you're correct,a 'right' has no real existence.it is conceptual.we do have a duty to our state (if you advocate paternalism)
but i believe the individual should act as he likes as long as he DOES NO ACTIVE HARM to another.all actions have consequences,and i feel smokers should take pains to only fuck themselves up,not anyone else (like kids).
but I ABSOLUTELY ADVOCATE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE
(,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:25,
archived)
but i believe the individual should act as he likes as long as he DOES NO ACTIVE HARM to another.all actions have consequences,and i feel smokers should take pains to only fuck themselves up,not anyone else (like kids).
but I ABSOLUTELY ADVOCATE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE
Nope.Paternalism does not mean that we have duties to anyone.
Your claim about liberty has a problem of normativity, though. For example, I used to climb the fireguard as a child. This was what I wanted to do, and I was harming noone else. Nor would I have harmed anyone by continuing to do so. However, I don't think my parents wronged me by removing me therefrom.
So it would appear that some violations of strict liberty might not be problematic. The problem you then have is one of determining where the line is to be drawn between the problematic and the non-problematic. I'm not sure that it can be done.
(Your claim about liberty has a problem of normativity, though. For example, I used to climb the fireguard as a child. This was what I wanted to do, and I was harming noone else. Nor would I have harmed anyone by continuing to do so. However, I don't think my parents wronged me by removing me therefrom.
So it would appear that some violations of strict liberty might not be problematic. The problem you then have is one of determining where the line is to be drawn between the problematic and the non-problematic. I'm not sure that it can be done.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:30,
archived)
mill thought of thishe stated that the harm principal did not apply to children and people of less-developed nations.his phraseology,not mine.
and,as i said,i advocate choice,intelligent choice as the only way forward.the individual must take responsibility for his own actions.it is deferred responsibility that is ruining the western world.
(,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:34,
archived)
and,as i said,i advocate choice,intelligent choice as the only way forward.the individual must take responsibility for his own actions.it is deferred responsibility that is ruining the western world.
I know Mill thought of thisBut he doesn't provide a satisfactory answer that I can see. And he didn't talk about less-developed nations. He talked about barbarians and nations in their "nonage" (On Liberty, ch. 1).
I don't understand the leap you've made to the Spenglerian point about the decline of the west. It seems to have nothing to do with anything that anyone's said here hitherto.
(I don't understand the leap you've made to the Spenglerian point about the decline of the west. It seems to have nothing to do with anything that anyone's said here hitherto.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:42,
archived)