4 ms·

> Although this had unfortunate consequences, and would be unthinkable in today's enlightened world, I'm not sure the line of reasoning here was unreasonable.

> Although this had unfortunate consequences, and would be unthinkable in today's enlightened world, I'm not sure the line of reasoning here was unreasonable. It is only reasonable for people who believe in social engineering of society to achieve some kind of betterment, even if that includes use of force or actually killing thousands of citizens by poisoning them. Let me be clear on this, these people that died as a result did nothing other than buying products in a free exchange. No alcohol or drug dealer put a gun to their head and forced them to buy and consume their products. This is not to say that I believe drugs are a good thing, it's just not my business to tell anyone what he or she should desire or not. There are many types of Collectivist ideologies out there that believe in engineering societal improvement and they all have one thing in common: They are authoritarian and disregard the free will of individuals. Some might poison products to kill off the undesired or use state force to prohibit certain products, some might send rebellious citizens that think "wrong" to re-education camps (Soviet Gulags) and some might even send them to extermination camps. (National Socialist from Germany) I reject all of that, I do not care in the slightest about what these Collectivists believe would be an enlightened society and how to bring that about. I'm an individual with personal interests and everyone should stay out of my business as long as I do not harm others. If you can convince me and others to freely restrict ourselves in a way that could improve society then I'm fine with that.

erichocean 10y ago
> I'm an individual with personal interests and everyone should stay out of my business as long as I do not harm others. While I'm sympathetic, I believe you mean "do not directly harm others". Many of the arguments people have are actually about indirect harm—virtually no-one argues that people should be able to directly harm others without provocation or fear of retaliation. And once you start talking about limiting or otherwise prohibiting/reducing "indirect" harms, things get MUCH more difficult to deal with and "live and let live" don't apply so much—again, assuming you want to do something about indirect harm at all (not everyone does).
- DominikR 10y ago
  Yes absolutely, I meant actions that directly harm others. The problem is that once you start going down the path to prohibit something that might indirectly cause harm you've basically given your government permission to ban anything they want to because they are always going to find some data that proves any action as indirectly harming someone somewhere. Today we even police people that cause harm to the feelings of others by saying something that the person disagrees with. Freedom of speech becomes pointless if you are only granting it to those who say things that do not offend anyone. That's the kind of freedom of speech that Stalin allowed in the Soviet Union. You may only say things that Stalin likes or that he isn't offended by. That's why I'm principled about this. Let instead courts determine such issues. If you can successfully prove in a court of law that you have been harmed then you have the right to claim damages. Others will take note of the result and adjust their behaviour accordingly.

erichocean 10y ago

> I'm an individual with personal interests and everyone should stay out of my business as long as I do not harm others. While I'm sympathetic, I believe you mean "do not directly harm others". Many of the arguments people have are actually about indirect harm—virtually no-one argues that people should be able to directly harm others without provocation or fear of retaliation. And once you start talking about limiting or otherwise prohibiting/reducing "indirect" harms, things get MUCH more difficult to deal with and "live and let live" don't apply so much—again, assuming you want to do something about indirect harm at all (not everyone does).

DominikR 10y ago
Yes absolutely, I meant actions that directly harm others. The problem is that once you start going down the path to prohibit something that might indirectly cause harm you've basically given your government permission to ban anything they want to because they are always going to find some data that proves any action as indirectly harming someone somewhere. Today we even police people that cause harm to the feelings of others by saying something that the person disagrees with. Freedom of speech becomes pointless if you are only granting it to those who say things that do not offend anyone. That's the kind of freedom of speech that Stalin allowed in the Soviet Union. You may only say things that Stalin likes or that he isn't offended by. That's why I'm principled about this. Let instead courts determine such issues. If you can successfully prove in a court of law that you have been harmed then you have the right to claim damages. Others will take note of the result and adjust their behaviour accordingly.