4 ms·

>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

>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.
  - anoncake 8y ago
    > Why shouldn't it be their right to lose their freedom if they choose so? No one of sound mind chooses to become an alcoholic. People might accept the risk in exchange for the effects or taste though, and taking that choice from them is a negative. > 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. The producers of alcohol are slaves to the market anyway. The reduced freedom of people who want to consume alcohol is an issue though. I dont know if restricting access to alcohol actually increases freedom. My point is that it is not obvious that it decreases freedom.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

>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.
- anoncake 8y ago
  > Why shouldn't it be their right to lose their freedom if they choose so? No one of sound mind chooses to become an alcoholic. People might accept the risk in exchange for the effects or taste though, and taking that choice from them is a negative. > 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. The producers of alcohol are slaves to the market anyway. The reduced freedom of people who want to consume alcohol is an issue though. I dont know if restricting access to alcohol actually increases freedom. My point is that it is not obvious that it decreases freedom.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]