|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: why is alcohol legal: the george best/opening hours thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I believe that in a democracy it is the people that should decide such things, not individuals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
The problem of The Tyranny of the Majority rears its ugly head, I believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Well the majority of Americans are Christians and many of them believe that it is the one true religion, so by your logic it should be okay to make it the state religion or make other religions illegal if the populace votes for it! I wouldn't want to live in your world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
I think democracy needs to include some "unalienable rights" for individuals. Not sure if Mod would agree.
If so, then only the things outside those rights can be voted upon and established by the people. But regardless, even if "the right to have any religious belief" was "unalienable", in a truly democratic society, if you live with a lot of Christians, you're going to be living in a society with a lot of laws that look Christian. It's all about the "unalienable rights"... and those seem quite arbitrary to me as well. Guess it depends on how you define what it is to be a person. Ben
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
so by your logic it should be okay to make it the state religion Erm, not really. It would have to be the majority opinion that its ok for congress to make a law respecting an establishment of religion.
...make other religions illegal if the populace votes for it! I wouldn't want to live in your world. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a place where the majority of people would want to make certain religions illegal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I think democracy needs to include some "unalienable rights" for individuals. Not sure if Mod would agree I basically agree, but who decides those rights if not the people?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Indeed - but laws can be established to help prevent this: after all, I'm sure the majority of people don't want to be potential victims of the Tyranny of the Majority.
Is this a sticky area, full of pit traps and problems? Yes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
I basically agree, but who decides those rights if not the people?
I don't think it matters. No matter how democracy is established, it can be overturned if the people choose so. No grounding is "safer" or "better" than any other. You could have the establishment of democracy forced upon you externally and establish those rights (hi USA). You could have a select few establish those rights (hi USA). Or you could have the people vote on unalienable rights (has this ever happened?). Any way you look at it, if the people don't like it, they can overthrow the government. Or, if I understood jar's explanation correctly the other days, some goverments give easier means for revisiting such a thing (a Constitutional Convention?). Point is, establishment of a democracy need not require a democracy. I think. Ben
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Any way you look at it, if the people don't like it, they can overthrow the government. So ultimately, the people decide what those rights end up being, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
So ultimately, the people decide what those rights end up being, right? Kind of. The mechanisms for change create a kind of "inertia" that (to me) serves as a "check" for being overly aggressive in how fast or often you change those rights. But I'm giving a slow nod in general agreement. Ben
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Modulous writes: Which raises the question: If the majority wanted alcohol to be illegal, should it be? Yes, probably. No. Let law and policy regulate unacceptable behavior, not states of consciousness. If you prohibit every substance, device, or knowledge that creates destructive behaviors in some people, we will all be the poorer for it. Even without intoxicants, some people drive recklessly--shall we ban cars? Hackers use their knowledge to defraud--shall we ban the net? Legalize everything: prohibition never works. The urge to experience altered consciousness is universal in our species and common in many others. Western cultures struggle with alcohol poisoning because they have banned every other outlet, including all nondestructive or less destructive substances. When you criminalize cognitive liberties, you move one step closer to criminalizing ideas. I will drink, smoke, inject, or swallow anything I damn well please, and the State (and my neighbors) can stay the hell out of my body and mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You can also be just as bad a driver, just as slow on reflexes and just as bad at being aware of what is going on around you if you are extremely tired and not on any drug\substance at all. You could also be, hate to say it, too old. Or just too immature, regardless of actual age.
So yes: state of consciousness to some measurable degree, behavior commensurate with the rational use of a lethal machine. Test ability not what's limiting it? Get ticketed for operation of a vehicle while in an unfit condition. Why is drunk driving worse than any other {inability\unabled} driving? by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
No. Let law and policy regulate unacceptable behavior, not states of consciousness. Agreed. Unacceptable behaviour would be things such as 'Brewing alcoholic beverages, selling alcoholic beverages, buying alcoholic beverages' Being drunk should be no more illegal than tripping on acid is now.
If you prohibit every substance, device, or knowledge that creates destructive behaviors in some people, we will all be the poorer for it. I agree. I don't want the prohibition of alcohol, or other drugs.
Even without intoxicants, some people drive recklessly--shall we ban cars? Hackers use their knowledge to defraud--shall we ban the net?
Precisely.
Legalize everything: prohibition never works. Well, no. We can't legalize 'everything' - murder, theft and rape should remain prohibited!
The urge to experience altered consciousness is universal in our species and common in many others Agreed, as I said in Message 8:
quote: When you criminalize cognitive liberties, you move one step closer to criminalizing ideas. Absolute agreement.
I will drink, smoke, inject, or swallow anything I damn well please, and the State (and my neighbors) can stay the hell out of my body and mind.
Damn straight. This is confused somewhat by medical costs for the resulting damage you can cause to yourself and the ethics of all of that...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Why is drunk driving worse than any other {inability\unabled} driving? I imagine it is because people are not aware that they are too old or too immature and it is very difficult to quantify too old/too immature/too tired. However - people have been prosecuted for the latter two and had their licence revoked for the former, its less common because it is less easy to demonstrate than alcohol content in the blood. Drink driving is easily quantifiable and testable, and the person involved is mostly aware that they have been drinking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
quote: Confused is right. The taxes argument is one of only two reasonable cases for the prohibition of drugs that I've heard, the other being the assertion that individuals shouldn't have the liberty to deprive themselves of liberty, e.g. through suicide or the unnecessary use of physically addictive substances.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024