4 ms·

drug addicts and people who lose all their money gambling are a nuisance to the public.

notepad0x90 2y ago
punish the nuisance then, so long as actual harm is involved instead of simple visual displeasure. not the perceived cause. Stay out of people's lives. Society is also a nuisance to drug users and gamblers. The foundation of liberty is the protection of rights for even the most disagreeable individuals. You don't deserve any rights or liberties if you can't accept the rights of the drug addicts,gamblers, homeless people and many more types of people out there. It is a fundamental aspect of the human experience to self-determine one's fate.
- coconut08 2y ago
  libertarians are so incredibly cringe its unbelievable. rights don't exist. they are not a law of nature. rights are a human invented concept. rights are both created by and enforced by government. generally speaking we do try to opt for giving people as much freedom as possible, that said if certain things have a high probability of negative externalties the government both can and does make those things illegal.
  - notepad0x90 2y ago
    This isn't about libertarianism at all. it's about justice. It is unfair and unjust to punish someone based on probabilities. A innocent person should not be treated like a criminal. A free person shouldn't be treated like a prisoner or a slave. The government has no authority to punish citizens because they might commit a crime. Citizens are subject to the rule of law. But in exchange for compliance to the laws, we expect a fair and just treatment under that law. That is the contract.
    - coconut08 2y ago
      >The government has no authority to punish citizens because they might commit a crime you are either being hyperbolic, you are irrationally ideological, or you haven't thought about this enough. surely you don't think that people should be allowed to have nuclear explosives in their house because until they have actually used them they haven't actually committed a crime yet. different people can have different ideas on where that line is but you must acknowledge that it exists.
      - notepad0x90 2y ago
        A nuke or a weapon of any kind except knives have one use, which is to harm people, they're built explicitly for that purpose, which is to harm others, so regulating their ownership and use is not a good analogy. Maybe cars are sane analogy. You need to pass all kinds of testing and regulation to be allowed to drive a car or build and operate your own car, but only on public roads. You can in fact buy any kind of car you want or build one and operate it as you wish on your own property without any license. Even though cars can be used as dangerous and deadly weapons (terrorists use them on crowds all the time). Yes, a line exists, that line is when you are engaging in privileged activity like driving, flying on a commercial plane or train, entering school property and such. Maybe it might be productive if you used specific scenarios where you think allowing gambling would cause harm to others in and of itself, not as a side-effect (your nuke example is a direct effect).
        coconut08 2y ago
        maybe it would make more sense if i framed my perspective differently. i think as a default laws should offer as much agency as possible to the individual. if someone wants to smoke cigarettes even though it literally does nothing but kill them, i'm fine with that. i think that there is a threshold that can be passed whereby *on average* it starts creating serious externalities on society. if the externalities get too high i'm fine with them stepping in and making regulations restricting and potentially banning them. there are plenty of weapons and chemicals and materials that fall into this area. i think that when it comes to stuff like drugs and gambling if you do a blanket ban on them it might actually make the problem worse because it creates a black market and demand will just go there. this will be make it impossible to regulate and impossible to even know what is happening in these markets. i would suspect that a better answer is to have specific types of gambling and a form of drugs that are legal that is hopefully less damaging that people with propensity for this sort of thing could be funneled into.

punish the nuisance then, so long as actual harm is involved instead of simple visual displeasure. not the perceived cause. Stay out of people's lives. Society is also a nuisance to drug users and gamblers. The foundation of liberty is the protection of rights for even the most disagreeable individuals. You don't deserve any rights or liberties if you can't accept the rights of the drug addicts,gamblers, homeless people and many more types of people out there. It is a fundamental aspect of the human experience to self-determine one's fate.

coconut08 2y ago
libertarians are so incredibly cringe its unbelievable. rights don't exist. they are not a law of nature. rights are a human invented concept. rights are both created by and enforced by government. generally speaking we do try to opt for giving people as much freedom as possible, that said if certain things have a high probability of negative externalties the government both can and does make those things illegal.
- notepad0x90 2y ago
  This isn't about libertarianism at all. it's about justice. It is unfair and unjust to punish someone based on probabilities. A innocent person should not be treated like a criminal. A free person shouldn't be treated like a prisoner or a slave. The government has no authority to punish citizens because they might commit a crime. Citizens are subject to the rule of law. But in exchange for compliance to the laws, we expect a fair and just treatment under that law. That is the contract.
  - coconut08 2y ago
    >The government has no authority to punish citizens because they might commit a crime you are either being hyperbolic, you are irrationally ideological, or you haven't thought about this enough. surely you don't think that people should be allowed to have nuclear explosives in their house because until they have actually used them they haven't actually committed a crime yet. different people can have different ideas on where that line is but you must acknowledge that it exists.
    - notepad0x90 2y ago
      A nuke or a weapon of any kind except knives have one use, which is to harm people, they're built explicitly for that purpose, which is to harm others, so regulating their ownership and use is not a good analogy. Maybe cars are sane analogy. You need to pass all kinds of testing and regulation to be allowed to drive a car or build and operate your own car, but only on public roads. You can in fact buy any kind of car you want or build one and operate it as you wish on your own property without any license. Even though cars can be used as dangerous and deadly weapons (terrorists use them on crowds all the time). Yes, a line exists, that line is when you are engaging in privileged activity like driving, flying on a commercial plane or train, entering school property and such. Maybe it might be productive if you used specific scenarios where you think allowing gambling would cause harm to others in and of itself, not as a side-effect (your nuke example is a direct effect).
      - coconut08 2y ago
        maybe it would make more sense if i framed my perspective differently. i think as a default laws should offer as much agency as possible to the individual. if someone wants to smoke cigarettes even though it literally does nothing but kill them, i'm fine with that. i think that there is a threshold that can be passed whereby *on average* it starts creating serious externalities on society. if the externalities get too high i'm fine with them stepping in and making regulations restricting and potentially banning them. there are plenty of weapons and chemicals and materials that fall into this area. i think that when it comes to stuff like drugs and gambling if you do a blanket ban on them it might actually make the problem worse because it creates a black market and demand will just go there. this will be make it impossible to regulate and impossible to even know what is happening in these markets. i would suspect that a better answer is to have specific types of gambling and a form of drugs that are legal that is hopefully less damaging that people with propensity for this sort of thing could be funneled into.