4 ms·

Adhering to axiomatic principles like self-ownership to the degree that you can justify scenarios like 'an addict legally selling their kidney' is a mistake. It

Adhering to axiomatic principles like self-ownership to the degree that you can justify scenarios like 'an addict legally selling their kidney' is a mistake. It's the equivalent of trying to stick to Newton's laws to explain the universe: they work great right up until there's a contradiction. I'm all for decriminalization of drugs and sex work, but another first principle is that society should protect the vulnerable. Sometimes, regulation will be the best tool for that. Other times, a deregulated market will be the best tool. Unfortunately, the world is complex. While our principles can guide us, each situation needs to be considered individually and the right set of tools needs to be selected after careful consideration.

CryptoPunk 7y ago
No court would consider the exchange you describe as consensual. The addict wouldn't be judged as having the capacity to provide consent. These issues should be decided by courts, after deliberating on the facts of individual cases, and not narratives that spread throughout the public due to the virality of simplistic generalizations that appeal to emotions.
sneak 7y ago
> Adhering to axiomatic principles like self-ownership to the degree that you can justify scenarios like 'an addict legally selling their kidney' is a mistake. It's the equivalent of trying to stick to Newton's laws to explain the universe: they work great right up until there's a contradiction. That is precisely when it's most needed! There is no entity on Earth that can make any better claim to authority over a person's kidney than the owner of that kidney. The fact that you call them an "addict" as a way to delegitimize their decisions is an appeal to emotion; but ultimately every person is the sole determining authority on their own kidneys, without exception. This is not something that the opinions of others have any bearing on. In fact, "in cases of addiction" is a good canary in this coal mine: it's frequently trotted out by people who think that circumstances—any circumstances—are legitimate reasons to override another person's self-determination about their own physical person or choices about which that harm no other party, in an appeal to "common sense". It's not! There isn’t a contradiction in an addict deciding to destroy themselves in continuing an addiction, and this decision is no more or less legitimately made than an addict deciding to cease their addiction. In all cases it is theirs alone to make. Many of my friends have made each choice. It is always theirs to make, and neither is correct and neither is incorrect—unless it is forced upon them against their will! It’s not a matter of “vulnerable”, or “decriminalization”, or “regulation”, or of markets. It is the basic philosophical premise that you don’t get to make these decisions for others unless you are willing to declare yourself their master and dominate them, using some handwaving excuse (e.g. "addiction") as justification for substituting your wishes for theirs—over their own body or choices. The fact that you may have widespread opinion supporting “people shouldn’t get addicted to drugs and destroy themselves” is irrelevant. No person can legitimately claim this power over another in any circumstance, especially and most importantly the extreme ones. Self-destruction of any kind, but, to use an example, euthanasia, is not only legitimate in the case of terminal illness, or when loved ones agree and empathize with it. It is every person's own right to determine what happens physically to their own body, at all times and in all circumstances. You’re using a lot of words and emotional context to dodge this plain and simple (and perhaps inconvenient) fact; the truth is, unfortunately, that such arguments have no moral basis, and are fundamentally immoral in that they violate consent. Our bodies are our own to destroy and mutilate in any way we see fit. To use force to impose your will over top of their own and prohibit someone from exercising that basic right of self-determination is the blackest of crimes against an adult human being; it is logically equivalent to raping them, in my view of the violation of consent that it opts to impose upon them. Please abandon this way of thinking, that you (or anyone else, or "society", or "government") are entitled to choices over the body of another person—for any reason, including and especially the ones you find disgusting, destructive, distasteful, or repugnant.
- helen___keller 7y ago
  This is a feels-good paragraph, but it does not apply to the real world we live in. Full and unlimited self-determination implies that all contracts made in any situation by an individual are valid. But not every contract is well-analyzed and well-considered and made in perfect information. If you are arguing that all contracts made by individuals are valid, even when in imperfect information, when not right of mind, etc, then I disagree with you. It may be a fundamental philosophical difference, but all your feels good "oh dont violate my right to self determination" seems weak if that person can't even properly comprehend the transaction they are making. If you are not arguing this then your entire argument falls apart: once we care about being right of mind, we can speak of restricting addicts or drunks from certain transactions. Once we care about imperfect information, we can restrict or remove usurious loans. Indeed, these basic ideas of what is a "valid" transaction give credence to to the language of "vulnerable people" and laws that aim to protect them from predatory transactions.

CryptoPunk 7y ago

No court would consider the exchange you describe as consensual. The addict wouldn't be judged as having the capacity to provide consent. These issues should be decided by courts, after deliberating on the facts of individual cases, and not narratives that spread throughout the public due to the virality of simplistic generalizations that appeal to emotions.

sneak 7y ago

> Adhering to axiomatic principles like self-ownership to the degree that you can justify scenarios like 'an addict legally selling their kidney' is a mistake. It's the equivalent of trying to stick to Newton's laws to explain the universe: they work great right up until there's a contradiction. That is precisely when it's most needed! There is no entity on Earth that can make any better claim to authority over a person's kidney than the owner of that kidney. The fact that you call them an "addict" as a way to delegitimize their decisions is an appeal to emotion; but ultimately every person is the sole determining authority on their own kidneys, without exception. This is not something that the opinions of others have any bearing on. In fact, "in cases of addiction" is a good canary in this coal mine: it's frequently trotted out by people who think that circumstances—any circumstances—are legitimate reasons to override another person's self-determination about their own physical person or choices about which that harm no other party, in an appeal to "common sense". It's not! There isn’t a contradiction in an addict deciding to destroy themselves in continuing an addiction, and this decision is no more or less legitimately made than an addict deciding to cease their addiction. In all cases it is theirs alone to make. Many of my friends have made each choice. It is always theirs to make, and neither is correct and neither is incorrect—unless it is forced upon them against their will! It’s not a matter of “vulnerable”, or “decriminalization”, or “regulation”, or of markets. It is the basic philosophical premise that you don’t get to make these decisions for others unless you are willing to declare yourself their master and dominate them, using some handwaving excuse (e.g. "addiction") as justification for substituting your wishes for theirs—over their own body or choices. The fact that you may have widespread opinion supporting “people shouldn’t get addicted to drugs and destroy themselves” is irrelevant. No person can legitimately claim this power over another in any circumstance, especially and most importantly the extreme ones. Self-destruction of any kind, but, to use an example, euthanasia, is not only legitimate in the case of terminal illness, or when loved ones agree and empathize with it. It is every person's own right to determine what happens physically to their own body, at all times and in all circumstances. You’re using a lot of words and emotional context to dodge this plain and simple (and perhaps inconvenient) fact; the truth is, unfortunately, that such arguments have no moral basis, and are fundamentally immoral in that they violate consent. Our bodies are our own to destroy and mutilate in any way we see fit. To use force to impose your will over top of their own and prohibit someone from exercising that basic right of self-determination is the blackest of crimes against an adult human being; it is logically equivalent to raping them, in my view of the violation of consent that it opts to impose upon them. Please abandon this way of thinking, that you (or anyone else, or "society", or "government") are entitled to choices over the body of another person—for any reason, including and especially the ones you find disgusting, destructive, distasteful, or repugnant.

helen___keller 7y ago
This is a feels-good paragraph, but it does not apply to the real world we live in. Full and unlimited self-determination implies that all contracts made in any situation by an individual are valid. But not every contract is well-analyzed and well-considered and made in perfect information. If you are arguing that all contracts made by individuals are valid, even when in imperfect information, when not right of mind, etc, then I disagree with you. It may be a fundamental philosophical difference, but all your feels good "oh dont violate my right to self determination" seems weak if that person can't even properly comprehend the transaction they are making. If you are not arguing this then your entire argument falls apart: once we care about being right of mind, we can speak of restricting addicts or drunks from certain transactions. Once we care about imperfect information, we can restrict or remove usurious loans. Indeed, these basic ideas of what is a "valid" transaction give credence to to the language of "vulnerable people" and laws that aim to protect them from predatory transactions.