Thread: Freedom of choice and the Law

Ok, here I go stirring up the proverbial pot. I know this has been discussed before, and I hope it will continue to be discussed. I think that change occurs little by little, much as a boiling kettle builds steam pressure, until it finally can no longer contain the pressure and explodes.

So, anyways, I was out walking the dog and thinking, as I usually do, and probably thinking too much, as I usually do...

And I think most of the guys here at SRP are fairly reasonable and friendly, so where else would I want to pose radical and controversial topics? Blah, blah, blah...I digress..

So here's my thought:

In a trully free society, shouldn't free individuals have the freedom to make either good choices or bad? In other words, the freedom to be responsible AND irresponsible (ie - negligent)?

Should the governments of free peoples ALWAYS trust the people to make responsible choices (Kind of like assuming innocense until proven otherwise). Or, at times, corall them into being responsible via law?

In some cases goverments seem to do this (allow for irresponsible behavior. ie you can choose to steal your neighbor's property), but in other case (see below) they don't.

If your free choice to act responsibly affects no one but the acting party (ie. you), or has no ill effect at all, then all is well.

If your free choice to act in an irresponsible manner results in negligence causing some form of harm to others, then there are laws to address that negligent behavior.

Now here's the clincher (go ahead and cringe):

Of course what I'm talking about are gun laws AND the "War on drugs." I know these two topics are almost trite, they've been beaten around so much, but, when is enough enough?

So let the stones fly...what say ye all?

I tend to agree with you. I have always believed in the right to bare arms and the pursuit of personal freedom and happiness if it does not harm anyone else, but when it comes to the war on drugs, I do believe some things should be regulated due to their addictive nature, i.e. meth, cocaine and opium. but I have never believed in the laws against cannabis due to the fact it was used to expel one ethnicity to make room and create jobs for the man, so to speak.

Our founding fathers, (Washington, Franklin, Jefferson) grew it and believed in it for alot of textile and medicinal purposes, and it used to be law that if you wanted own land in this country, you had to grow hemp. ( Decreed by King James in the 1600's.)

To make it even weirder, the first law was a joke( the tax stamp of 1937.) It was illegal to grow the crop unless you had the stamp, but to get the stamp you had to bring in the crop, which would instantly get you incarcerated for possession. This was eventually overturned due to the 5th amendment violation ( self icrimination). Ok enough of my rant, I think my opinion is noted.

The reason I believe so strongly in this is when I broke my back I got precriptions for Lortab 10, 40 a week for a solid seven months straight( it started at 60 aweek and then tapered down). The withdrawls were hell when I tryed to stop taking it (insomnia, nausea, shakes, cold sweats). I want say how I came off of them but I am clean and almost pain free now.

Originally Posted by celticstone

I tend to agree with you. I have always believed in the right to bare arms and the pursuit of personal freedom and happiness if it does not harm anyone else, but when it comes to the war on drugs, I do believe some things should be regulated due to their addictive nature, i.e. meth, cocaine and opium. but I have never believed in the laws against cannabis due to the fact it was used to expel one ethnicity to make room and create jobs for the man, so to speak.

Our founding fathers, (Washington, Franklin, Jefferson) grew it and believed in it for alot of textile and medicinal purposes, and it used to be law that if you wanted own land in this country, you had to grow hemp. ( Decreed by King James in the 1600's.)

To make it even weirder, the first law was a joke( the tax stamp of 1937.) It was illegal to grow the crop unless you had the stamp, but to get the stamp you had to bring in the crop, which would instantly get you incarcerated for possession. This was eventually overturned due to the 5th amendment violation ( self icrimination). Ok enough of my rant, I think my opinion is noted.

I hear this from a lot of people I have this conversation with. I really believe that trully free people should also have the freedom to be absolutely stupid too (regarding drug use). We allow people to become addicted to alcohol and nicotine, so why not the others as well?

Originally Posted by celticstone

The reason I believe so strongly in this is when I broke my back I got precriptions for Lortab 10, 40 a week for a solid seven months straight( it started at 60 aweek and then tapered down). The withdrawls were hell when I tryed to stop taking it (insomnia, nausea, shakes, cold sweats). I want say how I came off of them but I am clean and almost pain free now.

Of course this is really good news. I think it is somewhat the exception to my original position though. Don't you think?

Originally Posted by honedright

...In a trully free society, shouldn't free individuals have the freedom to make either good choices or bad? In other words, the freedom to be responsible AND irresponsible (ie - negligent)?...

It would seem to me that individuals always have the freedom to make good/bad choices. It's the consequences of their choice that are the killer...

Society: • noun (pl. societies) the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. (Oxford English dictionary)

I think that if you want absolute total freedom then it is unlikely your society will ever consist of more than yourself. Otherwise, it's necessary that you compromise some of your "freedoms" to be a member of the society. It would seem that the very nature of a society puts it in conflict with other societies at some level. The problem comes when individuals become part of the society and fail to embrace the necessary compromises.

I beg to disagree.

The problem starts when society becomes bigger than the individual and makes mankind nothing more but a lemming to keep that treadmill "society" and "civillisation" rolling. Or when one wants to rule the many.

I think that most would agree that the ideal is that you should be free to do what you want unless it harms someone else. The fun is in defining 'harm'. Some localities are including annoyances under 'harm' (eg: if you can smell cigar smoke then it's harming you).


Wayne

Ok, well I'll make my beliefs easy to understand I'm a God fearing right leaning Libertarion.

What that means for the discussion at hand is that I agree you should have the choice to be as stupid as you want, as long as you are responsible enough to face the consequences. Do drugs (which are legal in this analogy) and drive under the influence and get punished in a way that make drunk driving violations look like a light slap on the wrist (flogging?, canning?+jail).

Of course I would also allow the more addictive ones but make them less attractive with economic pressures (taxes) to control their use to those rich enough and idle enough not to hurt anyone with their habit. You see even under a free society you can allow anything but manipulate the variables to make it less attractive thereby controlling its effects on society without creating a class of criminals who essentially do nothing illegal that effects anyone but themselves.

Also in this free society Employers are free to use testing at hire and whenever necessary to keep their business free of such things if they want to. They can also hire and fire on a whim for any reason or none. this creates an interesting conundrum for the potential recreational user.

Of course the tests would have to be much more accurate than they need to be now. You would have to know weather or not a person was actually under the influence now not weather they had been at sometime in say the last six weeks. Oh yea and poppyseed foods would have to be eliminated as a source of contamination.

Could you please pass the mushrooms that made this into an illegal substance topic?

Cheers