Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? And if you disagree, why?

Question

As long as a person is not interfering in the rights of others, they should be free to do what they want.

Answer 1

Agree, that's the main tenet of Freedom, too bad the USA has forgotten it.

Answer 2

It depends on what you call interfering with the rights of others. If a pedophile lived one block from a school and always had a set of binoculars out, would he be interfering with others rights? If so, how, since most likely the kids wouldn't even know. Of course, I don't think it is right for him (or her) to do this.Also, at what point in the line do you 'interfere' with others rights? If I wanted to put a lawn chair out in the middle of a shooting range, who's rights are being interfered with, mine or the people shooting? Either way both sides have an equal case to make. Also, consider parents. Is there anything that a parent does that doesn't influence their children? If a parent gets drunk every single night, but is 'responsible' and always has a DD, then they aren't interfering with others rights, but what about their kids. What about the kids that don't get to eat the next day because of it. Or to not be quite so dramatic, what about the kid that is made fun of because they always wear hand-me-downs because their parents waste all their money on booze and drugs? So i guess I would have to say that I disagree, but mostly because a few more definitions are needed.

Answer 3

I totally agree, but it is not as simple as that. A lot of things that people think are not interfering with the rights of others ARE actually interfering with their rights. Take the seatbelt example that someone brought up. I think that you SHOULD be able to not wear a seatbelt if it does not interfere with someone else's rights... but it DOES. What about your family and friends' right to have you alive so they can love you?

The theory behind this rule (which was thought up by John Stuart Mill, in case anyone cared) is solid as a rock. But if you implemented it, then the debate would simply shift to "what interferes with peoples' rights." The result? The same views on the law. The same rules and regulations. Nothing would change.

Answer 4

I totally disagree with the premise as to agree would open the door to anarchy, total abuse and eventually destruction of society.
Take for instance planning permission for a home. A person who did not know anything about building could, and probably would, end up with a blot on the landscape and a danger to him/herself and by default, to other members of society. People who disagree with certain laws, personal law in this case, could do what they like. They could commit suicide when depressed, self-harm and mutilate themselves. In any society, those who cannot care for themselves must be cared for by those around such a person otherwise what is the point..............

Answer 5

Disagree. Wearing a seatbelt for instance is not interfering witht the rights of others but it wrong in many ways. The most obvliouis its against the law but more importantly if I get into an accident and you are paralized or worse because you were not wearing a seatbelt I am liable.

Answer 6

Honestly, it depends on the situation. Some agree, and other disagree. I favor both agree and disagree because of the situation. If i feel that you are minding your own business then yes, but if it is something that would impact me as a citizen then i disagree.

Answer 7

Nope not quite that simple - they must also comply with rules and expectations that come with membership in the group. So while say smoking dope might not seem like it interferes with others' rights, it does violate the group as a whole by disobeying law and demonstrating to others a disdain FOR the law. The next guy may say, well, I'm not gonna be a sissy and follow the law either - only he may prefer to diddle little girls than smoke dope - or rob banks. So it's not as simple as saying as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others ...

Answer 8

Disagree; The're other things to consider such as the laws of the land created to protect the people and if you did something that only effected you it may have an effect on others later.

Answer 9

This is a trick question... I like it thou. Now as a person being on both sides of the law, I have to say this is a debate-able discussion.
I like the thought of being able to live life how I want to. Being able to smoke dope in my home , I don't hurt anyone when I do it and I mind my own business. I like to drive fast when I am running late for work. I like to hunt but am not allowed anymore. These are things that do not interfere with other peoples rights. However all of these are illegal!

on the other hand.
I don't like the thought of someone cooking meth and asking my child if he wants some. Nor do I like the idea of someone helping them selves to my stuff. (see here my rights would not be violated)
Nor would I like the idea of someone driving fast down my street minding their own business and my son crossing in their path.
You see I take this question like you are looking for justification of some wrongs. It's a good one though.

Answer 10

It depends on what you think 'rights' are. The rights enumerated in the original 10 Bill of Rights were agreed to be God-given, that is not granted nor withheld by government. So if those are the rights to which you refer then yes i agree.

Answer 11

recently in my neighboring state of wisconsin a man was caught screwing a dead deer he found on the side of the road. he drug it into the woods and had his way with it. is that acceptable? by your statement it is. he has been caught in the past having sex with a horse, who when it"disagreed" with him, was shot, and then he continued. lets say the horse belonged to no one (although i believe it was his girlfriends, eeewww, sucks for her) does the horse have rights? another ambiguity. so, should we allow his behavior to continue, although studies have shown that a perverted man like this will probably move on to other problematic ways, or nip it in the bud? the trial is ongoing for this man.

(here's a little side note. the guys lawyer was a public defender, so he had to try to prove that this guy did noting wrong. he argued that a dead animal was no longer an animal. once a deer is dead, you can eat it, its not a deer its venison, a pig, once dead, is now pork and so on. so a judge had ot decide that a dead animal is still an animal. what a weird country we live in.)

haley