4 ms·
It turns out the state can restrict what you say, what you do with your body, what you ingest, and all the rest. This is demonstrably true to anyone with a pass
by debatem1 3y ago
It turns out the state can restrict what you say, what you do with your body, what you ingest, and all the rest. This is demonstrably true to anyone with a passing familiarity with the criminal justice system.
- sneak 3y agoNot in my experience. Nobody really agrees with the state here, and their restrictions are ignored by everyone (when it comes to their own body). The people who support these restrictions support them only when applied to the bodies of other people. https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/ https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-... My question was not what authorities the state claims - my question is about upon what moral or philosophical basis such claims would be morally justified. I am of course aware the state claims such authority. I am also aware that they further claim the authority to enslave me, arm me, ship me across the earth, and execute or imprison me if I then refuse to commit murder on their behalf. The state claiming an authority does not actually provide them with a moral basis to do so. On what reasonable moral basis could anyone claim the authority to strip someone of their rights to final disposition over their own body?
- dr_dshiv 3y agoWell, a murderer is just having an experience and moving their body, right? So obviously there are restrictions in the case where one’s internal experiences lead to actions that affect others. Even for actions like suicide there are negative externalities. Hence the need for regulation.