G
Guest
Guest
Where do you draw the line and how is it any different than
><<Oh, and are policemen exempt from the law?>>
>
>Aren't they now? Kill a
>regular citizen, your crime will
>be
>assigned to a homicide detective.
>Kill a cop, and every
>law
>enforcement officer in every jurisdiction for
>hundreds of
>miles around will be searching ready
>to shoot you on sight.
>
>You'll be lucky if you live
>long enough to bleed to
>death.
>But actually, under a minimal government
>I would think the
>police would have enormously higher morale
>and would be much
>more efficient and less likely to
>go rogue. They'd
>definitely know who the bad guys
>were.
I think you're being idyllic. How would the police force have higher moral? Any higher than now? Because they're doing less?
>They wouldn't be
>
>subject to being frustrated by the
>futile, never-ending tail chasing
>of trying to fight victimless crimes
>like drugs and
>prostitution.
Victimless crimes? How about the unborn child who has a cocaine addiction when born? How about the self-esteem problems they face at school when they know that their mother is a slut? How about the STDs a husband brings back to his home? And what happens when the father puts his child up for prostitution? The child doesn't know it's bad.
And is child porn a victimless crime? Pedophiles claim that they are only allowing the child to explore their sexual identity. Is this true? Is it not a crime to distribute pictures of your children having sex with each other? It is afterall "victimless."
What defines a "victim?" What if society is a victim of social immorality? The society will suffer and crime will rise.
Why do you think Japan has only recently sprung up so much crime? Because the family and moral system of the society has broken down so much. Children are left alone, they have no support and turn to gangs and crime. They have no moral standards. And now you want to allow not only prostitution, but unregulated prostitution?
Children need to be told "no" as a learning process. Totally liberal parents who refuse to punish their children raise the worst kind of children. These children *want* and *need* to be controlled, and they cause trouble *until* they're controlled because they want attention.
Why do you get lamers ruining online games? Because the games are unregulated. Why is this board regulated? Because people will ruin it if it is open for anyone to do anything.
The mob cannot rule itself.
><<Since arresting people and shooting people is most definitely "imposing their will on other humans".>>
>
>People who break the laws of
>society are properly considered
>outside the laws of society ("outlaws").
> By seeking to
>unlawfully impose their will on others,
>of course they are
>now subject to being arrested and
>shot. (Well, arrested or
>
>shot.) Lawbreakers lose their freedom
>of immunity, same as
>now.
But please, define what will be the laws? Who will define them? Is that not the system that is imposed now? There are laws, we abide by them, they are created by society. But you need a government, and a strong one at that, to enforce them.
Governments are minimalists by nature, but it is their societies that create more laws. If people wished less regulation there'd be less laws.
><<What is a crime in this society?>>
>
>Murder, rape, theft, all the basics
>most people agree are
>crimes. What wouldn't be crimes
>would be such things as
>
>prostitution, recreational drug use, homosexuality, suicide,
>
>being different, or looking strange.
>"Do as thou wilt, but
>
>first, harm none."
What if the society deems them harmful? What if recreational drug use is not considered harmful to the society only in your mind? Being different and looking strange has never been a crime except in societies like the Nazi regime. What you are describing is your ideal, not what is best for a society.
><<If you smoke, can your neighbor call the police and say that he is troubled by your smoking and they should make you stop?>>
>
>Exactly how is that harming me?
> I've seen the Framlingham
>
>study on second hand smoke and
>it just doesn't wash.
>One
>age group out of a dozen
>studied shows some correlation if
>
>you use just the right statistical
>analysis. Bad science.
>I
>think I could use portions of
>the same data to prove
>second
>hand smoke is good for you.
Hmm, does the surgeon general's warning have any meaning to you or are just as blind (or not so blind?) as the Tobacco industry? It is a scientifically proven *fact* that cigarette smoke is harmful. The formation of mucus is evidence enough that the body deems it harmful.
>He's troubled, but is he harmed?
> In many societies today
>
>yeah, if somebody is doing something
>that doesn't harm
>anybody else (sunbathing in the nude
>in their backyard,
What if it offends the neighbors? What if the society deems that morally degrading behavior? I could think that it is acceptable for teachers to masturbate in front of their kindergarten students, it doesn't harm anything right?
>riding a motorcycle without a helmet,
That isn't a law in most places.
>sawing the barrel off
>a shotgun,
Sawed-off shotguns are most often intends for use in crime because it is a more portable version of a powerful weapon. Yeah, technically it is not harmful to have your own nuclear missile silo in your back yard, but the potential is there for bad things. The old saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" holds true. People don't want guns in churches, not because the people are harmful, but because of the potential to be harmful.
>taking a trip on
>LSD in the privacy of
>their own
>home),
What if in his high state the person gets out? What if he gets behind a wheel? It's like alcohol but on a much more powerful scale. If you're going to legalize drugs, it should be government-regulated and only in designated zones.
><<Can they arrest you for this?>>
>
>No, they would not because you
>haven't actually harmed anyone.
Smoke can indeed harm others.
>I have to admit, though, that
>for those people that live
>
>in perpetual fear that somewhere, somehow,
>someone is
>actually having a good time, this
>form of
>government would be a nightmare.
It's not a matter of having a good time, it is the danger associated with it. People can have a good time looting buildings, but it is harmful. You can have a good time being drunk behind the wheel of a car, but it is *potentially* harmful. You must have regulation or people's conception of "fun" will get out of hand.
><<Will we pay taxes for jails>>
>
>Depends. I've seen government institutions
>where in the
>past the work of the inmates
>actual paid for their own
>keep,
>even made money. Forced inmate
>labor, however, was ruled
>cruel and unusual. One institution
>I remember in particular
>still had the old barns where
>cows were once kept and
>milked
>and the coops where chickens were
>kept for their eggs, and
>
>you could even see the places
>where the old pig pens
>were.
>I understand they made push brooms,
>wooden pallets, coffins,
>and, of course, license plates.
>They had an on-site
>laundry, made their own clothes, and
>ran their own kitchen.
>The last time I visited it
>seemed total anarchy, with
>inmates just lounging around in groups
>all day, and sexual
>activity taking place in just about
>every nook and cranny.
Where does the money come from to pay for these people's food? Is the jail's purpose then to be forced labor? Why are these people in jail to begin with? Possibly because they were having too much "fun?"
><<or will we simply shoot any offender.>>
>
>True, you could save a bit
>more in taxes by eliminating
>the
>judicial system, but, heck, let's give
>'em all a nice fair
>
>trial before we take 'em out
>and shoot 'em.
And now you're thinking of eliminating the judicial system? It sounds like you're thinking this ideal society focuses around you and your opinions of acceptable behavior. How can we administer law *fairly* without a judicial system?
><<If you never go to jail you should not have to pay for it right?>>
>
>Incorrect. The jails would be
>part of the law enforcement
>
>and judicial system of a minimalist
>government, which I would
>support as part of the minimal
>social contract since their
>existence is necessary for the full
>practice of my own
>freedom.
And your "freedom" is?
What is mine? What if my "freedom" includes laying anti-personel land mines around your house? I'm not causing you direct harm, but if you step out you're destined to be killed? Where do you draw the line, and how is it any different than the current system?
>But if prisons can
>be all or partially self-supporting,
>that's all to the good.
A city can't even be self-supporting, and often not a country. You can't expect that for prisons.
>If you can't pay your court
>fine in today's society what
>
>happens? You go to jail.
> Used to be a
>day for every dollar
>of fine.
But it costs $60 a day to provide for a person in jail. What if I don't want to pay for these people in jail? Who is going to force me? If I don't pay, can I mooch $60 a day for free room and board also?
><<Wouldnt it be better for you to hire a private firm of policemen if you should ever need one?>>
>
>A lot of people obviously feel
>that it would be better
>already.
>Businesses are protected by corporate security,
>the richest
>have walls and bodyguards, the middle
>class buy home
>security systems, and even the poorest
>can move into an
>apartment complex with a security guard.
> (I note from
>today's "Dallas Morning News" that a
>security guard at a
>northeast Dallas apartment complex was killed
>yesterday
>morning. Sad.)
>But perhaps
>people would feel safer if
>the
>police weren't having to run around
>making sure that women
>can't make monetary use of their
>sexual skills (You can do
>
>it for free, girls.
That's a pretty low conception of women. Maybe you don't know, but prostitution is not an honorable job. It is a degrading, immoral act, using your body to satisfy someone's carnal vices just for money. You speak of it as if it were acceptable. Would you find it acceptable if your mother was a prostitute? How about if you were the byproduct of prostitution? Those children aren't often loved when that happens and are neglected. What then? You've caused harm to a child.
Pretty low thinking if you ask me.
>Just
>don't accept anything except cab
>
>fare home.), or making sure people
>don't burn an ounce of
>
>dried vegetation wrapped in a piece
>of paper (You can fill
>
>the air with enough perfume, aftershave,
>air freshener, or
>incense to make people's eyes water,
>just don't burn tobacco
>or cannibis.)
And what if that person suddenly feels invincible when they've smoked their crack? What if they think they can take on the police in their mental state? What if they want to kill their children or neighbors? What then? Drugs aren't all like tobacco or marijuana where the effects aren't completely overpowering, they can affect others, and usually in bad ways.
Maybe you've been smoking too much of it?
><<What if someone walks into court and says "I dont like the guy living next door to me so he should be removed"?>>
>
>Well, the judge says "There's no
>merit to this case," and
>
>has them pay court costs.
Yeah, but he's imposing on that person's way of life isn't he? He's violating that person's "freedoms" is he not? What if I find it acceptable to play 300 dB (100dB is enough to break your eardrums) music towards your house? I'm not directly harming you am I? Not much more than the marijuana smoke floating over into my property.
There's no merit to that case right? After all, I am only practicing my "freedoms."
Where do you draw the line and how is it any different than the current system?
><<Will the government come to your house and drag you away because your neighbor said you disturbed him in his life?>>
>
>Of course not. Freedom to
>do as you wish (as
>long as you
>don't harm others)
Doesn't harm others, well what if I deem your pot smoking harmful to my child's moral growth? What if your prescence is harmful to my family because of religious values? What then? Does the government step in and take you away?
Again, where do you draw the line and how is it any different than the current system?
>doesn't mean you're
>free from being
>disturbed by Joe's picking his teeth
>in public, or Jill's
>irritating laugh, or Mike's stupid knock-knock
>jokes, or
>Bill's just being a jerk.
>Of course, the way legislation
>is
>being promulgated in today's society, Joe,
>Jill, and Mike
>may find themselves in prison for
>that anyway.
They won't, don't exaggerate.
>Bill,
>however, would find a great future
>in government. Remember,
>Locke's ideal emodied in the Declaration
>of
>Independence is the right to pursue
>happiness, not the right
>of happiness itself.
And what if my happiness can only be achieved with your death? Is it within my right to remove you? Happiness is relative.
Please answer this again: Where do you draw the line and how is it any different than the current system?
><<What if your neighbor hates music and you play the violin?>>
>
>He can't do anything, just as
>if he couldn't do anything
>if
>he hated blacks or whites, Jews
>or gentiles, Catholics or
>Protestants, Christians or Pagans, etc. or
>etc., and you
>were black, white, Jewish, gentile, etc.,
>etc.
But what if I find your violin music harmful to my moral growth? What if it is keeping me up at night, harming my night sleep? Please don't tell me to give a call to the violin player and tell him to not play because it is not an option.
The truth is that "harm" is just as relative as "happiness" and you cannot base a government on something that is likely to change from case to case. Your "government" would not work.
><<Will you have to let it rest in its case untill you move out of that area?>>
>
>You are free to do as
>you wish as long as
>you do not harm
>others. I could pop my
>bubble gum and drive you
>up the walls as long
>
>as I wished (or as long
>as you hung around me),
>and you
>could scratch yourself in inappropriate places
>and offend my
>sensibilities to your heart's content.
>But if you stole my
>
>saxophone or I tried to kill
>you for playing a tuba,
>well that's different.
Is it though? Is stealing your saxophone harmful? You're not physically harmed, and if you're mentally harmed, you need to see a psychologist. Also, is stealing your saxophone necessarily harmful to you in my opinion? What if you had a million saxophones and missing one wouldn't hurt, would it still be wrong?
Harm is relative, happiness too. Your "government" would never work.
>Nice talking with you again.
>Thank you for the discussion.
If you're going to have laws, you must have standards. The standards are built off the society's general opinion of what is acceptable or not. You cannot base law off of what the individual finds acceptable or not because those vary from person to person. Your government would not work because what you deem acceptable is not acceptable for most people, therefore it would be banned.
Governments are minimalist, but it is the society which functions under it that develops a more complicated social order. Laws are made by the people, for the people, and individual freedoms are acceptable only when they are acceptable under the laws.
Ask yourself this question about your "government": Where do you draw the line and how is it any different than the current system?
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
><<Oh, and are policemen exempt from the law?>>
>
>Aren't they now? Kill a
>regular citizen, your crime will
>be
>assigned to a homicide detective.
>Kill a cop, and every
>law
>enforcement officer in every jurisdiction for
>hundreds of
>miles around will be searching ready
>to shoot you on sight.
>
>You'll be lucky if you live
>long enough to bleed to
>death.
>But actually, under a minimal government
>I would think the
>police would have enormously higher morale
>and would be much
>more efficient and less likely to
>go rogue. They'd
>definitely know who the bad guys
>were.
I think you're being idyllic. How would the police force have higher moral? Any higher than now? Because they're doing less?
>They wouldn't be
>
>subject to being frustrated by the
>futile, never-ending tail chasing
>of trying to fight victimless crimes
>like drugs and
>prostitution.
Victimless crimes? How about the unborn child who has a cocaine addiction when born? How about the self-esteem problems they face at school when they know that their mother is a slut? How about the STDs a husband brings back to his home? And what happens when the father puts his child up for prostitution? The child doesn't know it's bad.
And is child porn a victimless crime? Pedophiles claim that they are only allowing the child to explore their sexual identity. Is this true? Is it not a crime to distribute pictures of your children having sex with each other? It is afterall "victimless."
What defines a "victim?" What if society is a victim of social immorality? The society will suffer and crime will rise.
Why do you think Japan has only recently sprung up so much crime? Because the family and moral system of the society has broken down so much. Children are left alone, they have no support and turn to gangs and crime. They have no moral standards. And now you want to allow not only prostitution, but unregulated prostitution?
Children need to be told "no" as a learning process. Totally liberal parents who refuse to punish their children raise the worst kind of children. These children *want* and *need* to be controlled, and they cause trouble *until* they're controlled because they want attention.
Why do you get lamers ruining online games? Because the games are unregulated. Why is this board regulated? Because people will ruin it if it is open for anyone to do anything.
The mob cannot rule itself.
><<Since arresting people and shooting people is most definitely "imposing their will on other humans".>>
>
>People who break the laws of
>society are properly considered
>outside the laws of society ("outlaws").
> By seeking to
>unlawfully impose their will on others,
>of course they are
>now subject to being arrested and
>shot. (Well, arrested or
>
>shot.) Lawbreakers lose their freedom
>of immunity, same as
>now.
But please, define what will be the laws? Who will define them? Is that not the system that is imposed now? There are laws, we abide by them, they are created by society. But you need a government, and a strong one at that, to enforce them.
Governments are minimalists by nature, but it is their societies that create more laws. If people wished less regulation there'd be less laws.
><<What is a crime in this society?>>
>
>Murder, rape, theft, all the basics
>most people agree are
>crimes. What wouldn't be crimes
>would be such things as
>
>prostitution, recreational drug use, homosexuality, suicide,
>
>being different, or looking strange.
>"Do as thou wilt, but
>
>first, harm none."
What if the society deems them harmful? What if recreational drug use is not considered harmful to the society only in your mind? Being different and looking strange has never been a crime except in societies like the Nazi regime. What you are describing is your ideal, not what is best for a society.
><<If you smoke, can your neighbor call the police and say that he is troubled by your smoking and they should make you stop?>>
>
>Exactly how is that harming me?
> I've seen the Framlingham
>
>study on second hand smoke and
>it just doesn't wash.
>One
>age group out of a dozen
>studied shows some correlation if
>
>you use just the right statistical
>analysis. Bad science.
>I
>think I could use portions of
>the same data to prove
>second
>hand smoke is good for you.
Hmm, does the surgeon general's warning have any meaning to you or are just as blind (or not so blind?) as the Tobacco industry? It is a scientifically proven *fact* that cigarette smoke is harmful. The formation of mucus is evidence enough that the body deems it harmful.
>He's troubled, but is he harmed?
> In many societies today
>
>yeah, if somebody is doing something
>that doesn't harm
>anybody else (sunbathing in the nude
>in their backyard,
What if it offends the neighbors? What if the society deems that morally degrading behavior? I could think that it is acceptable for teachers to masturbate in front of their kindergarten students, it doesn't harm anything right?
>riding a motorcycle without a helmet,
That isn't a law in most places.
>sawing the barrel off
>a shotgun,
Sawed-off shotguns are most often intends for use in crime because it is a more portable version of a powerful weapon. Yeah, technically it is not harmful to have your own nuclear missile silo in your back yard, but the potential is there for bad things. The old saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" holds true. People don't want guns in churches, not because the people are harmful, but because of the potential to be harmful.
>taking a trip on
>LSD in the privacy of
>their own
>home),
What if in his high state the person gets out? What if he gets behind a wheel? It's like alcohol but on a much more powerful scale. If you're going to legalize drugs, it should be government-regulated and only in designated zones.
><<Can they arrest you for this?>>
>
>No, they would not because you
>haven't actually harmed anyone.
Smoke can indeed harm others.
>I have to admit, though, that
>for those people that live
>
>in perpetual fear that somewhere, somehow,
>someone is
>actually having a good time, this
>form of
>government would be a nightmare.
It's not a matter of having a good time, it is the danger associated with it. People can have a good time looting buildings, but it is harmful. You can have a good time being drunk behind the wheel of a car, but it is *potentially* harmful. You must have regulation or people's conception of "fun" will get out of hand.
><<Will we pay taxes for jails>>
>
>Depends. I've seen government institutions
>where in the
>past the work of the inmates
>actual paid for their own
>keep,
>even made money. Forced inmate
>labor, however, was ruled
>cruel and unusual. One institution
>I remember in particular
>still had the old barns where
>cows were once kept and
>milked
>and the coops where chickens were
>kept for their eggs, and
>
>you could even see the places
>where the old pig pens
>were.
>I understand they made push brooms,
>wooden pallets, coffins,
>and, of course, license plates.
>They had an on-site
>laundry, made their own clothes, and
>ran their own kitchen.
>The last time I visited it
>seemed total anarchy, with
>inmates just lounging around in groups
>all day, and sexual
>activity taking place in just about
>every nook and cranny.
Where does the money come from to pay for these people's food? Is the jail's purpose then to be forced labor? Why are these people in jail to begin with? Possibly because they were having too much "fun?"
><<or will we simply shoot any offender.>>
>
>True, you could save a bit
>more in taxes by eliminating
>the
>judicial system, but, heck, let's give
>'em all a nice fair
>
>trial before we take 'em out
>and shoot 'em.
And now you're thinking of eliminating the judicial system? It sounds like you're thinking this ideal society focuses around you and your opinions of acceptable behavior. How can we administer law *fairly* without a judicial system?
><<If you never go to jail you should not have to pay for it right?>>
>
>Incorrect. The jails would be
>part of the law enforcement
>
>and judicial system of a minimalist
>government, which I would
>support as part of the minimal
>social contract since their
>existence is necessary for the full
>practice of my own
>freedom.
And your "freedom" is?
What is mine? What if my "freedom" includes laying anti-personel land mines around your house? I'm not causing you direct harm, but if you step out you're destined to be killed? Where do you draw the line, and how is it any different than the current system?
>But if prisons can
>be all or partially self-supporting,
>that's all to the good.
A city can't even be self-supporting, and often not a country. You can't expect that for prisons.
>If you can't pay your court
>fine in today's society what
>
>happens? You go to jail.
> Used to be a
>day for every dollar
>of fine.
But it costs $60 a day to provide for a person in jail. What if I don't want to pay for these people in jail? Who is going to force me? If I don't pay, can I mooch $60 a day for free room and board also?
><<Wouldnt it be better for you to hire a private firm of policemen if you should ever need one?>>
>
>A lot of people obviously feel
>that it would be better
>already.
>Businesses are protected by corporate security,
>the richest
>have walls and bodyguards, the middle
>class buy home
>security systems, and even the poorest
>can move into an
>apartment complex with a security guard.
> (I note from
>today's "Dallas Morning News" that a
>security guard at a
>northeast Dallas apartment complex was killed
>yesterday
>morning. Sad.)
>But perhaps
>people would feel safer if
>the
>police weren't having to run around
>making sure that women
>can't make monetary use of their
>sexual skills (You can do
>
>it for free, girls.
That's a pretty low conception of women. Maybe you don't know, but prostitution is not an honorable job. It is a degrading, immoral act, using your body to satisfy someone's carnal vices just for money. You speak of it as if it were acceptable. Would you find it acceptable if your mother was a prostitute? How about if you were the byproduct of prostitution? Those children aren't often loved when that happens and are neglected. What then? You've caused harm to a child.
Pretty low thinking if you ask me.
>Just
>don't accept anything except cab
>
>fare home.), or making sure people
>don't burn an ounce of
>
>dried vegetation wrapped in a piece
>of paper (You can fill
>
>the air with enough perfume, aftershave,
>air freshener, or
>incense to make people's eyes water,
>just don't burn tobacco
>or cannibis.)
And what if that person suddenly feels invincible when they've smoked their crack? What if they think they can take on the police in their mental state? What if they want to kill their children or neighbors? What then? Drugs aren't all like tobacco or marijuana where the effects aren't completely overpowering, they can affect others, and usually in bad ways.
Maybe you've been smoking too much of it?
><<What if someone walks into court and says "I dont like the guy living next door to me so he should be removed"?>>
>
>Well, the judge says "There's no
>merit to this case," and
>
>has them pay court costs.
Yeah, but he's imposing on that person's way of life isn't he? He's violating that person's "freedoms" is he not? What if I find it acceptable to play 300 dB (100dB is enough to break your eardrums) music towards your house? I'm not directly harming you am I? Not much more than the marijuana smoke floating over into my property.
There's no merit to that case right? After all, I am only practicing my "freedoms."
Where do you draw the line and how is it any different than the current system?
><<Will the government come to your house and drag you away because your neighbor said you disturbed him in his life?>>
>
>Of course not. Freedom to
>do as you wish (as
>long as you
>don't harm others)
Doesn't harm others, well what if I deem your pot smoking harmful to my child's moral growth? What if your prescence is harmful to my family because of religious values? What then? Does the government step in and take you away?
Again, where do you draw the line and how is it any different than the current system?
>doesn't mean you're
>free from being
>disturbed by Joe's picking his teeth
>in public, or Jill's
>irritating laugh, or Mike's stupid knock-knock
>jokes, or
>Bill's just being a jerk.
>Of course, the way legislation
>is
>being promulgated in today's society, Joe,
>Jill, and Mike
>may find themselves in prison for
>that anyway.
They won't, don't exaggerate.
>Bill,
>however, would find a great future
>in government. Remember,
>Locke's ideal emodied in the Declaration
>of
>Independence is the right to pursue
>happiness, not the right
>of happiness itself.
And what if my happiness can only be achieved with your death? Is it within my right to remove you? Happiness is relative.
Please answer this again: Where do you draw the line and how is it any different than the current system?
><<What if your neighbor hates music and you play the violin?>>
>
>He can't do anything, just as
>if he couldn't do anything
>if
>he hated blacks or whites, Jews
>or gentiles, Catholics or
>Protestants, Christians or Pagans, etc. or
>etc., and you
>were black, white, Jewish, gentile, etc.,
>etc.
But what if I find your violin music harmful to my moral growth? What if it is keeping me up at night, harming my night sleep? Please don't tell me to give a call to the violin player and tell him to not play because it is not an option.
The truth is that "harm" is just as relative as "happiness" and you cannot base a government on something that is likely to change from case to case. Your "government" would not work.
><<Will you have to let it rest in its case untill you move out of that area?>>
>
>You are free to do as
>you wish as long as
>you do not harm
>others. I could pop my
>bubble gum and drive you
>up the walls as long
>
>as I wished (or as long
>as you hung around me),
>and you
>could scratch yourself in inappropriate places
>and offend my
>sensibilities to your heart's content.
>But if you stole my
>
>saxophone or I tried to kill
>you for playing a tuba,
>well that's different.
Is it though? Is stealing your saxophone harmful? You're not physically harmed, and if you're mentally harmed, you need to see a psychologist. Also, is stealing your saxophone necessarily harmful to you in my opinion? What if you had a million saxophones and missing one wouldn't hurt, would it still be wrong?
Harm is relative, happiness too. Your "government" would never work.
>Nice talking with you again.
>Thank you for the discussion.
If you're going to have laws, you must have standards. The standards are built off the society's general opinion of what is acceptable or not. You cannot base law off of what the individual finds acceptable or not because those vary from person to person. Your government would not work because what you deem acceptable is not acceptable for most people, therefore it would be banned.
Governments are minimalist, but it is the society which functions under it that develops a more complicated social order. Laws are made by the people, for the people, and individual freedoms are acceptable only when they are acceptable under the laws.
Ask yourself this question about your "government": Where do you draw the line and how is it any different than the current system?
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
