5 ms·

>Restricting access to alcohol can actually make society freer if it reduces the number of alcoholics. That's a pretty scary way of thinking. I don't want to a

>Restricting access to alcohol can actually make society freer if it reduces the number of alcoholics. That's a pretty scary way of thinking. I don't want to attack a strawman here, but it looks like you're trying to reverse the definition of "freer" to be the opposite of what most would think it is.

fwip 8y ago
All regulations or laws reduce some measure of freedom, but are enacted to protect freedom on the whole. For an obvious example, banning slavery restricts the freedom of slavers, but vastly increases the freedom of freed slaves.
- noarchy 8y ago
  The example you've cited, while good food for thought, is an example of replacing one horrendous law (slavery was once backed by the force of law in the US) with an admittedly much better law.
  - anoncake 8y ago
    You dont need a separate law for slavery to exist. If 1. freedom of contract is unrestricted and 2. parents are allowed to make decisions for their children and enter contracts in their name, then: * Someone can sell themselves into, or otherwise enter, slavery. * When that slave has a child, the owner can order them to enter a contract in the childs name that makes the child a slave. Serfdom started in a similar manner, at least in some places: A free peasant agreed to become a serf in exchange for protection, then their descendants inherited that status.
anoncake 8y ago
Arguments tend to get weaker if you omit half of them. In what useful sense does an alcoholic have the freedom not to drink?
- noarchy 8y ago
  >Arguments tend to get weaker if you omit half of them. You made two arguments, of which I responded to one as I considered them to be quite separate. >In what useful sense does an alcoholic have the freedom not to drink? If alcoholics have no agency (which is a matter of some dispute as I understand it), then freedom (as most would understand it) isn't an issue for them anyway. It is for the rest of us (society).
  - anoncake 8y ago
    > You made two arguments False. > If alcoholics have no agency (which is a matter of some dispute as I understand it), then freedom (as most would understand it) isn't an issue for them anyway. It is for the rest of us (society). You are evading the question.
    - noarchy 8y ago
      >False. Ok, well we'll disagree on that. >You are evading the question. I don't think I did at all. It is likely that we're just not going to see eye to eye on this one.
      - anoncake 8y ago
        > Ok, well we'll disagree on that. I know what I wanted to express less than an hour ago. How can you possibly disagree with me on that? By the way: My argument is that being an alcoholic makes one less free (they can come to the conclusion that they should stop drinking and make that decision, but being addicts, they cannot follow through). By preventing people from becoming alcoholics, you prevent them from losing their freedom, thus making society as a whole freer. I thought it was obvious the way I phrased it, but apparently I was mistaken. Sorry for that. > I don't think I did at all. It is likely that we're just not going to see eye to eye on this one. Agreed.
        AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
        > By preventing people from becoming alcoholics, you prevent them from losing their freedom Why shouldn't it be their right to lose their freedom if they choose so? Even if you argued that it should not be their right to control their body you would still also have to argue that the side-effect (which restricts the freedom of people that produce alcohol in a way that leads to everyone having to pay much higher prices) is acceptable.
seventhtiger 8y ago
It's not scary at all. It's the tradeoff we've always been making. Restricting access to slavery made society freer. Not giving anyone the freedom to buy and sell human beings actually made everyone much more free. In the practical sense there are many freedoms which if they are restricted produce a net gain in freedom. Imminent domain encroaches on freedom to own land, but think of how much freedom a highway gives people. When the government forces everyone to pay tax for national healthcare, it gives every single citizen much more freedom. Freedom from alcohol's harms vs freedom to consume alcohol is a typical, valid, discussion to negotiate societal vs individual freedoms.
- noarchy 8y ago
  >Restricting access to slavery made society freer. You mean removing the laws that enforced slavery made society freer? Because slavery in North America, at least, was backed by law. It took government to make slavery possible. >Examples of government-backed theft (property and money) We don't see freedom the same way. We will not agree on this matter.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Because slavery in North America, at least, was backed by law. It took government to make slavery possible. This is true in the sense that property rights always depend on law and the government making the law.
    - noarchy 8y ago
      >This is true in the sense that property rights always depend on law and the government making the law. This rebuttal is getting recycled so often that I nearly addressed it before anyone said it. But since you've said it, I'll say that it is true only to the extent that government holds a monopoly over dispute resolution in matters of property. As it stands, indeed, any kind of ownership is dubious, considering that many are required to pay what amounts to rent (property tax), or lose their land. This is on top of the ability of the state to simply take land and other forms of property, based on whatever the local legal system allows (eminent domain, asset forfeiture, etc). I'd add that this isn't necessarily an easy problem to solve, so I don't propose that anyone has a utopian answer to it all.

fwip 8y ago

All regulations or laws reduce some measure of freedom, but are enacted to protect freedom on the whole. For an obvious example, banning slavery restricts the freedom of slavers, but vastly increases the freedom of freed slaves.

noarchy 8y ago
The example you've cited, while good food for thought, is an example of replacing one horrendous law (slavery was once backed by the force of law in the US) with an admittedly much better law.
- anoncake 8y ago
  You dont need a separate law for slavery to exist. If 1. freedom of contract is unrestricted and 2. parents are allowed to make decisions for their children and enter contracts in their name, then: * Someone can sell themselves into, or otherwise enter, slavery. * When that slave has a child, the owner can order them to enter a contract in the childs name that makes the child a slave. Serfdom started in a similar manner, at least in some places: A free peasant agreed to become a serf in exchange for protection, then their descendants inherited that status.

anoncake 8y ago

Arguments tend to get weaker if you omit half of them. In what useful sense does an alcoholic have the freedom not to drink?

noarchy 8y ago
>Arguments tend to get weaker if you omit half of them. You made two arguments, of which I responded to one as I considered them to be quite separate. >In what useful sense does an alcoholic have the freedom not to drink? If alcoholics have no agency (which is a matter of some dispute as I understand it), then freedom (as most would understand it) isn't an issue for them anyway. It is for the rest of us (society).
- anoncake 8y ago
  > You made two arguments False. > If alcoholics have no agency (which is a matter of some dispute as I understand it), then freedom (as most would understand it) isn't an issue for them anyway. It is for the rest of us (society). You are evading the question.
  - noarchy 8y ago
    >False. Ok, well we'll disagree on that. >You are evading the question. I don't think I did at all. It is likely that we're just not going to see eye to eye on this one.
    - anoncake 8y ago
      > Ok, well we'll disagree on that. I know what I wanted to express less than an hour ago. How can you possibly disagree with me on that? By the way: My argument is that being an alcoholic makes one less free (they can come to the conclusion that they should stop drinking and make that decision, but being addicts, they cannot follow through). By preventing people from becoming alcoholics, you prevent them from losing their freedom, thus making society as a whole freer. I thought it was obvious the way I phrased it, but apparently I was mistaken. Sorry for that. > I don't think I did at all. It is likely that we're just not going to see eye to eye on this one. Agreed.
      - AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
        > By preventing people from becoming alcoholics, you prevent them from losing their freedom Why shouldn't it be their right to lose their freedom if they choose so? Even if you argued that it should not be their right to control their body you would still also have to argue that the side-effect (which restricts the freedom of people that produce alcohol in a way that leads to everyone having to pay much higher prices) is acceptable.

seventhtiger 8y ago

It's not scary at all. It's the tradeoff we've always been making. Restricting access to slavery made society freer. Not giving anyone the freedom to buy and sell human beings actually made everyone much more free. In the practical sense there are many freedoms which if they are restricted produce a net gain in freedom. Imminent domain encroaches on freedom to own land, but think of how much freedom a highway gives people. When the government forces everyone to pay tax for national healthcare, it gives every single citizen much more freedom. Freedom from alcohol's harms vs freedom to consume alcohol is a typical, valid, discussion to negotiate societal vs individual freedoms.

noarchy 8y ago
>Restricting access to slavery made society freer. You mean removing the laws that enforced slavery made society freer? Because slavery in North America, at least, was backed by law. It took government to make slavery possible. >Examples of government-backed theft (property and money) We don't see freedom the same way. We will not agree on this matter.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Because slavery in North America, at least, was backed by law. It took government to make slavery possible. This is true in the sense that property rights always depend on law and the government making the law.
  - noarchy 8y ago
    >This is true in the sense that property rights always depend on law and the government making the law. This rebuttal is getting recycled so often that I nearly addressed it before anyone said it. But since you've said it, I'll say that it is true only to the extent that government holds a monopoly over dispute resolution in matters of property. As it stands, indeed, any kind of ownership is dubious, considering that many are required to pay what amounts to rent (property tax), or lose their land. This is on top of the ability of the state to simply take land and other forms of property, based on whatever the local legal system allows (eminent domain, asset forfeiture, etc). I'd add that this isn't necessarily an easy problem to solve, so I don't propose that anyone has a utopian answer to it all.