limits to freedom

[toth8]

Which principle is the best, in terms of detailing limits to freedom?

- Millean Harm Principle
- Libertarian Non-Aggression Principle
- Something Else?

[Mark]

Care to explain what they are? I'm lost...

[premjan]

Nonintervention is morally neutral. Once you break it, you bought it. Best is to do good for others but with their active cooperation.

[Nice Squirrel]

I chose something else since freedoms are always situational.

[Mike Rosoft]

Non-aggression principle.
Harm principle.

The non-aggression principle is largely misguided. The harm principle is heading in the right direction; however, I don't believe that you have an unrestricted right to harm yourself. For example, attempting suicide shouldn't be a crime (because it's unlikely that one would would be discouraged by knowing that should the attempt fail, he might go to jail for it). On the other hand, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be prevented; here it's the failure to act which causes harm.


Mike Rosoft

[99Percent]

I fail to see what the fundamental difference is between the two.

[Hooboy !!]

How about both?

[Hooboy !!]

I fail to see what the fundamental difference is between the two.
The Harm Principle requires a state and the non-Aggression Principle does not. The HP asserts a standard for "harm" and NAP views "harm" as subjective.

[toth8]

Non-aggression principle.
Harm principle.

The non-aggression principle is largely misguided. The harm principle is heading in the right direction; however, I don't believe that you have an unrestricted right to harm yourself. For example, attempting suicide shouldn't be a crime (because it's unlikely that one would would be discouraged by knowing that should the attempt fail, he might go to jail for it). On the other hand, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be prevented; here it's the failure to act which causes harm.


Mike Rosoft

The harm principle is the misguided one.

Harm is relative and subjective. I mean, I get "harmed" when my favourite football team lose. Should there be a law against that? This is really political philosophy 101.

[toth8]

I fail to see what the fundamental difference is between the two.

Nonsense. The non-aggression principle is far more clear cut and definitive.

[Bonniedundee]

Isn't the aggression principle just an add on to self-ownership or self-determination?

[Mike Rosoft]

The harm principle is the misguided one.

Harm is relative and subjective. I mean, I get "harmed" when my favourite football team lose. Should there be a law against that? This is really political philosophy 101.

Oh yes, one of those people. The other day in a similar debate I was arguing that you (generally) don't have a right to cause serious harm to yourself, and even though I made it clear what I mean (approximately what the law calls "grievous bodily harm"), my opponent claimed that he could call consensual sex or voluntarily getting a tatoo as serious harm. So, in case you don't know what "harm" is, you are not harmed when your team loses. You are annoyed - and happiness is only mandatory in the world of Paranoia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia_%28role-playing_game%29).

Consider this scenario. A person is drowning in a lake (and I specifically say that he didn't attempt a suicide; he just swam too far and become exhausted, or his boat capsized, or so).

1) If you are a good swimmer and can save him without risk to yourself, do you have a duty to do so?
2) There's a boat at the beach, and its owner is not around. Do you have a right to use it, without his knowledge, to save the person's life?
3) The boat's owner is around, and has prohibited you from using it (and won't do anything to save the drowning person). Do you have a right to use it anyway, against his will?

My answers are: yes, yes, and yes.


Mike Rosoft

[toth8]

Harm is defined as physical or emotional injury. I'm emotionally injured when my team lose, making Mill's harm principle bunk.

[Mike Rosoft]

If you want to use "harm" in a completely different way from the rest of the world, have your way. Instead of haggling about definitions, could you respond to my scenario? I have given my answers. What are yours?


Mike Rosoft

[coloradoatheist]

To answer your question Mike

1) Should you try and save the person, yes but you aren't held liable if you don't.

2) No

3) No


Mike

[Bonniedundee]

To answer your question Mike

1) Should you try and save the person, yes but you aren't held liable if you don't.

2) No

3) NoDo you really believe this? These just seem like strange answers for one who has often talked about state intervention for "progress" being better than freedom that creates poverty.

[Mike Rosoft]

Coloradoatheist, are that your answers, or presumed toth8's?


Mike Rosoft

[coloradoatheist]

Coloradoatheist, are that your answers, or presumed toth8's?


Mike Rosoft

My answers

[coloradoatheist]

Do you really believe this? These just seem like strange answers for one who has often talked about state intervention for "progress" being better than freedom that creates poverty.

Our major disagreement is how one obtains property but we do have a lot in common.

Mike

[Mike Rosoft]

For questions two and three: my right to live takes precedence over your sovereignty over your property, on the grounds of the principle of necessity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity); you don't have a right to prevent your boat from being used to save life.

As for question one: yes, you will be held liable, at least where I live. The Czech criminal law lists "failure to help" as a criminal offense, punishable with up to one year in jail. And I am in agreement here; you do have a responsibility towards other people.


Mike Rosoft

[toth8]

If you want to use "harm" in a completely different way from the rest of the world, have your way. Instead of haggling about definitions, could you respond to my scenario? I have given my answers. What are yours?


Mike Rosoft

No, this is the accepted definition. Look at any major English language dictionary.

[toth8]

1) If you are a good swimmer and can save him without risk to yourself, do you have a duty to do so?

No.

2) There's a boat at the beach, and its owner is not around. Do you have a right to use it, without his knowledge, to save the person's life?

No.

3) The boat's owner is around, and has prohibited you from using it (and won't do anything to save the drowning person). Do you have a right to use it anyway, against his will?

No.

[Mike Rosoft]

No. No. No.

I expected that. (For my reaction, see above (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4484191#post4484191).)


Mike Rosoft

[toth8]

For questions two and three: my right to live takes precedence over your sovereignty over your property, on the grounds of the principle of necessity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity); you don't have a right to prevent your boat from being used to save life.


Mike Rosoft

A principle which is hardly necessary in any legal jurisdiction. Legal jurisdictions can have whatever defences they want.

[Mike Rosoft]

Okay, so let's try it from the other side. Why should you have a right to prevent saving of human life?


Mike Rosoft

[AdamWho]

Non-aggression = people have the right to act as they choose, as long as they do not infringe upon anyone else’s right to do the same

Harm = the sole purpose of law should be to stop people from harming others and that should people want to participate in victimless crimes, crimes with no complaining witness, such as gambling, drug usage, engaging in prostitution, then they should not be encroached in doing so.

[countjulian]

My principle (not originally mine):

" the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."