No. It should not be. Full stop.Originally Posted by stlukesguild
No. It should not be. Full stop.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
cacian- the government should not control people's minds or bodies.
SLG- So prostitution should be legal?
No. It should not be. Full stop.
The the government SHOULD control people's minds and bodies?
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
The government does not should not control people's mind. What I am trying to say is that in a different world prostitution does not exist. The less corruptions and the less control the government has. In a perfect world a government does not exist.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
In other words... you imagine in your perfect world that if governmental control were eliminated, then prostitution would also disappear? And your "reason" (I hesitate to use this word) for this thinking?
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
My thinking is based on pure imagination of a world that exists without government ties or dictatorship for that matter.
So the less social issues such as corruption on the ground of drugs sex or abuse and the less reasons for a government to be.
People are power to themselves and will should conceive the notion that without them the reason to be or exist is not. The world is at their feet and so the quicker they realise who they are, get together as a force and simply be without being told how and when and the better they are for it. It is simply a question of logic sense and belief. Organisation is key and so is a thinking process that should eliminate anyone that thinks they have a power to rule over others. A world without rules is what I am about in other words I am the rules and so are you.
Last edited by cacian; 12-16-2012 at 03:55 PM.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
Yes... yours is a world of the imagination alright. A good many might suggest "fantasy" or even "delusion" might be a better term. I quite like Rousseau, but he was wholly wrong with his idealized notions of humanity and the idea that government or civilization was the cause of the "evils" that men do. Tennyson was far more accurate with his image of "Nature, red in tooth and claw..." Humanity sans government would rapidly devolve into anarchy and eventually the brute force of "might makes right". You need only look to what happens when a strong central government looses control of a situation... whether we are talking about the aftermath of a coup or war... or even the events following some catastrophic event such as Hurricane Katrina.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
In general, I suspect we all agree, less government is better whenever practicable. Where to draw the line, of course, will always be a debatable target that moves with modern knowledge over time. In the U.S., the best example of too much government is too obvious ... the criminal regulation of marijuana.
More government doesn't always mean less personal autonomy though. In (most of) the U.S. and Canada, with the (complicated) exception of medical marijuana, pot is currently illegal to possess and sell. If pot were legalized, taxed and regulated, there would be more regulation but of a different kind - pot users would no longer be criminals. So "less government is better" is not something I would agree with, nor would I agree that the sizing of government as "big" and "small" has much relevance to the practices of nation-states... but that's another issue.
Leave alone the government, what about friends and family? No, I don't feel it is justifiable to do whatever you like to your own body. You will have to consider the people close to you who will be hurt by your self-harming actions. No man is an island entire of itself.
Exit, pursued by a bear.
What a load of nonsense.
If you do not have the most basic right of control over your own body, then you have nothing. Who has a right to tell someone else that they must live their life? Answer: no one.
No one asks to be born, and they should certainly not be forced to live.
Very tricky question. Coming from a consequentialist perspective, I think that notions of personal freedom are ultimately subsumed by more general appeals to the consequences of these laws.
WRT suicide, I think that the most important consideration is the mental health of the individual in question. Do they seem to be in a panicked transient state of mind? Are they under the influence of some drug or withdrawing from one? Is there some obvious environmental factor that could easily be removed and with it suicidal wishes? In these cases it seems obvious that we should discourage suicide, but if the decision is one of a well-thought out and rational decision, I just can't see any reasonable explanation for prohibition.
Perhaps a waiting period. You go to your local euthansia center and say that you want to commit suicide. A thirty day clock starts in which you must check in weekly or with a psychologist and report your reasons etc....
**Question** Does anyone know what happens if you are found guilty of attempted suicide? Not assisted, but rather you attempting it yourself? What are the legal consequences?
Check out my blog it has basically nothing to do with literature.
http://slingsandarrowsandtheproudman.blogspot.com/
One has to reconcile the logic of wanting to end their own existence. As a society we perceive this to be irrational and morally wrong. Perhaps it is just pure narcissim grounded in religious, social and political beliefs. While we maintain this notion, the freedom to end one's life, regardless of the pain it may cause others, will always be a subject of debate.
Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb
If no one asks to be born, what makes anyone's right to life inalienable? Why believe that life is something to be "had," a possession? You presume self-ownership without explaining why it is morally significant.
There are no criminal consequences to attempted suicide, but the act is often the basis for an involuntary civil commitment, resulting in incarceration in a prison-like government mental facility. The laws reflect the assumption that suicide is usually only attempted by the insane. If the decision to attempt suicide is judicially determined to have been made by a person of sound mind, there are no legal consequences, regardless of the hurt the act may inflict upon family or friends. Reflecting the notion that a person has the basic inalienable right to control his or her own body. The laws are seemingly based on the premise that self-ownership is self-evident.
You can't stop people killing themselves either; so all making it illegal does is stop those who are the most vulnerable, and most in need of it from their only means of escape. It is a barbaric policy, and i'm amazed it doesn't bother more people.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
