4 ms·
You are entitled to disagree me with me and take the opposite stance: that government should get involved in our lives even when what we are doing does not affe
by wallace_f 9y ago
You are entitled to disagree me with me and take the opposite stance: that government should get involved in our lives even when what we are doing does not affect another's rights.
- emodendroket 9y agoI don't think the idea that what we are doing does or doesn't affect another's rights is that clear-cut. What if I'm renting the place out? What about more abstract rights, like, I don't know, not having to smell rotting food you left out? The harm there isn't exactly direct and there's a judgment call as to what is reasonable and what is too far.
- wallace_f 9y agoIt's not at all clear cut, it's just the best starting point (in my eyes, the most moral starting point), and it is the starting point we have gone from. The fact it is not clear cut is why we have courts and history of law to draw from. Things like what you say, or such as building something on your property that destroys another person's view, were once taken to court, and the rulings established precedent. My point is that it's important to remember this is what we have been trying for all along, because sometimes that point gets missed.