should you be allowed to do anything inside your homes if no-one is getting hurt? (1 Viewer)

[Cyrus the Great]

ie

drugs

sex

porn

giving birth

15 year old having sex with a 14 year old


even just talking about blowing up shit

 

[David Spade]

well obviously the 14yr old having sex would be judged as to whether it is consensual and currently it is believed that under16yr olds arent mature enough to consent so that is out

but i cant see why not

 

[Fish Tank]

So inside a house, the law should be suspended?

That's called anarchy.

 

[Absolutezero]

You'd have to define hurt. Is it just immediate, or long term. Also, does it include physical, mental, emotional etc.

 

[Planck]

As long as you don't invade the sphere of sovereign of another person or touch their property or initiate force you should be able to do whatever you please in the world.

Anything else is slavery.

 

[staplers...YAY]

No, because whilst your activities may not have an immediate effect, and people participating may not be getting hurt, said activities may lead to someone getting hurt later on or outside the home.
Whilst it's stupid to attempt to control what people do in their homes, removing the illegality of some activites may endanger other members of society, which is why from a legal standpoint, it would be neccessary to ensure that certain activities remain against the law even when done in ones own home, without anyone getting hurt.

 

[dieburndie]

No, because whilst your activities may not have an immediate effect, and people participating may not be getting hurt, said activities may lead to someone getting hurt later on or outside the home.
Whilst it's stupid to attempt to control what people do in their homes, removing the illegality of some activites may endanger other members of society, which is why from a legal standpoint, it would be neccessary to ensure that certain activities remain against the law even when done in ones own home, without anyone getting hurt.

Like what?

 

[Planck]

No, because whilst your activities may not have an immediate effect, and people participating may not be getting hurt, said activities may lead to someone getting hurt later on or outside the home.
Whilst it's stupid to attempt to control what people do in their homes, removing the illegality of some activites may endanger other members of society, which is why from a legal standpoint, it would be neccessary to ensure that certain activities remain against the law even when done in ones own home, without anyone getting hurt.

An example would be super sweet.

 

[breaking]

i'm pretty sure giving birth would hurt

 

[Phoenix Fury]

as long as you don't invade the sphere of sovereign of another person or touch their property or initiate force you should be able to do whatever you please in the world.

Anything else is slavery.

+1

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

i'm pretty sure giving birth would hurt

What a delightful and humourous post!

^_^

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Like what?

Well for example, the act of taking METHAMPHETAMINE* may seem harmless at the time, but it may well lead to amphetamine psychosis (displayed by various BOS members after abusing their prescription dexamphetamines, characterised by their insane libertarian attitudes which no sane person dares to agree with!) at a later point! Furthermore, their act of taking drugs will likely lead to an economic liability thanks to their addiction, from both a personal and governmental standpoint - loss of job and dependance on welfare, etc.

*

 

[Kolya]

So inside a house, the law should be suspended?

That's called anarchy.

Well...as long as it is only personal and the individuals involved a) don't take the activity outside the house and b) all involved understand the inherent dangers in any actions they choose to undertake and do so regardless...it's more of a rational anarchy, in which laws only exist for the protection of others...speeding and drink driving laws are in place, but seatbelts are voluntary devices.

 

[Phoenix Fury]

seatbelts are voluntary devices.

I thought the law can poo on people for not wearin seatbelts.

 

[I.refuse.a.name]

No, the laws are in place for a reason. Just because it doesn't cause harm one time doesn't mean the same activity will not harm otherwise. Even with drugs it has a long term impact on the individual user, their families, and just one dose could kill if you aren't aware of the implications on one's body.

With very young people you can't ensure that they can genuinely consent to their relationships, so it could cause emotional and psychological harm even if perceived to be harm free at the time.

Sure sometimes doing prohibited activities might not seem to hurt anyone, but the probability is that it does and will. When the risk is high, sacrificing some (not alot) of liberties is validated to support the safeties of the population.

 

[Mu5hi]

then who pays for your medical bills when you over douse on drugs?
What about 70 year old having sex with 8 year old?


just a random though

 

[Planck]

then who pays for your medical bills when you over douse on drugs?

You do.

RE: The sex thing

Child rape is a harm and invades someone else's sphere of sovereign.

Jesus.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

No, the laws are in place for a reason. Just because it doesn't cause harm one time doesn't mean the same activity will not harm otherwise. Even with drugs it has a long term impact on the individual user, their families, and just one dose could kill if you aren't aware of the implications on one's body.

Hahaha. WHEN I TOOK MAH WACKY TOBACCY IT MESSD WIF MAH MIND IN DA LONG TERM!

too much mdma KILLS!!!

 

[Kolya]

I thought the law can poo on people for not wearin seatbelts.

In a rational anarchist state (contradiction in terms but still) personal safety devices such as seat belts are voluntary in their use

 

[Raaaaaachel]

In a rational anarchist state (contradiction in terms but still) personal safety devices such as seat belts are voluntary in their use

If you do it now you get an $88 dollar fine and the probability of being caught is minuscule. But if you are stupid enough to drive around without a seat bealt and you happen to be injured, the public health system, and disability support payment scheme ect will still take care of you like the child the state treats you as.

Under the private system, not wearing seat belts would almost certainly void your health insurance or result in a huge penalty, creating a much more meaningful incentive to actually wear it.