Welcome to NESR! Most features of this site require registration, including replying to threads, sending private messages, starting new threads, and uploading files. Click here to register.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Personal Liberty

  1. #1
    the phear hohum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Everett, MA
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,274

    Personal Liberty


    All pot stuff aside, in a pure philosophical sense (and of course I understand that that doesn't match reality), here's a few questions.

    If I do something that does no harm to anyone else, should you be able to prohibit me from doing that something just because you don't agree with that something?

    If there exists some minority of people who engage in a certain activity who can't abide by the rules when engaging in that activity is it better to pre-emptively deny the entire population the right to engage in that activity or is it better to punish just those who don't abide by the rules?

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    But when we ride very fast motorcycles, we ride with immaculate sanity. We might abuse a substance here and there, but only when it's right. The final measure of any rider's skill is the inverse ratio of his preferred Traveling Speed to the number of bad scars on his body. It is that simple: If you ride fast and crash, you are a bad rider. If you go slow and crash, you are a bad rider. And if you are a bad rider, you should not ride motorcycles.


  2. #2
    Super Moderator TheIglu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Royalston, MA
    Age
    41
    Posts
    20,857

    Personal Liberty

    So this would apply to E, Crack, heroin, etc.

    Sure, but the problem is, it often times DOES hurt other people.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    -Clayton
    2021 KTM Duke 890 R
    2006 Suzuki SV650
    1982 Honda CB750F Super Sport

  3. #3
    the phear hohum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Everett, MA
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,274

    Personal Liberty

    Originally posted by TheIglu
    So this would apply to E, Crack, heroin, etc.

    Sure, but the problem is, it often times DOES hurt other people.
    Not just in a drug sense, in a general sense... like speeding, passing on a double yellow, drugs, alcohol, whatever, so long as the context is 'harms noone else'.

    ie, if I do drugs in my own home (lets say I produce whatever my drug of choice is there from ingredients I made myself to eliminate the black market harm aspect), AND I lead a productive life, paying taxes, going to work, paying my bills, voting, and in general being a respectable citizen, should the majority be able to prevent me from doing this.

    OR

    if I speed on the highway, yet I am a fully capable driver/rider on a fully capable machine, not intoxicated, should the majority be able to say I can't speed because a minority can't deal with driving at that speed?

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    But when we ride very fast motorcycles, we ride with immaculate sanity. We might abuse a substance here and there, but only when it's right. The final measure of any rider's skill is the inverse ratio of his preferred Traveling Speed to the number of bad scars on his body. It is that simple: If you ride fast and crash, you are a bad rider. If you go slow and crash, you are a bad rider. And if you are a bad rider, you should not ride motorcycles.


  4. #4
    the phear hohum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Everett, MA
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,274

    Personal Liberty

    MMMmmmm, cost benefit analysis. I can dig it


    Originally posted by Mr. E. Squid
    what this boils down to is how much of a price do you want to pay?

    people generally tend to obey the law due to the consequences if they don't. Pre-emptively denying limits the activity, no doubt. However, when pre-emptively denying, you effectively pull an "out of site, out of mind" mechanism, which no dbout, is another factor that limits the activity.

    This costs less.



    now, turn it into a "punishment" regime... the difference here is that it is no longer out of sight, out of mind, you're allowed to participate. and participating, simply BECAUSE you're participating (as, obviously, opposed to out of sight out of mind, non-participation) has just bumped up the likelyhood that such activity will be acted upon, and exceeding boundries is inter-related.

    this costs more.



    Basically, you keep the pool closed, the only ones that are gonna drown are the ones who are willing to break the law to get in and go for a swim.

    You open the pool to the public, and people are definitely going to drown.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    But when we ride very fast motorcycles, we ride with immaculate sanity. We might abuse a substance here and there, but only when it's right. The final measure of any rider's skill is the inverse ratio of his preferred Traveling Speed to the number of bad scars on his body. It is that simple: If you ride fast and crash, you are a bad rider. If you go slow and crash, you are a bad rider. And if you are a bad rider, you should not ride motorcycles.


  5. #5
    Super Moderator TheIglu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Royalston, MA
    Age
    41
    Posts
    20,857

    Personal Liberty

    Originally posted by hohum
    Not just in a drug sense, in a general sense... like speeding, passing on a double yellow, drugs, alcohol, whatever, so long as the context is 'harms noone else'.

    ie, if I do drugs in my own home (lets say I produce whatever my drug of choice is there from ingredients I made myself to eliminate the black market harm aspect), AND I lead a productive life, paying taxes, going to work, paying my bills, voting, and in general being a respectable citizen, should the majority be able to prevent me from doing this.

    OR

    if I speed on the highway, yet I am a fully capable driver/rider on a fully capable machine, not intoxicated, should the majority be able to say I can't speed because a minority can't deal with driving at that speed?

    The problem with this is that we can't go through and say "This person will be responsible, this person won't" etc, etc.

    I would be fully responsible with a machine gun, but I can't get one because some people can't handle having them legally around. The WILL abuse that privilidge.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    -Clayton
    2021 KTM Duke 890 R
    2006 Suzuki SV650
    1982 Honda CB750F Super Sport

  6. #6
    the phear hohum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Everett, MA
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,274

    Personal Liberty

    Originally posted by TheIglu
    The problem with this is that we can't go through and say "This person will be responsible, this person won't" etc, etc.

    I would be fully responsible with a machine gun, but I can't get one because some people can't handle having them legally around. The WILL abuse that privilidge.
    Right, its a question of where we draw the line. My personal philosophy dictates that we assume that people will be responsible, until they prove that they can't be. Its what we do with driving priveledges, no?

    There will always be a few that will abuse a priviledge, so is the answer to deny the priviledge to many because of the few, or is the answer to allow the priviledge until proven that you can't be responsible with that priviledge?

    I think we end up with a better system when we allow the privilege (and this covers alot of things, from machine guns to the right to drive as you wish, to drugs) and punish those that abuse the priviledge...

    Lines in the sand... I guess this post is about what lines we draw and why, and what factors go into drawing that line.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    But when we ride very fast motorcycles, we ride with immaculate sanity. We might abuse a substance here and there, but only when it's right. The final measure of any rider's skill is the inverse ratio of his preferred Traveling Speed to the number of bad scars on his body. It is that simple: If you ride fast and crash, you are a bad rider. If you go slow and crash, you are a bad rider. And if you are a bad rider, you should not ride motorcycles.


  7. #7
    the phear hohum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Everett, MA
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,274

    Personal Liberty

    Originally posted by Mr. E. Squid
    look, you need to see that intoxication is the independent variable that increases the already present risk within any of the previously mentioned activites.

    Sure, we all drive, and there are definitely irresponsible drivers that cause others harm. FACT. Now, interject intoxication, and what have you?

    What have you I say!
    You have an independent variable that needs to be considered independently

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    But when we ride very fast motorcycles, we ride with immaculate sanity. We might abuse a substance here and there, but only when it's right. The final measure of any rider's skill is the inverse ratio of his preferred Traveling Speed to the number of bad scars on his body. It is that simple: If you ride fast and crash, you are a bad rider. If you go slow and crash, you are a bad rider. And if you are a bad rider, you should not ride motorcycles.


  8. #8
    Hungry like a wolf... MissTwisties's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Southwick, Matachusetts :)
    Age
    48
    Posts
    10,791

    Personal Liberty

    The truth is...I believe "most" things we do affect someone else in some way. Unless you're an hermit and you never get out of your home and that you live alone.

    The question about pot...my parents started with pot. Then gradually, they went up to stronger drugs, because I guess they were not getting their thrill on pot only. Did it affect someone's else life? You bet...

    Cigarette smoke? If you live alone in your house, no it do not affect anyone else.(unless you want to go as far as saying that someone will have to endure your bad odor when you approach them?) If you have kids...think they're smoking that same bullshit as you do.

    We could go on different subjects as the sex in the bedroom, eating habits, driving habits, etc...it never ends. We might find points to argue to the infinite. Let's just agree to disagree, it's simpler.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    www.elementsofbalancemt.com
    www.facebook.com/misstwisties

    "If you don't stand for something you fall for everything."
    "Speak when you are angry and you will make the best speech you will ever regret."


  9. #9
    Super Moderator TheIglu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Royalston, MA
    Age
    41
    Posts
    20,857

    Personal Liberty

    I am all for sex in the bedroom!

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    -Clayton
    2021 KTM Duke 890 R
    2006 Suzuki SV650
    1982 Honda CB750F Super Sport

  10. #10
    the phear hohum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Everett, MA
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,274

    Personal Liberty

    Originally posted by Mr. E. Squid
    Sorry, but, uggh, I hate to say this, but, you're wrong.

    No way it can be considered independent when chosen to be added. And, of course, back to the core argument, society cannot trust you to keep the independent variable, independent.
    And society can't trust anyone to be responsible, so whats the solution? Ban everything that might cause harm to other people?

    As far as the independent variable argument goes, there's two variables in this equation as we are discussing it
    A) intoxication
    B) activities that are potentially dangerous when intoxicated

    Obviously A + B is bad, but is the answer to legislate against A so that A + B can't happen? This seems to be your argument. Seems you could take the converse approach (legislate againts B) to acheive the same result.

    My answer is that A + B can be considered seperately from either A or B, and thats its better to punish the A + B combo than to punish either A or B alone. (and yes, I know this is where our difference lies)

    I really was more curious in this thread to see how people who value personal liberty when it comes to some aspects of the law (the right to go fast on public roads, or behave in a squidly manner) square those personal liberty values with other personal liberty questions (drugs, guns, etc)

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    But when we ride very fast motorcycles, we ride with immaculate sanity. We might abuse a substance here and there, but only when it's right. The final measure of any rider's skill is the inverse ratio of his preferred Traveling Speed to the number of bad scars on his body. It is that simple: If you ride fast and crash, you are a bad rider. If you go slow and crash, you are a bad rider. And if you are a bad rider, you should not ride motorcycles.


  11. #11
    Lifer bentbryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rye, NH
    Age
    47
    Posts
    2,528

    Personal Liberty

    Originally posted by Mr. E. Squid
    Then again, this is a motorcycle community, and motorcyclists are generally liberals anway.

    I resent that comment.



    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

    2003 Yamaha R6
    1999 Yamaha YZ400



  12. #12
    NOT laughing with you {~; bemused's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Deer Island, OR
    Age
    62
    Posts
    3,377

    Personal Liberty

    Originally posted by hohum
    And society can't trust anyone to be responsible, so whats the solution? Ban everything that might cause harm to other people?

    As far as the independent variable argument goes, there's two variables in this equation as we are discussing it
    A) intoxication
    B) activities that are potentially dangerous when intoxicated

    Obviously A + B is bad, but is the answer to legislate against A so that A + B can't happen? This seems to be your argument. Seems you could take the converse approach (legislate againts B) to acheive the same result.

    My answer is that A + B can be considered seperately from either A or B, and thats its better to punish the A + B combo than to punish either A or B alone.
    actually, there's a 3rd independent variable... one that can't be quantified, but one that certain *cough* members *cough* of this elite debating society casually toss about if it suits their arguments:

    C= the propensity of peeps to engage in B once having achieved the state A.

    after all... if it could be conclusively proven that 0% -- or 100% --of the populace actually would do the harmful thing once blitzed, then the point would be academic, n'est-ce pas? 'twould be a binary, go / no-go question.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    WWSD? (what would Sneakers do?)
    "for every credibility gap, there is a gullibility fill"
    jeff f
    '97 RF900R

  13. #13
    the phear hohum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Everett, MA
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,274

    Personal Liberty

    Originally posted by bemused
    actually, there's a 3rd independent variable... one that can't be quantified, but one that certain *cough* members *cough* of this elite debating society casually toss about if it suits their arguments:

    C= the propensity of peeps to engage in B once having achieved the state A.

    after all... if it could be conclusively proven that 0% -- or 100% --of the populace actually would do the harmful thing once blitzed, then the point would be academic, n'est-ce pas? 'twould be a binary, go / no-go question.
    Hehe! DING DING DING!

    And this is the point I was trying to elicit in this thread. Its really C that determines where we draw that line in the sand. If C is low, then it makes sense to only litigate based upon the the A + B concurrence. If C is high, it makes sense to litigate based on A or B alone.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    But when we ride very fast motorcycles, we ride with immaculate sanity. We might abuse a substance here and there, but only when it's right. The final measure of any rider's skill is the inverse ratio of his preferred Traveling Speed to the number of bad scars on his body. It is that simple: If you ride fast and crash, you are a bad rider. If you go slow and crash, you are a bad rider. And if you are a bad rider, you should not ride motorcycles.


  14. #14
    the phear hohum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Everett, MA
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,274

    Personal Liberty

    Originally posted by Mr. E. Squid
    it matters not if that number is high or low!

    what matters is that it's there in the first place!
    Hehe, there are no shades of grey, there is only black and white

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    But when we ride very fast motorcycles, we ride with immaculate sanity. We might abuse a substance here and there, but only when it's right. The final measure of any rider's skill is the inverse ratio of his preferred Traveling Speed to the number of bad scars on his body. It is that simple: If you ride fast and crash, you are a bad rider. If you go slow and crash, you are a bad rider. And if you are a bad rider, you should not ride motorcycles.


  15. #15
    ultrabuddy twrayinma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    albukoikee
    Posts
    4,676

    Personal Liberty

    Originally posted by Mr. E. Squid
    it matters not if that number is high or low!

    what matters is that it's there in the first place!
    there's a non-zero chance of me stabbing someone in the eye with a pencil.

    should we outlaw pencils?
    lock me up?
    or outlaw stabbing people in the eye with pencils?

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  16. #16
    Dic on
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    14,919

    Personal Liberty

    I got a paper cut today. let's go all-electronic paperless society and burn all the trees. Yeeehaaaa!

    d

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    "Too bad ponies are assholes."

    OXX

  17. #17
    Lifer SEVENSGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Age
    46
    Posts
    3,224

    Personal Liberty

    Originally posted by hohum
    Right, its a question of where we draw the line. My personal philosophy dictates that we assume that people will be responsible, until they prove that they can't be. Its what we do with driving priveledges, no?


    I have to say you're right... Here's is my take, if we keep the punishment rules in effect, and we could take it case by case that would be a perfect world...


    Hohum is smoking pot, while living a productive and none harmful lifestlye gets pulled over with his rather LARGE stash on his way to Mr. E Squids home. Officers look up his entire past, from the time he was 12 and stole a candy bar from the corner store, that being that last spot of trouble they say 'Hohum you're all clear, and when you smoke it up just remember to call a taxi or sleep it off'


    Again that would be a perfect america



    and I'd probaly be locked up for life

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  18. #18
    Dic on
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    14,919

    Personal Liberty

    Originally posted by Mr. E. Squid
    Hey squid boy, nice sig-line.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    "Too bad ponies are assholes."

    OXX

  19. #19
    NOT laughing with you {~; bemused's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Deer Island, OR
    Age
    62
    Posts
    3,377

    Personal Liberty

    Originally posted by Degsy
    Hey squid boy, nice sig-line.
    I dunno 'bout that... been wondering all day, "where does he get off thinkin' he's anywhere NEAR dark enough to consider himself my 'dark side'?"




    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    WWSD? (what would Sneakers do?)
    "for every credibility gap, there is a gullibility fill"
    jeff f
    '97 RF900R

  20. #20
    Lifer odduc's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    NH
    Age
    53
    Posts
    2,128

    Personal Liberty

    I must side with Chris on this philosophy.

    Other than that I have nothing substantive to add.


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    LRRS#167

  21. #21
    Lifer oreo_n2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Amherst, NH
    Posts
    4,837

    Personal Liberty

    Originally posted by bemused
    I dunno 'bout that... been wondering all day, "where does he get off thinkin' he's anywhere NEAR dark enough to consider himself my 'dark side'?"



    he's near youranus.

    be afraid. be very afraid.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Brent LRRS #772
    2006 KTM 560 SMR

  22. #22
    NOT laughing with you {~; bemused's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Deer Island, OR
    Age
    62
    Posts
    3,377

    Personal Liberty

    Originally posted by Mr. E. Squid
    You have no "edge" bemus. you're a kind, gentle man, that OBEYS.



    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    WWSD? (what would Sneakers do?)
    "for every credibility gap, there is a gullibility fill"
    jeff f
    '97 RF900R

  23. #23
    Lifer odduc's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    NH
    Age
    53
    Posts
    2,128

    Personal Liberty

    Even though I agree with Chris on this "personal freedom" philosophy, I am still the asshole, intolerant CONSERVATIVE that you have all come to know and love. It's just that I prefer as little governement interference in my life as possible.

    Now where did I leave that roach?


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    LRRS#167

  24. #24
    NOT laughing with you {~; bemused's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Deer Island, OR
    Age
    62
    Posts
    3,377

    Personal Liberty

    Originally posted by Mr. E. Squid
    C'mon, AT LEAST change your tactic a bit...
    your ignorance of me exceeds my ability to express it in words, oh Milque-Toast Squid... I'm reduced to emoticons.






    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    WWSD? (what would Sneakers do?)
    "for every credibility gap, there is a gullibility fill"
    jeff f
    '97 RF900R

  25. #25
    NOT laughing with you {~; bemused's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Deer Island, OR
    Age
    62
    Posts
    3,377

    Personal Liberty

    Originally posted by Mr. E. Squid
    if it were ONLY all about YOU!





    are you suggesting your ignorance knows no bounds?

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    WWSD? (what would Sneakers do?)
    "for every credibility gap, there is a gullibility fill"
    jeff f
    '97 RF900R

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. what is your best personal revenge story?
    By RSVMILLE661 in forum Off-Topic
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 10-12-05, 06:06 PM
  2. Personal attacks and Flaming
    By RSVMILLE661 in forum Off-Topic
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-30-04, 09:08 PM
  3. Kawasaki Ninja Personal Checks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    By elaineo in forum Off-Topic
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-06-04, 10:01 PM
  4. True meaning of Personal ads
    By need4speed in forum Off-Topic
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-05-03, 01:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •