Search found 2 matches

by K.Mooneyham
Thu Nov 26, 2020 11:16 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Restriction of rights and left/liberalism versus right/conservatism.
Replies: 27
Views: 5791

Re: Restriction of rights and left/liberalism versus right/conservatism.

SNIP
philip964 wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 2:03 pm
To me the Left likes new ways to solve issues. For example communism.
There is NOTHING new about communism. The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848, so it is technically new-er than the Constitution. However, 1848 is obviously quite a long time ago, and communism has been tried in a whole bunch of places and proven not only to not work, but to be about as detrimental as a system can be to the people forced to live under it...with the emphasis on forced.
by K.Mooneyham
Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:03 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Restriction of rights and left/liberalism versus right/conservatism.
Replies: 27
Views: 5791

Re: Restriction of rights and left/liberalism versus right/conservatism.

srothstein wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:25 pm
cbunt1 wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:00 pmNot sure where I land on the official right/left Continuum.
I think the problem of trying to place most people on the right left continuum is that it is what logic calls a false dichotomy. Most people do not realize that it is a dichotomy because they think of it as a continuous line allowing for multiple choices. I think it is still a dichotomy because it doesn't allow for people who do not belong on the line.

For example, where on the line do you put true libertarians? Are they right wing because they believe in no limits on guns or left wing because they believe in no limit on immigration? In reality, the political spectrum is at least a plane, if not three dimensional (to keep within the geometric analogy).

My beliefs are more simply stated. I believe in freedom. Government's sole function is to protect me from predators, either external like an invading army or internal like criminals. It is not to protect me from my own decisions. It is not to protect me from nature or to help me if something else does happen to me. I don't like taxes, but I recognize that they are necessary for even those minimal functions of government.

And this gets me to what I think a crime should be. The only crimes that we should have are those where my actions cause harm to another person. It might be physical injury, it might be financial injury, and it might be mental injury (though this last requires extreme care - offending someone is not an injury but threatening them is). And if there is not a specific person that can be shown to be harmed, it should not be a crime. So, to use the previously mentioned DWI example, driving with any alcohol in your system should not be illegal unless it causes an accident. A distinct near miss causing a person to think the accident was imminent though they took action to avoid it could still be illegal, but just driving home from the bar with no close calls or accidents would be fine even if the driver's BAC was .24.

So, I think Oregon was right even if it was the wrong reasons - no drugs should be illegal. If you want to kill yourself by sticking a needle in your arm, you should be allowed to. This doesn't excuse committing any other crime to pay for the habit but the habit should not be illegal.

And to put this in line with the original concept of the thread, I do not believe in any positive rights, just negative rights. You have the right to be free of others interfering in your life but you do not have the right to any other person's work output, either directly or through the government collecting taxes to pay for it.
Malam in se vs malam prohibitum?

Return to “Restriction of rights and left/liberalism versus right/conservatism.”