive outcome from going to prison (particularly for a medical issue), crime surrounding the import of drugs, addiction and its impact on family/friends. There are tons of tangential effects of drug abuse and many are worse than the drug itself. Ignoring that and stating that the amount of people is the only thing you care about shows a complete lack of understanding the real problems that we are facing with addiction.

Yes, people still get high now, but legalizing these drugs increases the accessibility. What helps mitigates addiction to these drugs is the challenge of obtaining them. Prevalence of addiction and overdose would skyrocket. Call it conjecture if you want, but what i am saying is common sense.

No, it is not common sense. Your ‘common sense’ completely ignores the fact that there are so many LEGAL means for people to get high. As I stated and will reiterate, bath salts, paint, markers, refrigerants etc. are legal items that are used in place of these drugs. Do you really think that

I am aware that there is medicinal use for drugs like methamphetamine, but the issue we are discussing is recreational use. The dangerous kind of use.

If you had read, there are even uses that are not medicinal. Methamphetamines, for example, are commonly used by bomber pilots to keep them awake. They are issued to them. Totally a performance deal. They might not be ‘recreational’ but the type of use was NOT what we were discussing. We were discussing (with this part of the argument) that legal products are safer than black market products. Realizing this will go a long way in understanding the benefits of allowing people to make their own poor decisions without forcing them into the worst possible market.

I get what you are saying about the benefit of selling a regulated product verses buying it off the street, but i don't believe that would prevent these drugs from ruining lives. I'm all for having the right to do whatever you want to your own body, but hard drugs like meth or cocaine don't just affect the people who take them. It affects other people. It affects society at large.

Saying that it won’t prevent people from ruining their lives completely misses the point. Of course it will still ruin lives, that is the nature of drugs. The idea that it is more toxic to people’s lives legal than when it is illegal though is a poor argument.

Really, your arguments have used a lot of ‘I feel’ and ‘I think’ and are centered around the simple fact that you don’t like drug abuse. I am sorry but this is not really a subjective matter. There are hard realities here all shown to us during prohibition. Illegal alcohol with the murder and pillaging that it brought was not better than simple legalized and controlled alcohol. We have been through this before, why is it so difficult to relate the two identical concepts.

Further, when we started making drugs illegal, we did not have a worse problem with their abuse than we have now. You think these designer drugs are somehow new? That major drugs that were as potent and deadly did not exist then? Of course they did but people that are willing to thrash their bodies with drug abuse are going to do so no matter what the law is and, more importantly, no matter what drugs are available. There is ALWAYS a way to get high, that is just the reality of it. Better to put some controls on that rather than let it run rampant.

I already acknowledged the fact that there are already many ways to get high now. I just don't see how that is justification to legalize them based upon that issue alone. Like it or not, drug abuse is a serious problem. My opinion on it just isn't an opinion. This idea that we might as well give into it is not a good argument. I don't understand why you won't entertain this accessibility issue. You keep brushing it off as conjecture when i don't see how anything you're saying is anything above that.

That being said, I also dont see how you think your points of arguments are more objective than mine. How is that exactly? What makes your argument more credible in this regard?

And the "hard realities of prohibition" is a separate issue.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Now, that is fucking idiotic.

There is no limited accessibility at all.....The best evidence of that is that drugs have never been cheaper....Basic economics....All there is is the inability to purchase those drugs from a "legitimate" storefront.

I don't use drugs, so the whole thing is philosophical to me. But where this whole farce of a drug war really pissed me off is when they stopped selling psuedophedrine. Honestly, I have high blood pressure and can't take it anymore, but it was the one thing that was truly worked for hay fever. But because of the prison-industrial complex having a need for more people to imprison, this simple and effective remedy is denied to law abiding Americans.

Fuck the drug war.

 

[Oddball]

Yes. I understand your position. Which is why society also creates laws in order to impose those obligations upon people who think those benefits should be free. You don't have to feel the same way as I do, but that does not remove the obligation.

Society doesn't impose jack shit.

Nosy busybody dickweeds who can't mind their own fucking business, like you, do.

That you blame this knuckle-dragging thuggery on "society", merely indicates your refusal to take responsibility for being a nosy busybody dickweed who can't mind his own fucking business.

Uh huh. Then by all means refuse to pay your income tax. I'm sure the courts will understand that there is no obligation. Unfortunately, that would mean I would become obligated to pay even more for your room and board.

Might still doesn't make right, butthead....Nor does it prove anything

And "society" doesn't impose taxes upon me, the goon squads of bureaucrats at the IRS and various and sundry other state and local agencies do.....Those agencies are still comprised of individual people.

 

[PratchettFan]

Society doesn't impose jack shit.

Nosy busybody dickweeds who can't mind their own fucking business, like you, do.

That you blame this knuckle-dragging thuggery on "society", merely indicates your refusal to take responsibility for being a nosy busybody dickweed who can't mind his own fucking business.

Uh huh. Then by all means refuse to pay your income tax. I'm sure the courts will understand that there is no obligation. Unfortunately, that would mean I would become obligated to pay even more for your room and board.

Might still doesn't make right, butthead....Nor does it prove anything

And "society" doesn't impose taxes upon me, the goon squads of bureaucrats at the IRS and various and sundry other state and local agencies do.....Those agencies are still comprised of individual people.

Yeah. You keep on telling yourself that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yeah. You keep on telling yourself that.

You say that "society" want high taxes. So why is it that in areas where the public has a say in taxes, it's difficult to raise them? Even in the peoples republic of California, increasing taxes is very hard due to the need for public approval. So it appears that "society" does NOT want them, but that government imposes in direct contradiction to the wishes of "society."

See, when you leftists say "society," you really mean "government." Ergo, you seek to sacrifice the rights of individuals to provide wealth and comfort to the government.

 

[PratchettFan]

No I am interacting with individual people not some amorphous "society"

We seem to have reached the "Oh, yes it is" "Oh no it isn't" stage. Sort of played out. We're not going to agree but you presented your position intelligently and civily. You were well worth disagreeing with.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yeah. You keep on telling yourself that.

You say that "society" want high taxes. So why is it that in areas where the public has a say in taxes, it's difficult to raise them? Even in the peoples republic of California, increasing taxes is very hard due to the need for public approval. So it appears that "society" does NOT want them, but that government imposes in direct contradiction to the wishes of "society."

See, when you leftists say "society," you really mean "government." Ergo, you seek to sacrifice the rights of individuals to provide wealth and comfort to the government.

I never said society wants high taxes. I said it is not free. In this particular society that is handled through taxes, in terms of money. "High" is a relative term. It also might require payment in your body. I knew quite a few people when I was in the army who were meeting that price as draftees. It might look for the price through eminent domain.

I'm not a leftist. Slapping a lable on someone in order to change what they are saying is pretty lazy.