Unintended consequences...

Also, this leads to Common Good type thinking. IMO, the most dangerous type of thinking when individual rights are to be protected. The making of new law should be long and arduous, not merely majority rules.

yes yes yes ...
 
the problem though is ... can lawmaking keep up with ‘Progress’?
 
your going down a slippery slope ... comparing lives saved with social welfare laws against lives lost with the liberal 2nd amendment ...

the ‘costs’ are always going to greater where there is more freedom. ... no? ... or are you talkin’ dollars?

I don't know, but my point is that those writing the laws don't know, either.
 
as the world turns, there will be more social laws regulating health and welfare ... I don’t see an argument against that
 
I don't know, but my point is that those writing the laws don't know, either.
I think the argument is whether the consequences outweigh each other ...
 
More law is not progress, IMO.

whatever gets us into tomorrow is progress ...


quality of life will be dictated by the individual and respected by the whole ... that’s far in the future

until the individual can reach the accountability of true freedom, what does the whole do in the meantime?
 
Also, this leads to Common Good type thinking. IMO, the most dangerous type of thinking when individual rights are to be protected. The making of new law should be long and arduous, not merely majority rules.
Nah, you run into the issue of incommensurability every single time. Think about it: you would allow for a situation where a single indivdual's rights supercede those of every other individual in the community? That aint right none
 
as the world turns, there will be more social laws regulating health and welfare ... I don’t see an argument against that
Before I spend the rest of the afternoon discussing this, I need to go.

However, regulating behavior by restricting freedom is no answer.
 
Nah, you run into the issue of incommensurability every single time. Think about it: you would allow for a situation where a single indivdual's rights supercede those of every other individual in the community? That aint right none

The rights of one do not supercede the rights of another one. But they do supercede the rights of the community.
 
The rights of one do not supercede the rights of another one. But they do supercede the rights of the community.
Then why have vandals destroyed thousands of businesses and hardly any get busted in hard-blue cities?

Just wondering....
 
Before I spend the rest of the afternoon discussing this, I need to go.

However, regulating behavior by restricting freedom is no answer.

I gotta go too ... later maybe

In the meantime, we have an understanding in rural New England:
A good fence makes the best neighbors
 
The rights of one do not supercede the rights of another one. But they do supercede the rights of the community.
But if individual rights are the only important thing, you are going to run up against incommensurability every time, because "the community" has a plethora of things that they consider their own individual rights, and they will not always align with your own.

Individual rights cannot be sacrosanct. One must learn to compromise. Don't get me wrong, I'm no utilitarian or Benthamite. But most of us have a narrow definition of what indivdual rights are, and they very often do not align with everyone else's, so which ones are true? Who gets to make that decision?
 
But if individual rights are the only important thing, you are going to run up against incommensurability every time, because "the community" has a plethora of things that they consider their own individual rights, and they will not always align with your own.

Individual rights cannot be sacrosanct. One must learn to compromise. Don't get me wrong, I'm no utilitarian or Benthamite. But most of us have a narrow definition of what indivdual rights are, and they very often do not align with everyone else's, so which ones are true? Who gets to make that decision?

All very good questions.
 
Top