3 ms·
The state doesn't need to do anything at all. If people are drinking themselves to death, that is within their rights. I'm pretty concerned with how utilitaria
by ralusek 4y ago
The state doesn't need to do anything at all. If people are drinking themselves to death, that is within their rights.
I'm pretty concerned with how utilitarian and authoritarian our populations are getting. The state should be the last tool we reach to, and only for the meditation of severe and direct negative third party externalities (i.e. reasonable case for laws regarding drunk driving).
- paulryanrogers 4y agoTechnically people have a right to die by alcohol, yet there are circumstances where society has a case for intervention. Drinkers who insist on driving, alcoholic parents, and military or public servants are a few that spring to mind. Though I imagine most such cases are already illegal. Yet if the person's goal is suicide they have other means, should alcohol become too expensive.
- ralusek 4y agoI addressed this point in my comment. > The state should be the last tool we reach to, and only for the meditation of severe and direct negative third party externalities (i.e. reasonable case for laws regarding drunk driving).
- DanBC 4y ago> If people are drinking themselves to death, that is within their rights. Addiction is rarely a choice. Alcohol producers should pay for the costs of the harms they cause rather than off-loading those costs onto the state.
- andrewjl 4y ago> If people are drinking themselves to death, that is within their rights. Not when they do this while operating heavy machinery or a motor vehicle. What approach besides policy would you take to deal with third party externalities?
- ralusek 4y agoFrom my comment > The state should be the last tool we reach to, and only for the meditation of severe and direct negative third party externalities (i.e. reasonable case for laws regarding drunk driving).