Do you agree or disagree: everyone should get to live his life as he sees fit?

Question

limited only in that he can't limit another's right to do the same (e.g.,, if there's one loaf of bread on the shelf and you get to the store first, you're not limiting another's right to buy bread by buying the last loaf, but you would be if you passed a law outlawing sales of bread).

How about it - - - - you live your life the way you want, I'll live my life the way I want. I might not like, or disapprove of, something in your lifestyle, you might not like, or disapprove of, something in my lifestyle, but in neither case is it any business of the person who disapproves.

And let me be clear - either you agree or disagree - not "except....." There's no "except" - - - "except" means you disagree, means you see government's role as manager, not simply referee.

olc - American. My largest investment right now is in a Turkish company, that's why I'm interest in Turkey - - well not the only reason, I almost honeymooned there, it's a beautiful country with much culture, and I'm a classics buff, I'm sure I will travel there someday - - also my 11-year old did a social studies project on Istanbul this year.

I say there is no except because there is no except - if you say except it is the same thing as saying you disagree - - - you're saying the state should limit what it disapproves of but doesn't harm anyone else - - the specificity of your exception just means that you hope that YOU are the one who gets to decide what is forbidden and what is allowed.

Nature lover no, I'm not leaving out the rule of law - - there's a built in limit, you can't limit anyone else's similar freedom - - any crime in which there is a victim is covered here. I'm not leaving you free to rob other people, rape them, etc....

But I am leaving out laws that protect no one but simply limit other people's liberty to engage in activities that you happen to dislike. Homosexuality, prostitution, drinking...... driving a Hummer instead of a hybrid.....

It's all the same thing.

Petey I agree that Pat Robertson telling you whom you're not allowed to have sex with or marry is hateful and bigoted and wrong - - - I'm just pointing out that Hillary Clinton telling me what I'm allowed to do with my money and how much of it I'm allowed to keep, and Al Gore telling me what I'm allowed or not allowed to drive, are no different.

writer's block, your kid is someone - - -

wrecker you didn't read the question - - -

scenic I don't know what you mean by "disregard" - - - - - if you mean one person can't harm another, that's already covered in my statement. If you mean people are obligated to do anything FOR each other, rather than that doing things for people is a nice way to go about life, then no, that's not covered, because it's wrong, and because it's subjective - - - - once anyone is obligated to affirmatively do something for someone else (as opposed to allowed to help them or allowed to bargain withi them), all bets are off. The Left doesn't want the government "legislating morality" but the Left HAVE been legislating morality for almost a century - the welfare state is nothing more than "legislating morality."

Hemingway in the case of the smoker there is tangible evidence one way or the other, and there's a clearly fair way to do it. You can allow clubs to decide for themselves and people can take the risk. You can designate certain areas where it's open air, windy, etc... - - - The sidewalks of Manhattan clearly you should be allowed to smoke.....

The burden of proof needs to be on the side alleging the harm though - otherwise you can just make up anything you want and thereby shut anything down.

Answer 1

ya, agree

Answer 2

This is actually impossible. Many things are held in common and individual rights cannot be assigned. For example, to leave your house you take a public road.

Who owns the roads, the water, the air we breathe? If the answer is the people who used it first, then we would all live in a dictatorship of those who used the first resources (and their descendants). Instead, these things are usually owned in common by a government that enforces some amount of tax or other civic duty.

Nor is it possible to survive without a community or economy, which is one reason men use to set up a government. If you live in a society, you have likely have benefited from various public services that you need to pay for at some point. You were likely born in a public hospital, the crime in area is patrolled by police, your house might have been saved by publicly funded firemen. Although you could conceive of these services provided privately without taxes, the fact is that they are, so to live in our society, you are pretty much obligated to pay some amount of taxes to organizations that don't strictly follow your principles.

It is also immoral -- and in some states criminal -- not to take reasonable steps to help those in peril without putting your own life in distress. It sort of begs the question why you have a principle that prevents one man to suffer from human coercion while letting another man suffer from natural coercion. This is why societies deal with both - in various ways.

Answer 3

A society in which each individual has the right to do whatever they want unless that action infringes upon another's right is basically the Libertarian platform. The challenge with such a system is in defining what activities infringe upon another's rights. For example, one might say that smoking in a public place should not be tolerated because the second-hand smoke infringes upon the non-smoker. But the smoker doesn't see it this way. They think they have the right to smoke and that they're merely exercising that right.

So, a free society that allows its citizens to do as they please is more complicated than it sounds. It requires that the government define when a "freedom" infringes, and in many cases this will be highly subjective.

Answer 4

Subject to the limitation you mention, absolutely.

The govt should only step in where one person (or company) is interfering with someone else's rights to live as they choose.

Criminal laws should only limit conduct that causes direct harm to persons or property. Get rid of all these inane restrictions on conduct just because some people don't approve of that conduct.

Answer 5

I totally agree, and that is the libertarian ideology! Too bad we didn't have a three party system with the libertarian party being the 3rd. Of course there still has to be laws that need to be followed and taxes needed to pay for the essentials, but much less than what we have now.

The least amount of government involvement in both my social and economic life!

Given the choice, the republican party is the closest to the libertarian. Republican party has modest amounts of laws to control social behavior. Democrats on the other hand are attacking our freedom of speech (political correctness, the fairness doctrine), our economic lives by increasing taxes, government and wealth redistribution, would like to change how we eat (banning meats), how we travel (regulation so all cars have to get more than 40mpg, telling me what I can or cannot drive, trying to force people to pay for and use horrible mass transit, forcing us to use the much less efficient fuel ethanol), how we use energy (trying to force us to switch over to flourescent bulbs containing mercury, passing laws that hike up taxes to pay for less effective energy sources like wind farms and solar energy instead of using clean, efficient nuclear power), forcing privately owned establishments to ban smoking, forcing people to wear seatbelts. Basically, democrats are anti self reliance, anti personal responsibility and anti personal accounability. They want the government to oversee everything and make the decisions for the masses.

Answer 6

We are talking humans here, it could never work. Society needs rules to function.

Answer 7

I agree - it is the whole basis behind the libertarian political party - also low taxes -free enterprise no restrictions as long as no one harmed - no gun control - removal of welfare benefits - small govt - end drug war - very limited foreign policy

Answer 8

Of Course!

Answer 9

Yes.
Some people want the government to take care of them, and tell them what to do all their lives:
Democrats.

Answer 10

I believe that's the case. I wish everyone did, particularly the cop who lives upstairs who doesn't like the way my family looks.

Answer 11

since you are giving me no latitude I will have to disagree with you. You are leaving out the rule of law which can be moral or government.