The right of self abuse?

nesf

After some of the arguments put forward in the thread on smoker's rights, I am curious as to the what do people actually feel they are entitled to do within our society. Some people were of the opinion that the government should have completely control over what what we do to ourselves, while others, myself included, felt that within one's home, there are few things that the government or the rest of society should have control of.

I think that the main point of disagreement is over what is a deomcracy. Is it a system where society can, by majority rule control the public actions of others either real or ones with future potential, or is it a system where the majority have total say over any matters that they choose to control. The ban on smoking was a good example of this, do the majority have a right to stop a person smoking within their own home when it only can damage themselves? Or we can rearrange this into, does society as a whole have a right to stop an individual from doing something potentially harmful to their health?

We all agree that we have a right to live a healthy life, but more importantly we have a choice to waive this right if we so wish. We can choose to eat junk food, drink alcohol etc, and society doesn't have a right to force us to do otherwise, simply because it would be better for our health. It is our life to live. Thus can the government force someone to make a different choice if it means a healthier life style? Are we entitled to the right of self abuse? Can society interfere when we might kill or harm ourself? If we are of sound mind, and can understand the reprecussions then aren't we the final judge over what we can do to ourselves? Obviously issues such as legal age and such are involved in your right to make this decision. But is it our place to force a fellow adult not to put themselvs in a position to hurt themselves? One could simply choose a sport like rugby which can result in serious injury to it's players. Is it a choice for others whether those players can participate?

Simliarily one can ask if society has a right to control the right of self abuse. It and the right to a healthy life are merely two sides of the same coin, one cannot exist without the other. If we force ppl to live healthily then it's no longer a right, it's oppression. It doesn't matter whether the oppression's result is good or bad for the person involved. The very act of oppression is is a nail in the coffin of freedom, can the majority decide for all, to lose a part of our freedom in exchange for a healthy life? It is in my opinon a personal choice that cannot be forced upon a person, thus I am opposed to any such oppression.

Do we need to rethink and inform the people and the government of this country where individual choice ends, and society's choice begins?

swiss

Interesting. The thought had occured to me too, as you had discussed it in less detail in your 'smokers rights' thread.

This is a more difficult issue to judge. I would describe myself as being quite liberal in relation to peoples choices. However, I do feel that a line has to be drawn somewhere. It is, I feel, an issue of responsibility. IMO, people should be given as much freedom as it is generally felt as the majority can handle responsibly.
I'll take the issue of alcohol abuse as an example.

Typically, on the continent, it is easier to obtain alcohol than in Ireland. It is usually also cheaper, and in many countries there are no pub closing times. That's right, bars offer a 24/7 service. Given that we get kicked out relatively early, we must question whether we deserve this. Is it unduly severe? However, Ireland has one of the worst records of alcohol abuse. Throughout the world, the word 'Irish' is synonymous with alcohol. After all, there is an Irish pub in practically every city in the world. I don't believe any other country holds that distinction. Given that, it would seem common sense to limit occasions where people can over-indulge in alcohol. (BTW, I don't agree with limiting pub opening/closing times - IMO they create as many problems as they solve)

Such are the arguments with regard to legalising a lot of activities. If there are serious risks involved, and if there is a good chance that a sizable section of the populace are going to be damaged by this activity, then I would feel that, in the interests of public safety, that these activities should be restricted - as they can restrict the ultimate freedom of life.

As for where the line should be drawn exactly - well I'm not sure. I do feel that some of the regulations in Ireland are unduly strict, and would be in favor of a relaxation of some of the restrictions we live under. I am just wary of the negative, as well as the positive consequences of doing this - if one is seen to outweigh the other, then careful consideration must be given to any change.

azezil

hey if they want to kill themselves let em, as long as they consider other ppls rights.

ie. when i go out to a restraunt n i order a meal, i don't ask for a side of cancer and i'd expect ppl to respect me enough to not smoke. or when i drive on the roads i shouldn't have to worrie about some twit, high or otherwise intoxicated falling infront of my car or runing me down etc.

so imo, ppl should be allowed do what they like to themselves BUT to do so in a public place violates the rights of others and should be restricted or even banned.

---

"just because you're not paraniod, doesn't mean they're not after you!"

Xterminator

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by azezil:
so imo, ppl should be allowed do what they like to themselves BUT to do so in a public place violates the rights of others and should be restricted or even banned.
</font>

I disagree with that sentiment.

To take an extreme example. If someone is smoking crack in their own home, buying the crack from their savings, then it does not effect you. You think this should be legal?
Your post would imply so.

I think that the addictive drug will effect this persons abilty to make a decision as to whether they should stop, or continiue using this narcotic.

I think the decision should be made by society, that this is an unacceptable behaviour, endangering the individual and serving no accepted purpose.

It should be stopped by legislating against, and those laws being enforced by the authorities (de cops!).

Now to take a different example, if a person eats so much tha they have become clinically obese, and they continiue down this path, regardless of the health dangers, I believe it is morally right to take this person into medical care and regulate their intake. (Just the flip side of Aneroxia etc.)

There has to be a line drawn, and that is very difficult.
Where the person endangers their (or others) lives should definitely be banned though.

[This message has been edited by Xterminator (edited 13-08-2001).]

azezil

Thats a rather harsh way to look at it Xterminator!

Well i agree that ppl who become dependant on drugs etc. need 'tough love' to get them sorted, but i was only refering to smoking and drinking.

I do believe we have a responseability to 'encourage' ppl to quit / cut back but to force them! no i don't agree with that at all!, that'd be a violation of their human rights...

---

"just because you're not paraniod, doesn't mean they're not after you!"

the fnj

The government will only step in if the cost of stopping you is less than the cost to tidy up the mess you've made to yourself etc.

I think money is the deciding factor here. Smokers make the government millions through taxes but also cost them through hospital care. The taxes earned are higher then the money spent on health services so they let it go. Wait till it goes the other way and watch them change their tune.

Trojan

My dad, as a teacher, is always slagging the lads who dissapear off for a smoke: he tells them it's great, the amount of doctors and nurses they are keeping in jobs etc ... sad but true

omg, I'm posting on the Humility board

/quit arghhhhhhh

Al.

---

Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.

You really should you know.

Shinji

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">To take an extreme example. If someone is smoking crack in their own home, buying the crack from their savings, then it does not effect you. You think this should be legal?</font>

Yes.

As long as the state has done it's damndest to educate you as to the dangers of the decision you've taken by starting to smoke crack, I don't see why they should waste their time intervening to stop you.

Then again, nor do I think that they should be obliged to pay for your medical bills when your heart explodes.

JustHalf

Nesf, you appear to have failed to grasp the concept of rights in the context of the current form of government.

You seem also to believe that smoking a cigarette in the privacy of your own is a basic right.

This may not be apparent in his post *here*, but look at the "Smoker's Rights" page for more details.

There is no basic human right shared by every human on this planet... or perhaps you meant you had this basic right as an Irish citizen.

As an example, we shall take the Human Rights Charter... what is it? It's a few pieces of paper with some words on it, words that indicate a motion to an ideal which does not exist today. If you believe that you have, as a basic human right, freedom of speech; I dare you to go to China and proclaim "Communism is the great evil, throw of your chains and revoke it! Mao should have been strangled at birth!". We shall see how long your other "basic human right", the right to life, lasts.

But you wouldn't do that, because it's China, and not the real world, right?

Or perhaps, as I said earlier, you believe you have this basic right as an Irish citizen.

So why are your rights more important than a Chinese persons? If you believe they are, then you are arrogant at best; and if you believe they are not (fingers crossed) then you need to read this.

Who's going to protect your rights? The government. A government that has been elected by the people for the people. They therefore represent the people of the country - which is the main highlight of a democracy; it's the best mechanism we have for that, at least that I'm aware of.

Now, unless your "right" to smoke in your own home is enshrined in some manner in the constitution, the government can, by a majority vote, pass a law that will restrict your use of tobacco.

You were not born with the right to acquire and use tobacco-based products. You only were granted this "right" when you were 16. Recently the government passed a law that changed the minimum age to purchase cigarettes to 18 years. Now, what about all those 17 year olds who previously had a "right" to do so? They have lost that "right".

You were not born with the right you claim to hold so dear... you were born into a society that granted you it.

bonkey

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by azezil:
Well i agree that ppl who become dependant on drugs etc. need 'tough love' to get them sorted, but i was only refering to smoking and drinking.</font>

Nicotine and alcohol are drugs. Nicotine is arguably a more addictive drug than any of the so-called "hard" drugs.

I'm not sure what youre saying...people should be allowed do what they want in their own home, except nasty things like hard drugs which you disagree with?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">when i go out to a restraunt n i order a meal, i don't ask for a side of cancer and i'd expect ppl to respect me enough to not smoke</font>

And I presume you respect smokers enough not to sit anywhere near the smoking area so that they can have their cigarette in peace?

This "side of cancer" line is a bit old. Non-smoking sections are obligatory by law. If you feel they are still too smoky, then lodge a complaint with the autorities about the venue. However, if you sit near a smoker who is smoking where he is permitted to and you choose to remain there, then you cannot complain about the smoke.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by nesf:
Some people were of the opinion that the government should have completely control over what what we do to ourselves, while others, myself included, felt that within one's home, there are few things that the government or the rest of society should have control of.

I think this is a bit of a misrepresentation. In the smoking thread, people (like myself) have argued that the government have control over what we can legally do in our own homes. We have not argued that they should or should not have this level of control - simply that they do have it at present.

The smoking debate has mostly been about whether or not smoking could/should be banned (and to what extent). This has nothing to do with how a democracy is run. People who have taken the side of "I have a right" or "They cannot do this" have been corrected.

I find it disappointing that I am now seen as advocating this level of control in our lives, or even defending it and believing in it. I have never said any of that....I have stated what is.

That said, you raise an interesting question, which (hopefully) I'll have time to offer my thoughts on tomorrow, should anyone care

jc

nesf

Bonkey, I apologise, i interpreted what you said as a defense on the present system. I agree that the discussion on the right's issue was off topic, so I hope we can argue it here

Just Half, firstly do not try and discredit my arguments by refering to my posts on the smoker's thread. If you want to debate that, then post there not here.

Also I don't think you grasp what I'm saying. I'm saying that I think this is a right of mine and i'm putting forward an argument for it, I am entitled to do so. I never said that the present law was this way, in fact I said that the present law system does not discern crime from vice. I am entitled to argue in favour of change if I wish to. I'm not sure how you can accuse me of not understanding democracy or the present system as it was created by and for people seeking compromise through change. We cannot ignore the law, and I personally will obey it, but it doens't mean I can't argue to prevent a change that I would see as violating a right of mine, or to argue in an attempt to protect I right I feel to have. I don't think you fully understand what democracy is, if your counter-argument is that I'm questioning the law due to rights I feel should be protected, and that this is not democratic. Honestly If no one ever argued for their rights we'd all be slaves of society and the small group that have the money, or power to run for political office in this country.

Anyway a right doesn't have to be on our constitution, I can't remember if the right to a healthy life is on it, but I don't think it is, yet it was continually brought up in other threads as the basis for arguments. I agree we do have this right, and as I've said above we have a right to waive it if we so wish. A right doesn't have to be on our constitution for it to be real. The constituation changes to adapt to modern lifestyle, and tbh the right of self abuse didn't need to be defended until all this moral majority opinion came in and ppl felt that they could make others live in a way that was more pleasing for them.

No one can live our life or force our decisions but ourselves yes? Now is that in the constitution? No it isn't. You cannot accuse me of not understanding democracy if you say so, as a fundamental part of a democratic system is the right of citizens of that society to question and debate the rights we have, that we lack and those that conflict with our interests. The government has changed from the representitives of the people to the sole decision makers, we have no input. Oh yes we vote them in, but we have no way to vote them out when they are in office. We have to endure their decisions until the next election. More power needs to be given to local government, as they are more concerned about their people, as they generally live and work in the area and are directly effected by their own decisions.

Am I born with a right of freedom or is it something that cannot be taken away from me? From your logic any right can be denied on society's whim rather than being upto the individual. Your concept of democracy leaves no individual choice but rather it only allows majority decision. What hapens ina 51% vs 49% vote?? For every person against there is a person for, there is only a tiny percentage of people who are making/swinging the decision, is this fair?

Education and personal choice is key to a healthy society. A well educated public will naturally avoid substances such as crack due to the extreme physical addiction associated with it, and the health risks involved. Now if some still want to smoke it after knowing how sever the effects can be, then they should be able to, we have tried to reason with them through the medium of education and now we can do no more unless we wish to try and directly control their lives.

The biggest moral division in the issue comes from highly addicitive subtances as Xterminator said. It is a tougher decision to allow a situation where a person is addicted to a substance to continue. Personally I believe that eduacation can remedy this, warn ppl and make them aware of the consequences of their actions. But legalising drugs harder than nicotine or cannabis is very difficult, due to the intense physical addictions associated with them or the extreme dangers involved with them. E.g how many social, I have a hit when I'm drunk, heroin users are there? On the other hand the situation is very common amoung smokers.

But as I've already said is it our choice what a person does with their life? And does the government have any more right than another person to control an individuals acts of self abuse?

[This message has been edited by nesf (edited 13-08-2001).]

scutchy

(1) We don't live in a democracy, we live in a pseudo-democratic republic; there's a huge difference

(2) Our constitution is a theocratical rag

(3) I've never seen or heard of a politician I would trust to govern me

Within society, I do whatever I feel like. By coincedence, I obey most laws, because there's a little common sense behind me. Of the remaining laws, some I don't break often because of the potential for punishment, and others I break freely.

For instance, I'm an atheist, which is in clear violation of our constitution.

I've been in many, MANY taxis that didn't have the legally required bale of hay in the boot.

Basically, the law of the land isn't overly important to me when I'm making important decisions.

So, in conclusion, I feel that I am entitled to do whatever I want in society, safe in the knowledge that society will deal with me if I step too far out of line.

JustHalf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf:
Just Half, firstly do not try and discredit my arguments by refering to my posts on the smoker's thread. If you want to debate that, then post there not here.</font>

So you are telling me not to discredit your arguments with what you have stated in public. This is not reasonable at all.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf:
Also I don't think you grasp what I'm saying. I'm saying that I think this is a right of mine and i'm putting forward an argument for it, I am entitled to do so. I never said that the present law was this way, in fact I said that the present law system does not discern crime from vice.</font>

I was attacking your concept of rights - your right to do whatever you like in your own home, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, does not exist. You can't shoot up at home, and yet "it doesn't harm anyone else". But do you have a right to it? If you believe so, tell me; where did you gain this right?

Also, explain why the law does not discern between crime and vice.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf:
I am entitled to argue in favour of change if I wish to. I'm not sure how you can accuse me of not understanding democracy or the present system as it was created by and for people seeking compromise through change.</font>

I can. Tell me, nesf... who gave you your rights, which you appear to believe to be indelible?

I did not accuse you of not understanding democracy... I was explaining my point that the government are quite capable of removing this "right" of yours.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf:
We cannot ignore the law, and I personally will obey it, but it doens't mean I can argue to prevent a change that I would see as violating a right of mine, or to argue in an attempt to protect I right I feel to have.</font>

Please explain how this makes any sense... I *think* I know what you're saying, but it requires some changes to what I think are typo's. "can" to "can't" etc.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf:
I don't think you fully understand what democracy is, if your counter-argument is that I'm questioning the law due to rights I feel should be protected, and that this is not democratic.</font>

I don't think you're questioning the law... I think you're questioning the "right" of the government to curtail your "rights". I'm also attacking your concept of rights. The question again is: who gave you these rights?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf:
Anyway a right doesn't have to be on our constitution, I can't remember if the right to a healthy life is on it, but I don't think it is, yet it was continually brought up in other threads as the basis for arguments.</font>

That was never my point. If you would please read what I have said and not what you think I am implying, you will find that when I said: Now, unless your "right" to smoke in your own home is enshrined in some manner in the constitution, the government can, by a majority vote, pass a law that will restrict your use of tobacco., it quite clearly states that the government can, by a majority vote, pass a law that will restrict your use of tobacco unless that act is prohibited by the constitution... ie, the constitution prevents them from taking an action against it.

In such a case, a referendum must be passed.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf:
I agree we do have this right, and as I've said above we have a right to waive it if we so wish.</font>

You may only waive your own rights, not those of others. Here's another place to ask that recurring question, but I'm getting tired of this.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf:
A right doesn't have to be on our constitution for it to be real. The constituation changes to adapt to modern lifestyle, and tbh the right of self abuse didn't need to be defended until all this moral majority opinion came in and ppl felt that they could make others live in a way that was more pleasing for them.</font>

That's done all the time nesf. People try to make other people behae in a manner more pleasing to them. If you disagree, what are you doing by defending your "rights" then?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf:
No one can live our life or force our decisions but ourselves yes? Now is that in the constitution? No it isn't.</font>

Explain why no-one has the capability to force your decisions.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf:
You cannot accuse me of not understanding democracy if you say so, as a fundamental part of a democratic system is the right of citizens of that society to question and debate the rights we have, that we lack and those that conflict with our interests.</font>

And you cannot accuse me of not understanding the sky, as it's blue. Oh, I forgot to mention, that's all there is to know about the sky. It's blue.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf:
The government has changed from the representitives of the people to the sole decision makers, we have no input. Oh yes we vote them in, but we have no way to vote them out when they are in office.</font>

So we have no input? Explain:
* The point in any referendum
* Our infered shared handicap, that we cannot write to government officials
* The point in any election
* What the hell these links are: http://www.irlgov.ie/feedback/ and
http://www.irlgov.ie/ombudsman/

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf:
Am I born with a right of freedom or is it something that cannot be taken away from me?</font>

You are born into a system of "rights". Freedom is such a vague term that you will have to refine it before I can address it.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf:
From your logic any right can be denied on society's whim rather than being upto the individual.</font>

No, there's the constitution to stop gross indisgresions. There's also public opinion; and of course this lovely voting lark, that helps use affect change.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf:
Your concept of democracy leaves no individual choice but rather it only allows majority decision. What hapens ina 51% vs 49% vote?? For every person against there is a person for, there is only a tiny percentage of people who are making/swinging the decision, is this fair?</font>

It is not a "simple" majority system. A certain set limit must be passed (I think it's 60%). I never said it was fair either, I'm simply stating fact.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf:
Education and personal choice is key to a healthy society. A well educated public will naturally avoid substances such as crack due to the extreme physical addiction associated with it, and the health risks involved.</font>

But some people are REALLY STUPID, and don't want to be educated, or have a reasoned debate, or too lazy to read what people have said.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf:
But as I've already said is it our choice what a person does with their life? And does the government have any more right than another person to control an individuals acts of self abuse?</font>

I'm going to indulge you a bit and use the word "right" sans quote marks.

The government is granted this right by the people.

Who the hell gave you the right to disagree?

JustHalf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by scutchy:
(1) We don't live in a democracy, we live in a pseudo-democratic republic; there's a huge difference</font>

Right Scutch, allow me to say "democracy"; as I couldn't be bothered typing any more

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by scutchy:
(2) Our constitution is a theocratical rag</font>

I'm Eamonn DeValera. I could have you killed.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by scutchy:
So, in conclusion, I feel that I am entitled to do whatever I want in society, safe in the knowledge that society will deal with me if I step too far out of line.</font>

To act a bit like nesf: But what right do they have to do that?

nesf

Actually in retrospect Just Half, I can't agree with your reply above. You dismiss my arguments by saying "who gave you this right?" without giving any backup to your opinion that rights are given to people. You aren't backing up your counter arguments, and btw the ombudsman has no authority over the dail last time i checked. Oh and yes you were correct it should ahve been can't, apologies

Putting aside concerns over the abuse of substances and such issues for the moment, I think we need to discuss what we feel is a right in our society. Is it something given and can be taken away as easily? Or is it something that defines the people, and is not something that has to be ratified by our government and rather a thing that we must protect and at times defend from the ravages of the modern political system, where values and rights of different countries are conflicted in globalisation of our political systems.

Do I as an individual have any right to define or ascertain what my rights are? Some people have posted that it is society that does this and that the individual must adhere to the social consensus that is forced on them. This argument loses it's grounding when we look at society and see that it is in eccesence controlled by a minority. The political system requires that an individual must have a lot of funding in order to run for office in the dail, this isn't a constitutional point but a simple fact of political life, only in rare cases can we see an individual from the masses gain office, and this is usually through campaigning for a single issue that effects that constituency, a hospital closure or another similar issue.

So can we say that we should take back the ability to define the morality of our society from this minority? Is it fair for such a select group to have freedom to judge and criminalise the actions of individuals when they are not of a social nature? The proposed parasuicide register is one such issue. Firstly parasuicide is not attempted suicide, it is a form of cognitive self-mutilation, attempted suicide is only one aspect of this. The government would have us believe that such a register would help reduce the no. Of suicides in this country, but in actual fact it is a severe invasion of privacy for those involved. The concept on patient-doctor confidentiality is being breached here. Also I’ll make a simple point, those who attend or seek treatment, are the ones who will be on the list, surely it is those who don’t come forward that are most at risk, and they will not be encouraged by such a list.

I cannot accept that society, esp at a countrywide level should have control, or the ability to stop me from performing actions that are not going to effect other people. Admittedly the emotional impact of illness, or suicide is of great importance, but honestly it’s only the individual that has control of such, and is in a position to judge the repercussions of their act.



[This message has been edited by nesf (edited 13-08-2001).]

JustHalf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf:
Actually in retrospect Just Half, I can't agree with your reply above. You dismiss my arguments by saying "who gave you this right?" without giving any backup to your opinion that rights are given to people.</font>

I only want to know where the hell you think these righs come from. It's a question, after all.

And you *still* haven't answered it, or replied to most of my questions.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf:
You aren't backing up your counter arguments, and btw the ombudsman has no authority over the dail last time i checked.</font>

No, but they have power over public bodies. But whoops - and oh, what about the rest of my points in that list that you have yet to reply to?

Also, I think I have attacked your statements with reasoned arguments, which you seem to ignore entirely so you can say more... if seems you are doing this to gain some moral high ground - are you trying to show off? Whether I state the presence of fairness or cruelty, if those are the facts you should not ignore them - and if I am mistaken then please, correct me... but don't ignore me because you disagree with me.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf:
Putting aside concerns over the abuse of substances and such issues for the moment, I think we need to discuss what we feel is a right in our society. Is it something given and can be taken away as easily? Or is it something that defines the people, and is not something that has to be ratified by our government and rather a thing that we must protect and at times defend from the ravages of the modern political system, where values and rights of different countries are conflicted in globalisation of our political systems.</font>

You can talk all you like about what you *feel* is a "right", but if you begin talking high-level concepts like that while failing to reply to the most basic questions about their base, then I cannot believe that you have really thought hard about the issue.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf:
Do I as an individual have any right to define or ascertain what my rights are?</font>

Hopefully you are allowed that freedom, but not all people are. If not all people are, why is this? What does that have to say about your concept of "rights"?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf:
Some people have posted that it is society that does this and that the individual must adhere to the social consensus that is forced on them.</font>

Or, for an even better (and more apt) word, laws.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf:
This argument loses it's grounding when we look at society and see that it is in eccesence controlled by a minority. The political system requires that an individual must have a lot of funding in order to run for office in the dail, this isn't a constitutional point but a simple fact of political life, only in rare cases can we see an individual from the masses gain office, and this is usually through campaigning for a single issue that effects that constituency, a hospital closure or another similar issue.</font>

Tell me nesf, are you the type of "Communist" who wears DocMartens and eats in Burger King (because it's not McDonalds, the great Satan)?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf:
So can we say that we should take back the ability to define the morality of our society from this minority? Is it fair for such a select group to have freedom to judge and criminalise the actions of individuals when they are not of a social nature?</font>

Well, I suppose murder isn't exactly what you'd call social. Is it fair for this "select group to have freedom to judge and criminalise the actions of individuals when they are" like this?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf:
I cannot accept that society, esp at a countrywide level should have control, or the ability to stop me from performing actions that are not going to effect other people. Admittedly the emotional impact of illness, or suicide is of great importance, but honestly it’s only the individual that has control of such, and is in a position to judge the repercussions of their act.</font>

Personally, I'd say that someone contemplating suicide needs help, not someone saying that "only they can choose the path they follow", or "you have the power to choose".

And nesf, please, reply to my questions. Including the last post.

scutchy

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JustHalf:
Right Scutch, allow me to say "democracy"; as I couldn't be bothered typing any more </font>

<grumble> I'll let you away with it this time...

seriously though, the difference between a democracy and a democratic republic is noteworthy. Democracy would be impossible to implement, and damned foolish in my opinion.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I'm Eamonn DeValera. I could have you killed.</font>

Nah - you're old, blind and dead; and you'd probably have taken the theocracy comment as a compliment, if you'd thought about it enough

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">To act a bit like nesf: But what right do they have to do that?[/B]</font>

Because they too can do whatever they want.

Society is a wonderfully self-correcting mechanism - look at societies where recourse to the law isn't possible - troublemakers are dealt with.

I'll admit that the system is open to abuse, and I don't feel terrorist groups are appropriate guv'nors, but problems are resolved in society.

nesf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JustHalf:

1
So you are telling me not to discredit your arguments with what you have stated in public. This is not reasonable at all.

2
I can. Tell me, nesf... who gave you your rights, which you appear to believe to be indelible?

3
I did not accuse you of not understanding democracy... I was explaining my point that the government are quite capable of removing this "right" of yours.

4
Please explain how this makes any sense... I *think* I know what you're saying, but it requires some changes to what I think are typo's. "can" to "can't" etc.

5
I don't think you're questioning the law... I think you're questioning the "right" of the government to curtail your "rights". I'm also attacking your concept of rights. The question again is: who gave you these rights?

6
That was never my point. If you would please read what I have said and not what you think I am implying, you will find that when I said: Now, unless your "right" to smoke in your own home is enshrined in some manner in the constitution, the government can, by a majority vote, pass a law that will restrict your use of tobacco., it quite clearly states that the government can, by a majority vote, pass a law that will restrict your use of tobacco unless that act is prohibited by the constitution... ie, the constitution prevents them from taking an action against it.

In such a case, a referendum must be passed.

7
You may only waive your own rights, not those of others. Here's another place to ask that recurring question, but I'm getting tired of this.

8
That's done all the time nesf. People try to make other people behae in a manner more pleasing to them. If you disagree, what are you doing by defending your "rights" then?

9
Explain why no-one has the capability to force your decisions.
And you cannot accuse me of not understanding the sky, as it's blue. Oh, I forgot to mention, that's all there is to know about the sky. It's blue.

10
So we have no input? Explain:
* The point in any referendum
* Our infered shared handicap, that we cannot write to government officials
* The point in any election
* What the hell these links are: http://www.irlgov.ie/feedback/ and
http://www.irlgov.ie/ombudsman/

11
You are born into a system of "rights". Freedom is such a vague term that you will have to refine it before I can address it.

12
No, there's the constitution to stop gross indisgresions. There's also public opinion; and of course this lovely voting lark, that helps use affect change.

13
It is not a "simple" majority system. A certain set limit must be passed (I think it's 60%). I never said it was fair either, I'm simply stating fact.

14
But some people are REALLY STUPID, and don't want to be educated, or have a reasoned debate, or too lazy to read what people have said.

15
Who the hell gave you the right to disagree?</font>

I'll start by saying, you're very persistant, thats a good trait for a debater, so I'll indulge you and try to answer your questions to your satisfaction I've numbered paragraphs to make my replys clearer.

1
I just want to keep the arguments seperate, and I want to argue a slightly different point here, and avoid the anti-smoking posts that could occur on this thread.

2
No one gives you your rights you must assert them yourself. I tried to explain my thinking on this in my last post.

3
I would disagree with this, but then again thats the basis of this entire thread so i wont adress it directly.

4
As said it was a typo, and I've corrected it.

5
I've answered the rights issue already, and yes one can interpret the argument in this way, but one doesn't have to. You can look at it from either the governmental or the individual veiwpoint.

6
I never said it's against the law, I'm arguing that it should not be within the power of the government to do so. It's a very different argument.

7
And thus the word self in the title. I'm only arguing on waiving your own right, I thought that was clear?

8
No I'm trying to live as I choose to live, it's a small and yet v important difference.

9
No one should be able to force my decisions, when my decisions will not effect them. Otherwise the right of freedom is breached unnessecarily yes?
The sky thing I don't understand what are you trying to say?

10
My point is that we are very limited in our ability to effect decisions at government level. I did not mean that we had no way to make our feelings known.

11
Freedom, is the ability to choose imo. To not be forced in decisions and not to be curtailed in one's choice of lifestyle.

12
All good points, I won't disagree with them, but I will question the impact of voting on the government. Just look at the nice treaty, we will be given referendum after referendum until we make the right choice in their opinion.

13
I was refering to the majority system in general, not the present system. I think we are talking about different things.

14
I agree, but it's unavoidable. Theres always some fool who will ignore warnings, no method is foolproof.

15
I'm not sure if you are joking or serious here. I can hold any opinion I want to, if I'm arrogant enough :P

scutchy

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JustHalf:

I only want to know where the hell you think these rights come from. It's a question, after all.
</font>

An interesting question, and one I feel like answering, even though the question was not addressed to me.

As I see it, under any form of archy, you have the right to do anything you please.

I have the right to wander the street with a shotgun after a particularly hard day with the office.

However, the general public have the right of self defence, and I'm likely to find myself very dead very soon...

Laws do not remove rights - they merely set concequences for the exercising of certain rights.

As a martial artist, for instance, I'm more likely than most to be arrested if I defend myself when attacked - I still have that right, but the result of exercising that right could be a criminal record.

I might attempt a more salient reply after a little sleep.

nesf

This is going to be another long one I'd say, lol my scroll bar is wrecked after all there posts

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JustHalf:

Originally posted by nesf:
1
I only want to know where the hell you think these righs come from. It's a question, after all.

3
No, but they have power over public bodies. But whoops - and oh, what about the rest of my points in that list that you have yet to reply to?

4
Also, I think I have attacked your statements with reasoned arguments, which you seem to ignore entirely so you can say more... if seems you are doing this to gain some moral high ground - are you trying to show off? Whether I state the presence of fairness or cruelty, if those are the facts you should not ignore them - and if I am mistaken then please, correct me... but don't ignore me because you disagree with me.
You can talk all you like about what you *feel* is a "right", but if you begin talking high-level concepts like that while failing to reply to the most basic questions about their base, then I cannot believe that you have really thought hard about the issue.

5
Hopefully you are allowed that freedom, but not all people are. If not all people are, why is this? What does that have to say about your concept of "rights"?

6
Or, for an even better (and more apt) word, laws.

7
Tell me nesf, are you the type of "Communist" who wears DocMartens and eats in Burger King (because it's not McDonalds, the great Satan)?

8
Well, I suppose murder isn't exactly what you'd call social. Is it fair for this "select group to have freedom to judge and criminalise the actions of individuals when they are" like this?

9
Personally, I'd say that someone contemplating suicide needs help, not someone saying that "only they can choose the path they follow", or "you have the power to choose".

</font>

1.
Have I sufficently answered this or will I try again?

2.
I've skipped this number for some reason or another... damn typo gremlins!

3.
Public bodies have nothing to do with the argument imo. Thats why I pointed out nothing more.

4.
Yes I have thought about the issue, and no I didn't ignore you. I tried to explain what I thought you were asking with that post, I wasn't trying to achieve moral highground, and I'm not sure how you could take it as showing off, it's not very complex logic or argument.

5.
My concept of rights is that your rights are those that you assert. I can discuss this more if you so wish.

6.
If I meant laws I would have said so. Law doesn't cover public retribution, ostrisation(sp?), and religious judgement etc.

7.
No I am not. I am neither a communist, and how dare you insult me by saying I eat in burger king!!

I was merely pointing out that there is a relativily small no. of ppl able to run for office, thats all. Maybe my use of the word masses put you off?

8.
I meant in the context of self abuse, as this is the title of the thread, nothing more.

9.
You're entitled to your opinion, but such a register would not do anything to help those that need help the most.


This kind of bickering doesn't achieve much, can you give an opinion on the topic that we can discuss or contrast?

bonkey

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf: Do we need to rethink and inform the people and the government of this country where individual choice ends, and
society's choice begins?</font>

OK, I'm ignoring the whole argumnent on "rights" - what is and what isnt a right, because its a side issue (for another post perhaps!)

I see nesf's argument boiling down to the dichotomy between the individual and the society. I dont like the term "choice", but I cant think of a
better one.

The basic cut and thrust as I see it is that society makes the rules, and the individual must abide by those rules. Under the auspices of democracy,
these rules can be changed - it often takes time, but they can change.

Now, as to where society's responsibility ends and the individual's starts....thats a toughie. I accept the argument that within your own home you should have the freedom to do what you want - AS LONG AS IT AFFECTS NO-ONE AND NOTHING ELSE.

Now, this "no-one else" is the problem. For example, bestiality is right out, because it affects the animal in question. Same goes for torture, child-abuse, and all those. What about consensual acts? I'd be inclined to say that if it involves consenting adults, then fair enough. Please bear in mind that such a law would completely open the way for "mercy killings". If I decide I want to die in my own home, then I can get a doctor to agree to help. Its consensual.

Now, here comes the toughie...what about things which are generally illegal? For example - substance abuse. Well, I already put forward an argument as to why this is not affecting no-one else, so I wont go into it here again. Go check the 4th page of the Smokers page if youre interested, its up near the top.

But, is it just freedom within "your own home". If you dont own the building, does the building-owner have the right to make any rules? What if you live with your parents? Or with a partner? Then its not the individual alone who is affected either. Can we make rules which only grant individual freedom to those lucky and rich enough to afford their own domiciles, and who live completely alone? If more than one person is involved, do we need written contracts which state that the actions are consensual if they would be illegal if performed in public? Can those contracts even be worth anything? If you are a parent, can you still act freely in your own home, given that there is a child there who is not capable (or leagally allowed) to consent or not consent to any given action?

If we're not talking about within your own home, then how do we prioritise one indivual's rights over another's? When two people take differing stances on an issue, who has the right to be right??? How private a space do you need before its the individual's rights, and again, if its private space, then the owner has a say. If its public space, then what about the public who dissent with you - what about their rights?

This is the basic crux of the matter. The only way you can give the invidual the freedom we would generally agree they should have would be to completely remove them from society, or to live in one of an anarchy or a utopia. None of these are practical.

Ultimately, there is no practical solution. This is one of the sacrifices we make to be part of a functioning society. Wherever two or three people gather, either they fight, or they make sacrifices in order to get along. This is one of those sacrifices.

Personal freedom is a great idea. Making it work in practice is a fanciful notion which I believe cannot work. If anyone can present a non-discriminatory, workable model to me, then please do so - Id be delighted to have my mind changed.

jc

nesf

I agree with you bonkey, the rights issue is a side issue here, and it takes from the topic in question.

I agree totally on the problems with personal freedom, within any society it must be sacraficed to a greater or lesser degree, actually this is the argument I use for arguing against anarchaic models.

But you can still maintain personal freedom when we couple it with responsibility. I was hoping to address the issue of self abuse, in all it's forms, but your point is well made and needs addressing.

For personal freedom to be of real value, there must be compromise with the others effected. The issue of children imo is one of concern for the immediate society aswell as friends and relatives. Since children do not have full legal rights, then it is the responsibility of neighbours, teachers, relatives etc, to ensure that they are not mistreated or abused. Bestiality... well a farmer does own his animals..... Jackie Healy Ray might be down on us for oppressing such important rights...

In the situation with a partner or flatmate, it comes down to compromise doesn't it? Anyone who's lived away from home with people they don't know, as happens in college for instance, quickly learns that they can't always have their own way. If you don't compromise or at least agree to disagree, then the situation doesn't work.

I think any system of personal freedom, must allow the individuals directly involved to decide on the levels of freedom that are practical and agreeable to the group.

Also group interactions can benifit from conflict, just look at this post, no one here totally agrees with each other, but we all have the freedom to express our opinions, but we compromise through civility and the framework of debate and argument. But from clash of freedoms, there is a constructive result, i.e. we're all broadening our perceptions on the argument in question.

We need to find a framework that can have similar control over other actions, if we want a higher level of personal freedom within the group.

The of course the argument that society's constructed of groups and a nation is constructed of societies, and the compromise needed between them will arise.....

JustHalf

Just to let you know nesf, I will get back to you on these points but I'm kind of busy in work at the moment!

bonkey

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf:
But you can still maintain personal freedom when we couple it with responsibility. I was hoping to address the issue of self abuse, in all it's forms
</font>

I may have misunderstood - I presumed you were talking about the RIGHT to self-abuse, as opposed to the act itself.

If you are talking about the right, then it boils back to the same aegument...which I have already outlined.

You did raise an interesting point tho....

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">For personal freedom to be of real value, there must be compromise with the others effected. </font>

This is the crux of the matter. Acknowledging that compromise is necessary refutes the concept of an absolute right, but rather puts pre-conditions on it.

You no longer have the right to do something, you only have the right to do it as long as no-one else is forced to suffer your choices without compromise being reached.

Taking that a step further...human nature being what it is, we cannot rely on a society which relies on compromise, as there are too many people who are willing to take advantage of this.

This is the basic notion of where laws came in - they are only necessary when people do not respect the common wishes - either through a differing belief, or a lack of compromise.

So, if you accept that compromise is necessary, then you ultimately end up where I started.....that you can be "granted" the right to self-abuse by society, as long as it affects no-one else.

However, setting conditions to determine when someone else is affected ("your own home") ultimately means that you are passing an exclusionist law - one which only a select few will gain the advantage of. Society, in general, does not approve of the passing of laws which are specifically only going to benefit the better off.

Ergo, in principle, you are right...you should have the right to do what you want to yourself, as long as its in private, and doesnt affect others.

In practice, "not affecting others" is the problem, and the basic facts of humanity have necessitated the passing of laws to protect the majority from those who would not behave appropriately.

At least, thats my 2c on it.

jc