Steve3007 wrote: ↑
June 18th, 2020, 11:30 am
y Steve3007 » Yesterday, 4:30 pm
I want to live in what Libertarians would call a Nanny State. One of the costs of that is that "this is my body" is not 100% true. I don't entirely own myself, and neither does anyone else.
Steve3007 wrote: ↑
June 19th, 2020, 4:58 am
Steve3007 » Today, 9:58 am
Terrapin Station wrote:
What would be an example of the nonconsensual wider consequence in this case?
The consequences of tobacco smoking to the people who work to fund the healthcare system.
I want to live in a society which confers rights on people to a greater extent than is advocated by strict Libertarianism. All rights imply obligations. One of the rights I want to confer is free-at-the-point-of-delivery healthcare. That automatically means that I want to non-consensually oblige some people to work to fund that healthcare, whether via taxation or whatever. i.e. I don't want to give them a free choice as to whether they pay those taxes such that the consequences to them of paying/not paying are equal; I want to put in place consequences which strongly motivate them to pay. If my aim is realized then I've put in place a system which means that a consequence of tobacco smoking is non-consensual tax paying - i.e. taxpaying in which a strong incentive to pay is put in place.
Steve I do not disagree with you, but I am not sure of your position on drug use or just how nannying you want the state to be. Would high taxes on potentially harmful “recreational” drugs be an answer? Clearly we don’t want them so high that it drives most drug use back underground.
It seems that moral and economic issues are intertwined to some extent, there are few truly entirely self-regarding actions, and we must limit some freedoms to allow others. But the case has been presented that decriminalising and regulating drugs would actually decrease social and economic costs. I think a number of contributors have presented that case with some force.
The truth of the matter is clearly open to debate, but the arguments for decriminalisation, regulation and education do not, to me, seem trivial. It is fair enough if people do not accept them (Steve I do not know your position here). If such assessments are right, am I right in thinking you would not be against decriminalisation? Just how big do the economic and social costs need to be before others can claim the right to limit my behaviour? I would think they should be quite high (that’s my kind of libertarianism) and this debate arises at least in part because it is not clear, at least to many here, that they are, or at any rate, that the alternative (decriminalisation) is not in fact less costly.
I do not know the truth of it, but current policy does seem to leave a lot to be desired. There has been a good debate on this board and I have learned from it. The mainstream media do not entirely ignore the issue, but I get the feeling they have largely opted for the status quo and so, while more prominent and open debate might be useful it may not be easy to come by. Is there a risk that, currently, people are claiming ownership of my body and actions for narrow political gain or to support personal and social prejudices? I suspect that only the braver politicians are willing to stick their necks out and argue for decriminalising all recreational drug use, which may partly explain why so few are.