My logic on state intervention.

1« Previous thread | Next thread »
- Iraqi Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
My logic on state intervention.
OP - February 17, 2010, 03:10 AM

Like I said before this is how I view state intervention in any context, I look for three things: no harm to others - adulthood - consent. If the three are established then the state has no right to interfere.

In fact even if you're actually harming someone (directly or indirectly), the state can't intervene as long as adulthood and mutual consent are established.
If you're harming an individual, the first question is, is this individual an adult? if no then the state jumps in. If yes then we have to establish consent. Of course to verify consent we have to establish two things which are sufficient cognitive capacity and no reasonable doubt of coercion. If all established the state must back off regardless of the circumstances.
Wanna sell heroin to a friend? wanna have your doctor cut off your middle toe? as long as all are adults and there is mutual consent, then go right ahead.
In the case of parents' right to control their childrens' education, neither adulthood or consent is established so the parents better not "harm" the children or the state jumps in.

As for self-harm, if you're harming yourself then we have to check your mental capacity. If you're OK then proceed. Wanna eat 20 cheeseburgers a day, cut your dick off, or jump off a bridge? go fucking nuts !!
The state can warn that this might result in suspending your welfare benefits but we can't prevent you from doing it.
How can we draw the boundaries you might ask? do serious heroin addicts have sufficient mental capacity? well we can argue about that.
What we can't argue about is whether we should prevent a heavy smoker from smoking. We simply can't. We can offer advise and threaten to cut their health care but that's just about it.
Similarly we shouldn't prevent an adult emo girl from cutting herself or prevent a perfectly sane individual from committing suicide.

Now I have 2 questions:
-On the whole, is my logic fucked-up?
-Can you think of a scenario where my logic won't work?
- deusvult
- O......O
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: My logic on state intervention.
Reply #1 - February 17, 2010, 04:44 AM

That is the general idea of the libertarian philosophy in the US. It does remove a lot of the usless enforcment that goes on such as prohibitions against prostitution, and against drugs. For instance, in prostitution there is a voluntary exchange between two ( or more ) people. There isn't any need to prohibit it. Same with drugs or gay marriage. The displine comes in where people agree to do things that you find personally disagreeable such as the Shar'ia marrage contract. As long as both parties are aware of the conditions, according to the philosophy, there isn't anything anyone could do legally.

So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
My political philosophy below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
Just kidding, here are some true heros
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
- BerberElla
- Class A'sexual
- Creator Goddess
- offline
Re: My logic on state intervention.
Reply #2 - February 17, 2010, 09:47 AM

Wouldn't the 18yr old daughter who wanted to kill herself being cause harm to the mother? severe psychological harm? Regardless of how much in her right mind the state thought she was in when making this decision, if not for health reasons as in she is dying painfully, then doesn't the selfishness of suicide cause harm?

Reverse, mum kills herself, no state intervention because it's within her right, but leaving 3 orphans behind who from that mere act of abandonment have suffered long lasting harm?

There is no such thing as an ideal world, as ideally I'd like to support you, because ideally all those choices cause no harm to others and everyone is in their right mind etc etc, but real life never mirrors this.

Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
- deusvult
- O......O
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: My logic on state intervention.
Reply #3 - February 17, 2010, 09:11 PM

True, but at what point can you look at a person's actions and say that their right to preform an action outweighs the effects it has on others? Most problems with Iraqi Atheist's framework will come out of dependence type of situations. If we talk strictly of people of equal independence then I have found that there usually isn't a lot of problems. For instance, someone should be free to do drugs if their use doesn't directly harm others ( though robbery but if it effects their job performance they could be fired), or two men or two women should be allowed to marry because their actions don't directly harm another. When we start talking about asymmetric relationships such as parent-children relationships is where a person's right to do as they wish breaks down, at least in the sense of "doing the right thing".

As always, there isn't a magic bullet ( if there was then religion would be true )

So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
My political philosophy below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
Just kidding, here are some true heros
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
- Iraqi Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: My logic on state intervention.
Reply #4 - February 17, 2010, 11:07 PM

Quote from: BerberElla on February 17, 2010, 09:47 AM
Wouldn't the 18yr old daughter who wanted to kill herself being cause harm to the mother? severe psychological harm? Regardless of how much in her right mind the state thought she was in when making this decision, if not for health reasons as in she is dying painfully, then doesn't the selfishness of suicide cause harm?

It will cause psychological harm to her mom but that in itself doesn't constitute an infringement on the rights of the mother.

Quote from: BerberElla on February 17, 2010, 09:47 AM
Reverse, mum kills herself, no state intervention because it's within her right, but leaving 3 orphans behind who from that mere act of abandonment have suffered long lasting harm?

In this case the mother is violating the rights of her kids so it is debatable.

Quote from: BerberElla on February 17, 2010, 09:47 AM
There is no such thing as an ideal world, as ideally I'd like to support you, because ideally all those choices cause no harm to others and everyone is in their right mind etc etc, but real life never mirrors this.

Well yes we are discussing abstract concepts but still, saying this logic never mirrors real life is one of the biggest overstatements I have ever read.
1« Previous thread | Next thread »