4 ms·

There is simply a massive difference between the theory of democracy and its actual implementation. Your personal autonomy is restricted by the government, mass

There is simply a massive difference between the theory of democracy and its actual implementation. Your personal autonomy is restricted by the government, massively, period, generally for everyone's own good. They decide what and how much medicine you can put in your body. Whether you can gamble, and where, and on what, and how much. What drugs you can take. What speed you can drive. Whether you must go to school or not based on your age. Which food you can buy at the supermarket. What you are allowed to see on television. Where and when you may protest. What behavior is allowed in public and what is not. What speech is considered 'free' and what isn't. What machines you may operate and under what circumstances. Which financial transactions you may or may not participate in and the terms of those transactions. The type of home you build and it's specifications. Which countries you may or may not enter and under which circumstances. Whether you are allowed to work or not. It's just the way things are.

stale2002 9y ago
Yeah, it is just the way thing are. And till now, you had no other option. But it looks like things are changing with regards to finance. Because now, it is going to be much more difficult for the government to regulate your financial activities. The "way things are" is changing, and changing for the better. Don't like it? Then the government can send in its men with guns and attempt to stop it. The technology is getting better and better, though. So it will soon become extremely difficult for those men with guns to do anything at all with your untraceable, untraceable, and unstoppable financial activities. May the best group win. The government will need all the luck it can get.
Jabanga 9y ago
>Your personal autonomy is restricted by the government, massively, period, generally for everyone's own good. They decide what and how much medicine you can put in your body. Whether you can gamble, and where, and on what, and how much. What drugs you can take. What speed you can drive. Whether you must go to school or not based on your age. Which food you can buy at the supermarket. These restrictions violate people's basic rights and are to the material detriment of society at large. The more of a regulatory burden is placed on an industry, the more dysfunctional, bureaucratic and nepotistic it is.
- cheetos 9y ago
  I truly hope that human drivers' "right" to drive at whatever speed they want is forever trampled by regulatory burden.
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    You do not have a right to speed on public property because others share ownership in it, and thus have a legitimate right to contribute to the rules that govern its use. If you owned your own private track, you would have such a right.
- jpetso 9y ago
  Basic rights are defined by various charters, constitutions, international agreements, and that's about it. If you find that one of those restrictions contradicts the ones applicable to your country and legal system, you have a good shot at changing it. (Point in case: gay marriage, and other Supreme Court rulings.) As for all other rights, those are determined by the government that is democratically voted in. If most people, via their elected representatives, decide that you shouldn't be allowed to speed, or smoke crack, and it's not constitutionally guaranteed, then it's not a basic right and it's not your right at all. Maybe moral right, but that depends on highly subjective morals and might therefore still get you into legal trouble. Best course of action is probably to find a country with a legal framework that matches your morals. If there's no such country, perhaps the time for these ideas hasn't come and you want to lobby for them to be recognized as basic rights, since right now they're obviously not.
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    >Maybe moral right, but that depends on highly subjective morals and might therefore still get you into legal trouble. We're intelligent human beings. We should be able to arrive at some kind of consensus on what our moral rights our, through rational discourse. That's what I'm trying to do right now. My argument starts with what "the law" means: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforcing-the-law-is-inherently-violent/488828/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforci...

stale2002 9y ago

Yeah, it is just the way thing are. And till now, you had no other option. But it looks like things are changing with regards to finance. Because now, it is going to be much more difficult for the government to regulate your financial activities. The "way things are" is changing, and changing for the better. Don't like it? Then the government can send in its men with guns and attempt to stop it. The technology is getting better and better, though. So it will soon become extremely difficult for those men with guns to do anything at all with your untraceable, untraceable, and unstoppable financial activities. May the best group win. The government will need all the luck it can get.

Jabanga 9y ago

>Your personal autonomy is restricted by the government, massively, period, generally for everyone's own good. They decide what and how much medicine you can put in your body. Whether you can gamble, and where, and on what, and how much. What drugs you can take. What speed you can drive. Whether you must go to school or not based on your age. Which food you can buy at the supermarket. These restrictions violate people's basic rights and are to the material detriment of society at large. The more of a regulatory burden is placed on an industry, the more dysfunctional, bureaucratic and nepotistic it is.

cheetos 9y ago
I truly hope that human drivers' "right" to drive at whatever speed they want is forever trampled by regulatory burden.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  You do not have a right to speed on public property because others share ownership in it, and thus have a legitimate right to contribute to the rules that govern its use. If you owned your own private track, you would have such a right.
jpetso 9y ago
Basic rights are defined by various charters, constitutions, international agreements, and that's about it. If you find that one of those restrictions contradicts the ones applicable to your country and legal system, you have a good shot at changing it. (Point in case: gay marriage, and other Supreme Court rulings.) As for all other rights, those are determined by the government that is democratically voted in. If most people, via their elected representatives, decide that you shouldn't be allowed to speed, or smoke crack, and it's not constitutionally guaranteed, then it's not a basic right and it's not your right at all. Maybe moral right, but that depends on highly subjective morals and might therefore still get you into legal trouble. Best course of action is probably to find a country with a legal framework that matches your morals. If there's no such country, perhaps the time for these ideas hasn't come and you want to lobby for them to be recognized as basic rights, since right now they're obviously not.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  >Maybe moral right, but that depends on highly subjective morals and might therefore still get you into legal trouble. We're intelligent human beings. We should be able to arrive at some kind of consensus on what our moral rights our, through rational discourse. That's what I'm trying to do right now. My argument starts with what "the law" means: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforcing-the-law-is-inherently-violent/488828/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforci...