Quote:
No. Killing another person is violating THEIR basic right to life. Taking steroids or any other drug does NOT do this. It's a strawman argument.
Curious what your definition of a straw man argument are, because I've seen you throw that term around, and it's almost always inappropriately use. Not just you by the way.
As far as violating a person's basic right to life.....where there is no basic right to life in a state of nature, at least as defined by Hobbes. In his state of nature, humans freely kill other humans in the interest of self-preservation, just like every other animal on the planet. There is no such thing as "right to life", it's a state of NATURE, so only natural laws apply.
Again, none of this matters, because I already stated:
Quote:
The difference between a state of nature and what you guys are advoctating is......as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. A position I support.
THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE, because I wanted to make it clear that what a state of nature was and what you and Anna are advocating are different, the difference being you're OK with it as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Please don't tell me your going to miss the point like Anna over and over and over again.
Quote:
Again, if I drive drunk, I expect the government to arrest me in order to protect the rights of other citizens from my poor choices. Explain to me how taking steroids, using coke or even committing suicide changes this.
Using your example, you want to pick and choose what laws apply. Drunk driving = arrest me, take steroids = leave me alone. That only works in an authoritarian government like a dictatorship, with you as a dictator. In a democracy, according to social contracting, you accept what laws are consented on by the majority, and you voluntarily forfeit certain rights, as determined by the group, to allow the government the ability to establish laws and rights which benefit the group as a whole.
You are right. It is a restriction of freedom. That's the whole argument about social contracting. You allow the government to set up laws and civil rights for the protection of the group, while sacrificing a certain degree of personal freedom.
What you want is no restrictions, the ability to choose to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I understand that, for the umpteenth time. So go to your island and do that. It doesn't apply to the United States.
You conveniently skipped the first part of my post, so I will ask you again - Elessar, what is the point of having a government?
Quote:
The role of the federal government was originally intended for the preservation of the rights of the states, the enforcement of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and national defense. Healthcare is nowhere listed there. Thus, in my view, it's a separate argument.
Wrong point. I was referring to this:
Quote:
If your argument = drain on society via healthcare costs? They shouldn't receive the care, nor should society be providing it. But that's a different argument altogether.
That's what I meant about 2 sides of the same coin. If you want to do anything you want, its ok, but you shouldn't receive the care, nor should society be providing it if you're personal actions leads to self-inflicted injuries. That's what I meant, they aren't separate or different arguments, you can't argue one without the other.
Quote:
And this, sir, is EXACTLY why it doesn't work. Unlike yourself, I've actually participated in the protection and stewardship of this country. I've taken a bullet for it. That gives me MORE of a right to cry about personal freedoms. I've earned them....
I see. So military personnel have a greater right to complain about personal freedoms than the rest of us. Is that your stance? Interesting. Forget firemen, policemen, doctors, nurses, farmers, teachers, etc....anybody else who makes this country a better place to live. They all come second to you. All hail the king, baby.
Quote:
My smoking pot does NOTHING to you. At all. If I'm behind the wheel of a vehicle? Then absolutely. I'm putting the lives of others at risk. See, the act of smoking pot isn't the root cause here. My decision to drive impaired however is. The preservation of these basic rights should be the only role of government and law enforcement.
You'll find no argument with me there. It's arbitrary why marijuana should be illegal, but alcohol not. And I wholeheartedly agree with you that if you take steroids, nothing happens to you, then no biggie, more power to you, but if you take steroids, and you develop say a brain tumor, then you're shit out of luck when it comes to public assistance. This is consistent with the ideas I've laid out. Where it would be inconsistent is if you take steroids, get a brain tumor, and then the government has to foot the bill (ie the citizens), because as a democracy, somewhere along the line it was decided that steroids were illegal (for the sake of argument). The problem is, of course, that currently if you do get a brain tumor from steroids, or anything for that matter, the state is going to take care of you. Therefore, the state is going to look out for it's own interests in deciding what is and isn't legal.....and you know what? It is completely arbitrary, and some of it is complete bullshit. However, no one is forcing you to live here. These are the laws of the land, set forth supposedly for our best interests. If you can't abide by certain ones, then either empower yourself to change the law, or move somewhere where the law doesn't apply, like your island. None of us would agree with 100% of the laws we live by, but most of us abide by them because we (I think) understand that there is a greater benefit to having a government and living in relative peace, than having no laws, doing whatever we wanted, and living in anarchy.