Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

When browsing threads on here and other quasi political forums, I often see people arguing for and against government and individual interventions in the name of morality.

Marijuana legalization for example. Some people argue we are morally obligated to protect people from the 'dangers of marijuana.'

Others favor the side of allowing people to experience life and make their own mistakes and triumphs in their own way.

Generally, I've seen a trend of conservatism favoring more freedom to choose what you would like to do for yourself so long as it doesn't harm another (libertarianism) and liberalism favoring the interventions (authoritarianism) with a few exceptions, obviously, as is the case in any comparison of generalizations.


My question to you FUBU, 'Are we more morally obligated as a society to allow people the opportunity to rise and fall of their own will, and make their own mistakes and potentially harm themselves, or are we more morally obligated to intervene and protect humanity from engaging in dangerous activities or immoral activities?'

I tend to the side of personal freedom to make one's own decisions, however harmful they may be to oneself..provided the only directly impacted person is oneself and not another or group of others.

How do you guys feel about this?

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

FIRST!

I don't think the government should be up your ass if you want to smoke weed, snort coke or shoot heroin. In fact, I think the government should control these substances (like in the ABC stores) and make them available to those who wish to use it. The government makes money via heavy taxation and you have your freedom to do what you wish. The caveat would be buying and using these drugs (exception shrooms and weed) would forfeit your eligibility for entitlement programs like welfare, unemployment and government subsidized health care. Also, I should note alcohol rules should apply to these substances: No driving while under the influence, no public highs, etc. I think doing that in public could harm others.

In short: Let people do what they want as long as its not going to harm others or infringe on their freedoms.

Haha, I figured you'd hop in here right quick, Eturnal.

I wasn't intending this thread to be a discussion about marijuana though, more of a broad sweeping discussion about how far we as a society should go or shouldn't go to 'help people'.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

Answer: We more morally obligated as a society to allow people the opportunity to rise and fall of their own will, and make their own mistakes and potentially harm themselves

Of course people should be allowed to rise or fall - that is their choice. If an multi-millionaire investor decided to concentrate all his money in one type of fund that didn't perform as well as he hoped then he should be allowed to fail. Same with the drug abuser, entrepreneur, rapist, banker, gambler, high-school drop out, teen mother of twins, etc. Each individual is presented countless choices throughout their day and each choice opens more doors and closes others... and I really do believe each choice has a consequence (negative or positive) and we need to live with either. If the consequence of your choice does harm to yourself then so be it - hopefully you learn so you don't make that mistake twice.

I think societies, or smaller communities, mandatory role in this is to advise individuals and help them rationalize the 'right' decision... ultimately letting the decision rest on the individual. I also hope communities would help others within the community through voluntary donations, public services, sharing, etc. I think this would give individuals an incentive to help the community which will ultimately benefit the individual.

Where is the line?

How about motorcycle helmets? Is it the auspice of the government to require you to wear a helmet on your motorcycle?

Bicycle helmets for you? Your kids?

Put your kids in a car seat? And, if you say the government has the right to protect your children against your possible stupid decision to allow them to ride unrestrained in a vehicle, what else can they legislate about how you raise your children? Spankings? And if so on spankings, how about other disciplines? How about allowing your kids to ride motorcycles or scuba dive? You get my drift.

Force you to wear a seat belt while driving? Cell phone usage in your car?

Cigarettes? It is proven that cigarettes are terribly harmful to health. So much so, that legislation has been passed banning cigarette smokers from public and work places to protect non-smokers, but cigarette smoking is still allowed. How is this different from any other drug?

Combine the kids rules and smoking rules into: You can't smoke in your own home, if the kids are there. How about this?

Alcohol? Same as cigarettes.

Other drugs? The problem with allowing drug usage is the clear science which indicates the long-term effects of the use of drugs, like, meth, cocaine, heroin, etc. You can say these people forfeit rights to certain social services if their lives become fucked up by these drugs, but SOMEONE will have to care for these people, and that someone will be social services. If everyone could remain recreational users of these drugs, that would be really nice. But, we've seen the self-discipline some people have with cigarettes, alcohol and illegal drugs. While I favor legalization/regulation of most drugs, I do so understanding that part of the tax money gained will be spent on caring for those ravaged by abuse of these.

Too many examples to list.

This is a very good question, because you can make a sound case for both sides on almost any segment of this.

Boredalt - 80 Dwarf Priest - Dissension

If it affects you and other consenting/knowing adults, i see no problem with most things. If such behaviour/thing or w/e is destructive to others around you, or if enough people did it/used it or w/e, destructive to society, than government should/has an obligation to intervene.

IE: you and a bud smoke up some weed and laugh at shitty cartoons=OK.

You and a bud snort some meth, go for a joy ride in daddys sportscar and crash into a minivan killing 3 kids and a mom=intervention needed or atleast some guidelines to prevent.

I am THE man.
http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee15 ... 171424.jpg

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

users of illegal drugs (excluding marijuana since it is not harmful in any way) should forfeit all government services. no free clinics, no drivers license, no welfare, no social security. let them die in the streets. perhaps then, future generations will think twice before getting involved with dangerous drugs. a paramedic friend of mine once told me how he responded to a call of a 350lb man on PCP in a white castle who was ripping the place apart, when the police tried to subdue him he grievously injured several officers, crushing one man's skull with his bare hands. they had to shoot him several times just to get him to stop rampaging. there is no place for people like that. if he had survived, in 5-10 years he could be back outside, obtaining a drivers license, a car, etc etc.

I definitely agree some actions should result in the forfeit of rights. I don't see enough of that. People walk around as though their human rights are untouchable and then go and infringe upon other people's rights, yet retain their own.

Mind boggling to me really.

Kinda like the Westboro Baptist Church... I hate those pricks.

If on nothing else, we can agree about this (and what kind of tattoos we like).

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

Any people like this, so filled with religious furor/hate that they cant see past their own asshole dont deserve to have their own human rights if they wantonly offend others/seek to trample or advocate the removal of other peoples human rights.

Theyre fucking disgusting, more than jesse james nazi lady.

I am THE man.
http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee15 ... 171424.jpg

why can't there be people in the westboro baptist that decide to commit ritual suicide with each other... that'd be nice.

I think the problem with the Westboro Church is that their founder was a total troll, but the people he convinced to follow him were actually retarded enough to believe him. It's an experiment kind of like Scientology, only so far it's less destructive and widespread.

Also, gay students make out with each other very visibly on university campuses when the Westboro retards come to protest them. It always works.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh