@Zontertes Little children eat little and take little room, so you can have lots of them before they become economic burden, especially if they don't go to school.
@mallardhead All actions of all people influence all other people to some extent. Therefore, you justify totalitarianism!
What escapes from you here is symmetry, or 'do onto others as they done to you'. For if you follow your principle, you should expect that others will tell you what to do at the point of a gun.
STUPID! .. It is irrational to think that what you do (that only seems to harm yourself) has no ramifications for those around you. ... Damn I wish you could think things through a lot better.
By harm I'm supposing you mean physical harm and not harm to the decorum of society? I guess John Stuart Mill was and extraordinarily tolerant man. In the inner city of Philadelphia groups of you people stand on the occasional street corner and swig their brew openly on any given Friday or Saturday evening. Mr. Mill's style police force do noting, more because of community standards than the improbable enforcement of the law. Should the law be abandoned?
i understand the philosophy of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but the Giant Elephant in the room is the Fact that the Earth has finite resources and is rapidly approaching critical-human-mass. When there exists more mouths than available farmland can feed, some people are going to be FUCKED if some kind of Communal agreement isn't reached.
@Zontertes I somewhat agree with you however... How are we to know what the critical mass of the planet ACTUALLY is? How are we SO sure that we are near it? If we happen to reach it, nature will likely work the same as a free market? People WILL starve (due to production), there WILL be new disease in order to bring about equilibrium. People in the crowded streets of London during the industrial revolution thought we were at critical mass back THEN! Imagine if they saw the population we have now
@Zontertes You just ignored the price system and efficiency. What happens as there are more mouths to feed? Demand, obviously, rises. What happens if supply can not rise fast enough to prevent the increase in price? Well, prices increase. If food prices increase, it is usually common for other prices to go as demand keeps going up. As prices rise, what is one thing adults probably will cut back on?
@bdg323 what does that have to say about 3rd world areas that are famine stricken and yet people continue to have multiple babies. don't underestimate the human sex drive: it doesn't care if you run out of food. dicks and vaginas don't pay attention to economics.
@Zontertes They have multiple babies because they don't know which ones will make it! They don't know if their little Timmy or Susie would last to 10 years old! Mathematically, it makes sense why they have multiple babies. Just to have 2 kids last to adulthood, they need, like, 6 children! (I don't know the actual statistics, but you understand the point)
allow me to play devils advocate: where is the line drawn between what harms should be prevented and what harms are acceptable, for instance; emotional harm? an example I could think of would be the Westboro Baptist church and it's practice of deliberately offending people. The first amendment protects these people even though the emotional harm they have done to mothers and fathers of lost soldiers is comparable to any sort of physical abuse.
@Zontertes If we accept your premise that we cannot limit "harm" to that upon the body and property, we would eliminate all liberty. That gross guy that asked you out? You cannot turn him down - rejection causes emotional harm. Nor can you dump him later, or turn down his proposal, or any of that. It would hurt his feelings.
JSM's Harm Principle is re: the rights to life, liberty, and property. As such, harm is prevention of enjoying those rights. It's just the non-aggression principle.
"If someone is harming themselves, you are only justified in attempting to persuade them."
if someone is only harming themselves - they have no family or friends. Inter-relations are rarely as simple as one person standing alone.
The particular example used in the video of a person drinking heavily should be allowed to continue as he's only harming himself. What if he has children or a partner? What if children observe his drinking and choose to imitate? Where is the boundary on the self?
@drochaid This is one of the popular criticisms, that the principle can be stretched as the notion of "harm" can constitute anything based on arbitrary standards. But the burden of proof is on the side of the group asserting that x should be prohibited because it is "harmful". Mill believes the "harm" should be proven first before enacting prohibition, thus the burden is always on the state securing individual liberty by default.
@MartyrofCake I understand that and agree. My objection to what appears to be taking JSM's ideas as they stood in an era with an entirely different social culture and level of understanding on health and how things such as stress affect us at a neuro-bio-psychological level didn't exist. We now have the ability and research to prove, reasonably, that a parent drinking to excess is considerably more likely to result in a child that grows to drink to excess than one whose parents were moderate.
@MartyrofCake We simply have a far grater interwined understanding of what causes harm than we used to. Yes, it still needs to be analysed, researched and proven before measures should be taken to prevent someone from an action - but equally the whole idea of harm needs to be re-evaluated in the context of modern society. I don't feel this video made any acceptance for that and therefore was, in my opinion at least, missing a fairly essential aspect of understanding the nature of JSM's work.
@drochaid The principle still applies, whether we're in a "new era" is irrelevant since it is not time-related. This is like liberals undermining the constitution by saying it is "outdated". Yes, the first amendment and the bill of rights should also be subjected such criticisms right? Drinking does not help your case, drinking is nothing "new" and the prohibition of alcohol failed. Sure, society is becoming more intricate but this does nothing to JSM's principle.
@drochaid If you see a man only drinking and causing no harm to others, you should only try to convince him to stop. If they are beating their spouse or children, intervention from a third party should be recognized under law as fine and violating no one's rights, since they were trying to protect someone's rights.
Comment removed
AllAboutMakeupDotCom 1 month ago
@Zontertes Little children eat little and take little room, so you can have lots of them before they become economic burden, especially if they don't go to school.
coturnix19 3 months ago in playlist More videos from LearnLiberty
@mallardhead All actions of all people influence all other people to some extent. Therefore, you justify totalitarianism!
What escapes from you here is symmetry, or 'do onto others as they done to you'. For if you follow your principle, you should expect that others will tell you what to do at the point of a gun.
coturnix19 3 months ago in playlist More videos from LearnLiberty
STUPID! .. It is irrational to think that what you do (that only seems to harm yourself) has no ramifications for those around you. ... Damn I wish you could think things through a lot better.
mallardhead 3 months ago
By harm I'm supposing you mean physical harm and not harm to the decorum of society? I guess John Stuart Mill was and extraordinarily tolerant man. In the inner city of Philadelphia groups of you people stand on the occasional street corner and swig their brew openly on any given Friday or Saturday evening. Mr. Mill's style police force do noting, more because of community standards than the improbable enforcement of the law. Should the law be abandoned?
moviesontheweb 5 months ago
@moviesontheweb So what if some guys are drinking on a street corner?
BloodskullMannoroth 5 months ago
Comment removed
moviesontheweb 5 months ago
i understand the philosophy of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but the Giant Elephant in the room is the Fact that the Earth has finite resources and is rapidly approaching critical-human-mass. When there exists more mouths than available farmland can feed, some people are going to be FUCKED if some kind of Communal agreement isn't reached.
Zontertes 6 months ago
@Zontertes I somewhat agree with you however... How are we to know what the critical mass of the planet ACTUALLY is? How are we SO sure that we are near it? If we happen to reach it, nature will likely work the same as a free market? People WILL starve (due to production), there WILL be new disease in order to bring about equilibrium. People in the crowded streets of London during the industrial revolution thought we were at critical mass back THEN! Imagine if they saw the population we have now
McBagginz 6 months ago
@Zontertes You just ignored the price system and efficiency. What happens as there are more mouths to feed? Demand, obviously, rises. What happens if supply can not rise fast enough to prevent the increase in price? Well, prices increase. If food prices increase, it is usually common for other prices to go as demand keeps going up. As prices rise, what is one thing adults probably will cut back on?
Having Children.
Because of fintie resources, we limit ourselves.
bdg323 6 months ago
@bdg323 what does that have to say about 3rd world areas that are famine stricken and yet people continue to have multiple babies. don't underestimate the human sex drive: it doesn't care if you run out of food. dicks and vaginas don't pay attention to economics.
Zontertes 6 months ago
@Zontertes They have multiple babies because they don't know which ones will make it! They don't know if their little Timmy or Susie would last to 10 years old! Mathematically, it makes sense why they have multiple babies. Just to have 2 kids last to adulthood, they need, like, 6 children! (I don't know the actual statistics, but you understand the point)
bdg323 6 months ago
allow me to play devils advocate: where is the line drawn between what harms should be prevented and what harms are acceptable, for instance; emotional harm? an example I could think of would be the Westboro Baptist church and it's practice of deliberately offending people. The first amendment protects these people even though the emotional harm they have done to mothers and fathers of lost soldiers is comparable to any sort of physical abuse.
Zontertes 7 months ago
@Zontertes If we accept your premise that we cannot limit "harm" to that upon the body and property, we would eliminate all liberty. That gross guy that asked you out? You cannot turn him down - rejection causes emotional harm. Nor can you dump him later, or turn down his proposal, or any of that. It would hurt his feelings.
JSM's Harm Principle is re: the rights to life, liberty, and property. As such, harm is prevention of enjoying those rights. It's just the non-aggression principle.
mtanousable 7 months ago
Somebody teach this principle to psychiatry please.
winstono75 7 months ago 2
"If someone is harming themselves, you are only justified in attempting to persuade them."
if someone is only harming themselves - they have no family or friends. Inter-relations are rarely as simple as one person standing alone.
The particular example used in the video of a person drinking heavily should be allowed to continue as he's only harming himself. What if he has children or a partner? What if children observe his drinking and choose to imitate? Where is the boundary on the self?
drochaid 8 months ago
@drochaid This is one of the popular criticisms, that the principle can be stretched as the notion of "harm" can constitute anything based on arbitrary standards. But the burden of proof is on the side of the group asserting that x should be prohibited because it is "harmful". Mill believes the "harm" should be proven first before enacting prohibition, thus the burden is always on the state securing individual liberty by default.
MartyrofCake 8 months ago
@MartyrofCake I understand that and agree. My objection to what appears to be taking JSM's ideas as they stood in an era with an entirely different social culture and level of understanding on health and how things such as stress affect us at a neuro-bio-psychological level didn't exist. We now have the ability and research to prove, reasonably, that a parent drinking to excess is considerably more likely to result in a child that grows to drink to excess than one whose parents were moderate.
drochaid 8 months ago
@MartyrofCake We simply have a far grater interwined understanding of what causes harm than we used to. Yes, it still needs to be analysed, researched and proven before measures should be taken to prevent someone from an action - but equally the whole idea of harm needs to be re-evaluated in the context of modern society. I don't feel this video made any acceptance for that and therefore was, in my opinion at least, missing a fairly essential aspect of understanding the nature of JSM's work.
drochaid 8 months ago
@drochaid The principle still applies, whether we're in a "new era" is irrelevant since it is not time-related. This is like liberals undermining the constitution by saying it is "outdated". Yes, the first amendment and the bill of rights should also be subjected such criticisms right? Drinking does not help your case, drinking is nothing "new" and the prohibition of alcohol failed. Sure, society is becoming more intricate but this does nothing to JSM's principle.
MartyrofCake 8 months ago
@drochaid If you see a man only drinking and causing no harm to others, you should only try to convince him to stop. If they are beating their spouse or children, intervention from a third party should be recognized under law as fine and violating no one's rights, since they were trying to protect someone's rights.
bdg323 6 months ago