3 ms·
> It is up to the society What is this society that you refer to. Surely it can be the people of the nation, because only 30%-ish of the population votes, so t
by bionsuba 13y ago
> It is up to the society
What is this society that you refer to. Surely it can be the people of the nation, because only 30%-ish of the population votes, so the majority can't be said to be in agreement (I also never recall a nation wide vote on the legality of drugs). Are you referring to politicians' decisions? They are an even smaller part of the overall population and don't even represent the people that they are said to (Money in politics etc). Plus, even if 99% of the entire population were to decide that these drugs are dangerous, why is it then ok to violently stop the 1% from doing something that only harms themselves? If that is just, would it the be ok if 51% of people decided that all soda was dangerous and banned that too? What about cheese burgers, we, as a society, have to stop obesity right? What about cars, which kill more people than drugs ever will?
The idea of the morality of democracy is just another version of the might makes right argument.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> because only 30%-ish of the population votes, The choice to let other people choose for you is still a choice.
- bionsuba 13y agoIts not allowing people to chose for you, its simply not participating. Not giving consent to any action of any kind can not give consent to an action of others choosing, its akin to saying 0 equals 1.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> Its not allowing people to chose for you, Yes, choosing not to vote is allowing other people to choose for you. You have the choice to participate in the decision or not, and you choose not to participate. That means you are choosing to allow other people to choose for you. > Not giving consent to any action of any kind can not give consent Consent is not the same thing as choice (it may require choice, but it is not equivalent to it.)