On Aug 14, 2:12Â pm, Publius
nospam.comcast.net> wrote:>> The drinker, doper, gambler, has his/her relations to kin and others
>> "victims"
>
> Good thing you put "victims" in quotes. If the doper or gambler has
> violated no rights of theirs, they are not victims. They may be victims if
> the boozer or gambler has stolen their money or whiskey, in which case they
> have a bonafide complaint. If his behavior breaches some prior contract
> they had with him, then they may have a civil complaint. If they are merely
> disappointed or displeased with his behavior, then they need to break off
> their relationship with him and go their own ways. If they fail to do that,
> then they are "victimizing" themselves. Except in the first case, there is
> no basis for intervention by the State.
>
>> The community is "harmed" or victimized by irresponsible, imprudent
>> behavior
>
> Good thing you put "harmed" in quotes, since communities --- not being
> moral agents but merely statistical entities --- cannot be harmed or
> benefited. Those properties apply only to moral agents and moral subjects,
> e.g., persons and animals. If any persons have been harmed by the doper's
> or gambler's behavior, as described above, then their recourse is as
> described above.
>
>> If ye smoke chains, then Medicare (national health insurance,
>> taxpayers, social security) may well eventually have to pick-up the
>> tres cher health problrems.
>
> If some gummint bureaucracy has appointed itself my surrogate mother and
> taken upon itself a duty to look out for my welfare, that is their
> decision, not mine. I have not "victimized" them in any way. They victimize
> me if they presume to constrain my liberties in order to reduce the costs
> to themselves of the custodial duties they have imposed upon themselves. If
> they'd mind their own business they wouldn't have that problem. If they are
> "victims," it is of their own unsolicited intrusions into other's lives.
I try to live & think in the real world, the non theoretical and
ordinary.
Sure I complain about the absurdities, contradictions and
imperfections ad nauseam
What you defend above is theory.
Show me an example now or in history, anywhere in the world.
If ya tell me the pre or post colonial USA, does that include ordinary
life?
Because New England is all about governing, and A adultery is still
considered wrong, morally & I think legalistically (tho perhaps is not
enforced by authorities)
Blue laws, sex laws, drinking laws, gambling laws, and dope laws
aren't secrets in the USA
Libertarianism is a wonderful dreamy theory as is democratic socialism
Since neither actually works as wonderfully as touted by theorists,
the ideologies are are hypothetical or idealized
We've adapted versions, modifications, and compromises of the ideals,
and one is certainly allowed to publicly advocate and yearn for one's
dreams of goodness and perfection, while only a few believe the ideal
can actually be attained
