3 ms·

> surely society benefits if we prevent a large number of our members from falling prey to addiction. how does society benefit from prohibiting people from doi

> surely society benefits if we prevent a large number of our members from falling prey to addiction. how does society benefit from prohibiting people from doing things that only hurt themselves?

tkxxx7 8y ago
what do you mean by this? those people are a part of society too..
bjelkeman-again 8y ago
But many people are part of a family or a group of people in some way, and gambling, alcohol, drugs “that only hurt themselves” tend to also hurt other people. If we are going to be liberal, we also need to ensure society as a whole isn’t damaged in the process. War on drugs, as an example, have more or less destroyed other countries. Legalised drugs are probably better, but could be taxed and those with problems should be treated as they have a sickness. Gambling could be state run and be handled the same way.
jandrese 8y ago
The problem is when they have dependents. As a society we have decided that it is a bridge too far to make people pass a test before they can procreate/own pets/etc... so we have to make sure that most of them will be able to maintain their responsibility via lots of bans and regulations.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  if dependents are the issue, why not only make it illegal for people who claim dependents on their tax return? or better yet, just make it illegal to neglect your dependents. I don't have any dependents myself. why do you care if I spend all my money?
  - jandrese 8y ago
    The tax thing doesn't make any sense at all so I'll ignore it. Making it illegal to neglect your dependents is already codified into law in a couple of places, like alimony, but a general purpose law runs into the problem of defining neglect and enforcing it. It's the sort of thing that is a total mess in the courts with an endless parade of he-said she-said cases.
vkou 8y ago
A retired fireman pissing his life savings away into a slot machine hurts me, because now I have to either support him, or deal with him sleeping between the dumpsters, in my building's back alley. Slot machines are a hack that exploits human psychology, to the loss of everyone, and the benefit of... Casino owners. I understand that people want to gamble. I also think that it should be aggressively discouraged.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  > A retired fireman pissing his life savings away into a slot machine hurts me, because now I have to either support him, or deal with him sleeping between the dumpsters, in my building's back alley. how about instead of trying to protect him from his own mistakes like a child, you just let go of the need to take care of people who willfully mess their lives up? > I understand that people want to gamble. I also think that it should be aggressively discouraged. nothing wrong with having an opinion. I'm just asking you to use your words instead of appealing to state power.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - danaris 8y ago
    "Are there no prisons? No workhouses? Let them go there!" "But many would rather die than go there!" "If they would rather die, then let them get on with it! And decrease the surplus population!" > how about instead of trying to protect him from his own mistakes like a child, you just let go of the need to take care of people who willfully mess their lives up? Because a civilized, compassionate society takes care of all its members, no matter how broken they are. And because, furthermore, various studies have shown it to be cheaper to address problems like this before they get that bad than it is to let someone fall through the cracks. At that point, they're likely to be a cost to society in different ways, whether it's due to crime or just the trouble of cleaning up after them. "State power" isn't a swear word. It's a highly effective solution to a great many societal problems, when exercised sensibly.
EpicEng 8y ago
It doesn't only hurt themselves. They are tax paying citizens and the government has an interest in their welfare. They may have dependents. Now Timmy can't go to college because Dad blew their savings. They get a divorce, now mom and dad are depressed and Timmy enters a life of crime (or, less hyperbolic; doesn't make as much taxable revenue as he could have otherwise.) There are all sorts of laws which protect people from themselves, this is nothing new. See; seatbelt laws for an obvious and simple example.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  > There are all sorts of laws which protect people from themselves, this is nothing new. See; seatbelt laws for an obvious and simple example. and they are all a grotesque overextension of state power. although seatbelt laws are actually not a good example; they protect people outside your vehicle as well. I guess we just have different values. I don't want to be a revenue center for the state to optimize.
  - ciupicri 8y ago
    How do seatbealts protect people outside the vehicle?
    - leetcrew 8y ago
      see int_9h's post. in the event of a crash, unrestrained passengers can hit other people in the car or go through the windshield.
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    >and they are all a grotesque overextension of state power Well, that's certainly a valid viewpoint, but secondary (and primary) seat belt laws have saved a staggering number of lives. You're correct that it's perhaps not the best example as the driver and occupants can turn into projectiles and harm others, but the vast majority of deaths and injuries come to those not wearing a seat belt[1]. >I don't want to be a revenue center for the state to optimize It's not about being a 'profit center' for a host of corrupt politicians. We can debate what tax money should be spent on, or the rate at which they are levied, but I imagine we would both agree that taxes themselves are necessary for the maintenance of a healthy society. Your life is better when those around you are healthy and productive. None of us exist in a vacuum. [1]: https://web.stanford.edu/~leinav/pubs/RESTAT2003.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/~leinav/pubs/RESTAT2003.pdf
MRD85 8y ago
Not only does it hurt far more people than yourself, but a lot of behaviours defined as "only hurting yourself" have negative consequences for everyone. Take drug use, for example. Some people want legalisation under the pretence that it only hurts yourself. Someone sitting at home smoking ice has a risk that they are going to leave their home and participate in behaviour that puts other innocent people in danger, such as driving a vehicle while high. If a large number of people in an area become problem gamblers then it will lead to issues that affect everyone in the area, not just the gamblers. Who shoulders the cost of this?

> surely society benefits if we prevent a large number of our members from falling prey to addiction. how does society benefit from prohibiting people from doing things that only hurt themselves?

tkxxx7 8y ago

what do you mean by this? those people are a part of society too..

bjelkeman-again 8y ago

But many people are part of a family or a group of people in some way, and gambling, alcohol, drugs “that only hurt themselves” tend to also hurt other people. If we are going to be liberal, we also need to ensure society as a whole isn’t damaged in the process. War on drugs, as an example, have more or less destroyed other countries. Legalised drugs are probably better, but could be taxed and those with problems should be treated as they have a sickness. Gambling could be state run and be handled the same way.

jandrese 8y ago

The problem is when they have dependents. As a society we have decided that it is a bridge too far to make people pass a test before they can procreate/own pets/etc... so we have to make sure that most of them will be able to maintain their responsibility via lots of bans and regulations.

leetcrew 8y ago
if dependents are the issue, why not only make it illegal for people who claim dependents on their tax return? or better yet, just make it illegal to neglect your dependents. I don't have any dependents myself. why do you care if I spend all my money?
- jandrese 8y ago
  The tax thing doesn't make any sense at all so I'll ignore it. Making it illegal to neglect your dependents is already codified into law in a couple of places, like alimony, but a general purpose law runs into the problem of defining neglect and enforcing it. It's the sort of thing that is a total mess in the courts with an endless parade of he-said she-said cases.

vkou 8y ago

A retired fireman pissing his life savings away into a slot machine hurts me, because now I have to either support him, or deal with him sleeping between the dumpsters, in my building's back alley. Slot machines are a hack that exploits human psychology, to the loss of everyone, and the benefit of... Casino owners. I understand that people want to gamble. I also think that it should be aggressively discouraged.

leetcrew 8y ago
> A retired fireman pissing his life savings away into a slot machine hurts me, because now I have to either support him, or deal with him sleeping between the dumpsters, in my building's back alley. how about instead of trying to protect him from his own mistakes like a child, you just let go of the need to take care of people who willfully mess their lives up? > I understand that people want to gamble. I also think that it should be aggressively discouraged. nothing wrong with having an opinion. I'm just asking you to use your words instead of appealing to state power.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- danaris 8y ago
  "Are there no prisons? No workhouses? Let them go there!" "But many would rather die than go there!" "If they would rather die, then let them get on with it! And decrease the surplus population!" > how about instead of trying to protect him from his own mistakes like a child, you just let go of the need to take care of people who willfully mess their lives up? Because a civilized, compassionate society takes care of all its members, no matter how broken they are. And because, furthermore, various studies have shown it to be cheaper to address problems like this before they get that bad than it is to let someone fall through the cracks. At that point, they're likely to be a cost to society in different ways, whether it's due to crime or just the trouble of cleaning up after them. "State power" isn't a swear word. It's a highly effective solution to a great many societal problems, when exercised sensibly.

EpicEng 8y ago

It doesn't only hurt themselves. They are tax paying citizens and the government has an interest in their welfare. They may have dependents. Now Timmy can't go to college because Dad blew their savings. They get a divorce, now mom and dad are depressed and Timmy enters a life of crime (or, less hyperbolic; doesn't make as much taxable revenue as he could have otherwise.) There are all sorts of laws which protect people from themselves, this is nothing new. See; seatbelt laws for an obvious and simple example.

leetcrew 8y ago
> There are all sorts of laws which protect people from themselves, this is nothing new. See; seatbelt laws for an obvious and simple example. and they are all a grotesque overextension of state power. although seatbelt laws are actually not a good example; they protect people outside your vehicle as well. I guess we just have different values. I don't want to be a revenue center for the state to optimize.
- ciupicri 8y ago
  How do seatbealts protect people outside the vehicle?
  - leetcrew 8y ago
    see int_9h's post. in the event of a crash, unrestrained passengers can hit other people in the car or go through the windshield.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  >and they are all a grotesque overextension of state power Well, that's certainly a valid viewpoint, but secondary (and primary) seat belt laws have saved a staggering number of lives. You're correct that it's perhaps not the best example as the driver and occupants can turn into projectiles and harm others, but the vast majority of deaths and injuries come to those not wearing a seat belt[1]. >I don't want to be a revenue center for the state to optimize It's not about being a 'profit center' for a host of corrupt politicians. We can debate what tax money should be spent on, or the rate at which they are levied, but I imagine we would both agree that taxes themselves are necessary for the maintenance of a healthy society. Your life is better when those around you are healthy and productive. None of us exist in a vacuum. [1]: https://web.stanford.edu/~leinav/pubs/RESTAT2003.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/~leinav/pubs/RESTAT2003.pdf

MRD85 8y ago

Not only does it hurt far more people than yourself, but a lot of behaviours defined as "only hurting yourself" have negative consequences for everyone. Take drug use, for example. Some people want legalisation under the pretence that it only hurts yourself. Someone sitting at home smoking ice has a risk that they are going to leave their home and participate in behaviour that puts other innocent people in danger, such as driving a vehicle while high. If a large number of people in an area become problem gamblers then it will lead to issues that affect everyone in the area, not just the gamblers. Who shoulders the cost of this?