Comments on: At What Point Do You Intervene?

By: TerjeP (say tay-a)

TerjeP (say tay-a) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 07:40:02 +0000

You’re all still missing the points that Tim asked a moral question, not a political question.

No we’re not. Were just choosing to talk about the moral question.

Bunch of commies.

I always thought it was “collective of commies” and a “bunch of bananas”.

By: 'Nuke' Gray

'Nuke' Gray — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:48:44 +0000

John, I think we’re all shocked at how easily you found out our secret. What gave us away? Was it the calls for people to worship Mao? the group activities? Or the jokes about capitalist running dogs? The correct term for ‘a bunch of commies’ is probably ‘any political party’ though.

By: John Humphreys

John Humphreys — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 02:16:00 +0000

The libertarian principle is not “no harm to others”. While a sometimes useful short-hand, if you look into the concept it is too fluffy to be a principle.

The libertarian principle is “voluntary human interaction”.

You’re all still missing the points that Tim asked a moral question, not a political question. Bunch of commies.

By: Tim R

Tim R — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 00:50:48 +0000

Terje, the terms of use of driving on the road is that you do so under 0.05 % blood alcohol.
If you do not comply, you are engaging in an act of force against others, similar to fraud.
If you have a better way to word this please comment.

Obviously this issue would be ideally determined by property rights. ie: Privatised roads with conditions of use.

By: Tim R

Tim R — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 00:47:15 +0000

That really is a dishonest reading of my comment Dave. That’s not good enough.
And your unfounded cheap shot at libertarians is pretty low and transparent too, although I’m sure that’s obvious to anyone reading.

By: Tim R

Tim R — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 00:37:07 +0000

Dave Bath, I said “suicide does not impact the right to life of others”. And I stand by that comment. I never said suicide doesn’t have negative effects on others.
To think that negative effects on others should be the standard for legislation is ridiculous when taken

The case with the infant is more complicated and unfortunate but this doesn’t mean suicide should be illegal.

By: 'Nuke' Gray

'Nuke' Gray — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 00:05:20 +0000

Something else to consider, and you might want to tell this to depressed people to dissuade them from suicide- when would-be suicides are brought back to life, by stomach pumps, etc., those who claim to remember what happened to ‘them’ when the body was dying said that they remembered over and over again what it was they were trying to escape from. They were in a hell of their own memories. Now we have no way yet to tell if this is what happens to suicides all the time, but the possibility could certainly be raised so as to persuade people not to do it.

By: TerjeP (say tay-a)

TerjeP (say tay-a) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:55:17 +0000

Lefty me wonders if the “no harm to others” notion about suicide (especially in the hypothetical case I mention) is common among libertarians

Twelve years ago I had a flatmate who commited suicide. As far as I know nobody else was physically harmed by what happened but it sure as heck had a big emotional effect on a large number of people.

By: TerjeP (say tay-a)

TerjeP (say tay-a) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:48:28 +0000

Drink driving is an act of force on the innocent. Putting other lives at risk.

By that definition driving even without the drinking is an act of force. Probably walking and dancing also.

By: Dave Bath

Dave Bath — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:59:51 +0000

Michael@25
I /certainly/ wasn’t accusing /all/ libertarians (or even the majority)… and was even being cautious about the intent behind the comment@22 (hence my “attack of the fat fingers” bit).

And remember, I said “severe post-partum depression”. It was the “suicide doesn’t harm others” reading of the @22 comment that got to me, caused me to give the extreme counterexample and it seems from your reading and labelling that as criminal, that we agree. (Wiping brow and heaving sigh of relief) I was hoping that a native libertarian would say what you did so I wouldn’t go all apoplectic!

And on your last point, you certainly haven’t characterized the “lefty ideal” on end-of-life decisions very well… at least as far as I’m concerned. It’s the state (and organizations with undue influence, such as certain religious groups) INHIBITING a rational person (uninfluenced by an acute condition) from acting in a way that they want and causing a net benefit to others, that annoys the hell out of me. But that’s a discussion for another time.