undefined | Better HN

0 pointsStanislavPetrov4y ago0 comments

That's the beauty of the concept of freedom. In a free society, we'd all be able to choose our own poison. Unfortunately, many who view it as an anti-feature seek to prevent those who view it as a feature from making their own choice, either through regulation or outright bans.

0 comments

6 comments · 1 top-level

Tijdreiziger4y ago· 5 in thread

If you take this argument to its logical conclusion, anarchism is the only form of free government.

All laws and regulations necessarily take freedom away. That is the basis of the social contract: you aren’t free to harm others.

StanislavPetrovOP4y ago

If you take this argument to its logical conclusion all laws and regulations are good and freedom does not exist. In reality the definition of "harm" and the laws and regulations that are necessary and desirable to mitigate these harms are very much up for debate.

It is nakedly authoritarian for the government to restrict, at the point of a gun, consenting adults from choosing their own method of transaction.

Tijdreiziger4y ago

> If you take this argument to its logical conclusion all laws and regulations are good and freedom does not exist.

This doesn’t check out. The existence of good laws doesn’t preclude the existence of (other) bad laws.

> It is nakedly authoritarian for the government to restrict, at the point of a gun, consenting adults from choosing their own method of transaction.

This doesn’t factor in negative externalities (e.g. climate impact).

cf141q53254y ago

>social contract

Thats a bad case of framing. Contract implies willing participants and free choice. You have a story which with you justify forcing people around.

Tijdreiziger4y ago

> You have a story which with you justify forcing people around.

I repeat: that’s the definition of the social contract. You are forced, by threat of violence, not to engage in harmful activities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

cf141q53254y ago

You just repeated the wording of your story while ignoring my post entirely.

1) Contract implies consenting parties. Using the word in another capacity is a frame. It being a popular one doesnt change that.

2) Your actions entailing a lot more then just your declared intentions. As in your definition of harmful being quite broad.

Or differently put, you have a story which with you justify forcing people around.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

6 comments · 1 top-level

Tijdreiziger4y ago· 5 in thread

If you take this argument to its logical conclusion, anarchism is the only form of free government.

All laws and regulations necessarily take freedom away. That is the basis of the social contract: you aren’t free to harm others.

StanislavPetrovOP4y ago

It is nakedly authoritarian for the government to restrict, at the point of a gun, consenting adults from choosing their own method of transaction.

Tijdreiziger4y ago

> If you take this argument to its logical conclusion all laws and regulations are good and freedom does not exist.

This doesn’t check out. The existence of good laws doesn’t preclude the existence of (other) bad laws.

> It is nakedly authoritarian for the government to restrict, at the point of a gun, consenting adults from choosing their own method of transaction.

This doesn’t factor in negative externalities (e.g. climate impact).

cf141q53254y ago

>social contract

Thats a bad case of framing. Contract implies willing participants and free choice. You have a story which with you justify forcing people around.

Tijdreiziger4y ago

> You have a story which with you justify forcing people around.

I repeat: that’s the definition of the social contract. You are forced, by threat of violence, not to engage in harmful activities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

cf141q53254y ago

You just repeated the wording of your story while ignoring my post entirely.

1) Contract implies consenting parties. Using the word in another capacity is a frame. It being a popular one doesnt change that.

2) Your actions entailing a lot more then just your declared intentions. As in your definition of harmful being quite broad.

Or differently put, you have a story which with you justify forcing people around.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse