11 ms·
That's literally what the German government is doing. They are giving you back the choice, without the threat of punishment. I get that you're an anarchist or
by RIMR 3y ago
That's literally what the German government is doing. They are giving you back the choice, without the threat of punishment.
I get that you're an anarchist or whatever, but repealing prohibition laws shouldn't be something you argue against just because you disagree with the concept of laws as a whole.
That said, if you think that a lawless society would afford you any freedom, you are entirely mistaken.
- verisimi 3y agoBy what means does a government have the ability to a/ take choice away, b/ give it back? Is it a moral consensus, if it is backed by force? It's simply that the whole thing is an illusion agreed upon. Or rather, stumbled into, educated into, assumed! There's no agreed consensus. Is it ok to mislead people into false beliefs? > if you think that a lawless society would afford you any freedom, you are entirely mistaken. Why not? I could return the question, and ask, how do you think a lawbound state will give you freedom? Has it ever done anything other than bind individuals?
- oneeyedpigeon 3y agoA lawbound state gives me the freedom to live my life without being murdered by someone who knows there are no repercussions for doing so. If you think there is a good reason to allow murder, then please explain what that is. I do agree with you that many laws are overreaching, like those that prevent me from doing something with no negative effect on anyone else, just like the law we're discussing here.
- verisimi 3y agoTo talk about 'murder', is to talk in terms of the provided lawbook - 'murder' is a criminal term. You are unable to think neutrally, your frame of reference itself has been determined for you. The term you mean I think is 'killing'. Do you really think it is the state that is giving you freedom to live your life though? Or, could it be, that the state enables millions of immoral transgressions (tax aka stealing, etc) and calls them "right" or "good"?
- oneeyedpigeon 3y ago> The term you mean I think is 'killing'. Not quite; I would distinguish between killing someone against their will and not, for a start. The term "murder" does exactly that. > the state enables millions of immoral transgressions I don't disagree with that, but it doesn't contradict my original point.
- johnisgood 3y agoI think if it is only the laws that are keeping people from killing each other, we are in big trouble.
- retsibsi 3y agoWho said 'only'? The threat of punishment is not needed to prevent most people from killing, most of the time. But it sure does help in some edge cases!
- johnisgood 3y agoAnd what makes you think that there would be no threat of punishment in say, an anti-statist society?
- retsibsi 3y agoI was responding to the line "if it is only the laws that are keeping people from killing each other, we are in big trouble". My point is that clearly it's not only the laws (and the parent commenter never claimed so), but they do help. Sure you can replace the current system of laws & law enforcement with something else. (And if you tore down the state, something would certainly fill that power vacuum.) But then you have to grapple with basically all the same problems.
- johnisgood 3y ago> My point is that clearly it's not only the laws (and the parent commenter never claimed so), but they do help. Well, I agree with that.
- jokethrowaway 3y agoYou are never safe. The police likely won't save you, they won't even bother investigating theft. You'd have better service if you paid a private police force to protect you. Maybe without all the waste in government budgets your private police will have more money to spend on patrolling the streets of your neighborhood and installing cameras to actually do something useful.