4 ms·

That's the beauty of the concept of freedom. In a free society, we'd all be able to choose our own poison. Unfortunately, many who view it as an anti-feature

That's the beauty of the concept of freedom. In a free society, we'd all be able to choose our own poison. Unfortunately, many who view it as an anti-feature seek to prevent those who view it as a feature from making their own choice, either through regulation or outright bans.

Tijdreiziger 5y ago
If you take this argument to its logical conclusion, anarchism is the only form of free government. All laws and regulations necessarily take freedom away. That is the basis of the social contract: you aren’t free to harm others.
- StanislavPetrov 5y ago
  If you take this argument to its logical conclusion all laws and regulations are good and freedom does not exist. In reality the definition of "harm" and the laws and regulations that are necessary and desirable to mitigate these harms are very much up for debate. It is nakedly authoritarian for the government to restrict, at the point of a gun, consenting adults from choosing their own method of transaction.
  - Tijdreiziger 5y ago
    > If you take this argument to its logical conclusion all laws and regulations are good and freedom does not exist. This doesn’t check out. The existence of good laws doesn’t preclude the existence of (other) bad laws. > It is nakedly authoritarian for the government to restrict, at the point of a gun, consenting adults from choosing their own method of transaction. This doesn’t factor in negative externalities (e.g. climate impact).
- cf141q5325 5y ago
  >social contract Thats a bad case of framing. Contract implies willing participants and free choice. You have a story which with you justify forcing people around.
  - Tijdreiziger 5y ago
    > You have a story which with you justify forcing people around. I repeat: that’s the definition of the social contract. You are forced, by threat of violence, not to engage in harmful activities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
    - cf141q5325 5y ago
      You just repeated the wording of your story while ignoring my post entirely. 1) Contract implies consenting parties. Using the word in another capacity is a frame. It being a popular one doesnt change that. 2) Your actions entailing a lot more then just your declared intentions. As in your definition of harmful being quite broad. Or differently put, you have a story which with you justify forcing people around.
      - Tijdreiziger 5y ago
        Any contract must be backed up by force, or else it’s meaningless. As an example, if you enter into a legal contract, that contract is backed up by the threat of litigation (and by extension, force). If it weren’t, there wouldn’t be any incentive to obey it. And yes, I do believe that the consensus is that activities with an outsized climate impact are harmful.
        cf141q5325 5y ago
        IF you enter. There is the choice that is lacking is this case. Without the choice there is no contract, just the force. And if it were consensus you wouldnt have to force it. Both "contract" and "consensus" are nice frames for forcing people to do what you think is right. At least be honest about it.
        Tijdreiziger 5y ago
        If enough members of society disagree with the terms of the contract, they may vote in representatives who change those terms, or alternatively they may revolt and install new representatives that way (see e.g. the French Revolution, American Revolution or Arab Spring). If you instead hold the view that _every single individual_ should be able to opt out of the contract (i.e. should be able to choose not to be subject to the rule of law), then you go back to ‘anarchism is the only form of free government’, which is where we started this discussion 6 comments ago. QED.

Tijdreiziger 5y ago

If you take this argument to its logical conclusion, anarchism is the only form of free government. All laws and regulations necessarily take freedom away. That is the basis of the social contract: you aren’t free to harm others.

StanislavPetrov 5y ago
If you take this argument to its logical conclusion all laws and regulations are good and freedom does not exist. In reality the definition of "harm" and the laws and regulations that are necessary and desirable to mitigate these harms are very much up for debate. It is nakedly authoritarian for the government to restrict, at the point of a gun, consenting adults from choosing their own method of transaction.
- Tijdreiziger 5y ago
  > If you take this argument to its logical conclusion all laws and regulations are good and freedom does not exist. This doesn’t check out. The existence of good laws doesn’t preclude the existence of (other) bad laws. > It is nakedly authoritarian for the government to restrict, at the point of a gun, consenting adults from choosing their own method of transaction. This doesn’t factor in negative externalities (e.g. climate impact).
cf141q5325 5y ago
>social contract Thats a bad case of framing. Contract implies willing participants and free choice. You have a story which with you justify forcing people around.
- Tijdreiziger 5y ago
  > You have a story which with you justify forcing people around. I repeat: that’s the definition of the social contract. You are forced, by threat of violence, not to engage in harmful activities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
  - cf141q5325 5y ago
    You just repeated the wording of your story while ignoring my post entirely. 1) Contract implies consenting parties. Using the word in another capacity is a frame. It being a popular one doesnt change that. 2) Your actions entailing a lot more then just your declared intentions. As in your definition of harmful being quite broad. Or differently put, you have a story which with you justify forcing people around.
    - Tijdreiziger 5y ago
      Any contract must be backed up by force, or else it’s meaningless. As an example, if you enter into a legal contract, that contract is backed up by the threat of litigation (and by extension, force). If it weren’t, there wouldn’t be any incentive to obey it. And yes, I do believe that the consensus is that activities with an outsized climate impact are harmful.
      - cf141q5325 5y ago
        IF you enter. There is the choice that is lacking is this case. Without the choice there is no contract, just the force. And if it were consensus you wouldnt have to force it. Both "contract" and "consensus" are nice frames for forcing people to do what you think is right. At least be honest about it.
        Tijdreiziger 5y ago
        If enough members of society disagree with the terms of the contract, they may vote in representatives who change those terms, or alternatively they may revolt and install new representatives that way (see e.g. the French Revolution, American Revolution or Arab Spring). If you instead hold the view that _every single individual_ should be able to opt out of the contract (i.e. should be able to choose not to be subject to the rule of law), then you go back to ‘anarchism is the only form of free government’, which is where we started this discussion 6 comments ago. QED.