 |
|
|
 |
| A Free Society Should Not Protect People From Themselves |
| People should have the freedom to make bad choices and learn from them. Telling somebody they can't do something that will have a negative effect on their health (physical or mental) encourages a state of dependency and risk aversion. In this state people will be less likely to behave responsibly and use their judgement effectively, so restricting a person's freedom in order to protect them is actually counter-productive. In addition, a state characterised by risk aversion will not result in any breakthroughs and therefore will not be conducive to progression. |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
Yes but no. I think people who show harm to other people should be Title 86ed.
And yes, Kristy08, they should be protected from themselves if they can cause harm to others. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
A free society will always need protected from itself.
Without some forms of protection, it is anarchy.
Social engineering, conformance to governing rules, is required within a "free" society, which in
reality means there is no such thing as a free society.
I am not saying this is a good thing. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Red light, green light! Walk, don't walk! Splat! Sorry Matey, you are living in a free society now.
You don't have to be protected from on coming traffic!! Your motion is flawed Kirsty08. The driver
and the pedestrian are just one example! You don't learn too quickly when you have just been
flattened by a huge truck! Good try though, 8 out of 10 for effort! |
| |
joe9  20 Nov 2008 16:04
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|