Should freedom be conditional?

Question

i understand that your freedom only extends as far as it doesn't encroach on another's freedom, but why the laws against drug use and euthenasia? either we do no trust our fellow citizens to be free, or maybe we're not the freedom loving country we claim to be. is freedom not a birthright?

"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this."
Albert Einstein

Answer 1

Freedom is always conditional. The problem is both of the examples you pose do encroach on other people.

Freedom to drugs...how do we regulate them...how do we ensure that when a person gets high on heroin...they won't hurt another person?

Euthenasia...if we allow this we are opening the door for people to convince others to kill themselves or let themselves be killed. We allow suspect doctors to kill people instead of treat them when it seems easier.

All freedoms must be checked...in the absence of proper checks we have freedom as far as out enemies allow us to have...especially when terrorists are blowing up a building each week.

Answer 2

Great Question.

In a society:
Unconditional Freedom = Anarchy
Resulting in the degrading of the society

A society forms when the group agrees to impose upon themselves a set of rules meant for the greater good of the group.

This society has then created a safety net that is paid for by its members and if we let people use drugs then the safety net will be stressed resulting in increased costs. Taking care of addicts costs the society dearly in direct and indirect financial costs plus costs in productivity, emotional well being and even safety.

Addicts once hooked will and do resort to theft and violence to support the habit not to mention the degraded social and family life conditions of the person and their dependents.

To sum it up, if you can convince the society that doing pot is as harmless as drinking tea or coffee, eventually we as a society may adopt rules that make it alright!

Euthanasia is a sticky problem, it is fraught with opportunities for fraud and justified homicide. Ideally it should be acceptable once the agreed upon societal conditions have been met, but how to regulate this is a very difficult thing.

In essence we do have a right to die, and if you visit a hospice in your city you will see that the society as a whole does think of the dieing and allows them a dignified exit, but out and out self or assisted infliction of death is a tough sell.

The goal of society is to prolong its presence and grow, so allowing its members to kill themselves at whim of one or all will give us a koolaid society with no stability or logic. You have seen some cults basically go up in smoke or drown in the punch due to some twisted logic, but then the society as a whole ceased to exist!

There was a movie way back in 1973 called "Soylent Green", you may want to get the DVD and watch it. It kinda deals with the general collapse of the society (could be construed to be similar to what may happen if we let loose the fibers that hold society together). It also deals with global weather, pollution, food shortages, population explosion, unemployment and euthanasia! Perhaps its time for some movie maven to re-make this flick.

Many cultures have an exit ramp on life for a dignified exit, where an elder who knows that the time has come will depart from the society to seek solace and die a peaceful death. What a contrast to the modern society where we are pumped and jolted and dripped into till the last shred of life is drained.

In society there is no such thing a total freedom, its a negotiated conformance to the rules (because freedom for one impinges on another's).

Answer 3

I think drug use and euthenasia are two separate issues. I don't know much about the ethics of euthenasia but here is why I think drug use does in fact encroach on another's freedom:
Normally you think of drug use as someone sitting on his porch smoking something...harmless? not really. The dealer who gave that joint to this guy, is probably busy distributing it at highschools, or even middle schools as well. If you think giving drugs to a 12 year old encroache's on someone else's freedom, then we are on the same page. Otherwise I wish you luck in your crusade.

Answer 4

I dont even know where to start with this one...

Freedom is not conditional, however it's the responsibility of those governing to set rules. Laws and rules are based on social ideals. Our society says it's acceptable to drink alcohol, however we say it is not safe to drink and drive, so we tell people "dont drink and drive" well, there has to be some punishment. "Dont drink and drive, or else." Or else what?

Laws are not meant to encroach on freedom, merely to provide safety and comfort to those who follow and respect them.

Answer 5

Euthanasia isn't freedom--that devalues life.

Laws should exist to protect life, liberty, and property. That's pretty much all you need. That means none of the Eminent Domain stuff, no Roe, no Patriot Act, etc.

Answer 6

Freedom does have some conditions attached that are constitutional! All freedoms are conditional, and if one thing we have learned, give someone an inch and they will take a mile!

How does that ring with you?

Answer 7

You need to look broader than one degree.

Sure smoking a joint doesn't hurt the next guy, but when the use becomes accessive and widespread, there is a net damaging effect to many people around. Think about it.

Answer 8

Laws are an agreed upon set of rules that we can use to protect ourselves from those we do not trust.