The Difference

[digitaldiscipline]

After all the bullshit is flensed off and boiled away, there really is only one basic difference between people who want to legalize everything a person can do to themself, and those who want to criminalize everything they don't like.

The difference is between two simple statements.

"You shouldn't do that," and "You can't do that."

The difference between "should not" and "can not" is that, with the former, the option "to" still exists, rather than being obliterated.

Everything else is semantics, bullshit, politics, bullshit, politics, and bullshit.

Responsible people should be allowed to live with the former, not be bullied, cowed, and browbeaten by the latter.

To everyone who deigns to say what I can and cannot do, I say, "You should watch your ass."

Comments

[helcat.livejournal.com]

Well, I hate being told what I should and should not do. But I do like the fact that on the things that I don't want to do and don't want done around me and mine, I can point to the lawbooks and say, "Here's as good a reason as any not to."

Thinking of one particular thing here, of course.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

I think that where my preference for reality founders is on that niggling bit about "responsible people."

They don't exist in sufficient quantities or meaningful concentrations.

I would like to have the option, were I of a mind, to consume $stuff, rather than have some "save the trees/children/squirrels/other" asshat stridently telling me that it is evil, and should be wiped from the face of the earth. I'm sorry, their opinion of right and wrong ceases to exist in any meanigful capacity about four inches outside my epidermis.

Just because something is allowed doesn't mean it's compulsory. People seem all to capable of forgetting that when they're shouting at the sky that It Must Be Destroyed For Our Protection.

You know, like other lifestyle choices or religions. Anyone different (from me!) goes to hell. That's the height of hubris and ego, and it would do well for a whole lot of self-righteous motherfuckers to bear that in mind instead of spouting off pronouncements.

Now, do I have a splattering of hypocrisy on my person? Almost certainly. But I'm certainly feeling downright Downy Fresh compared to some quarters, though I could use another run through a brisk-flowing stream and some quality time with a loofah.

[helcat.livejournal.com]

Well, it's like every time Dean says not in so many words that I'm insane for wanting more children, I hear it as "You should not have more children." It's selfish to not want children. It's selfish to want children. WTF-ever. My heart breaks that I can't have more children, but to have them would break someone else's.

But, on the other hand, every time the stoner furnace gets kicked up, it isn't that they shouldn't smoke dope, it's that they shouldn't smoke dope in my airspace. But it's not enough that it could cost me custody of my kid or that I have genuine concerns about its health consequences or that it makes me want to gauge my eyes out when I get a contact buzz and accompanying sandpaper-epithelium syndrome. See, all that is my problem, of course. ("Sounds like a personal problem.") But the fact that it's illegal, on the other hand...

[etcet.livejournal.com]

I think what I forgot to amplify in the original comment is that the difference between "should not" and "can not" is that, with the former, the option "to" still exists, rather than being obliterated.

In this context, Re: Point 1, you could, but that's still a tough conversation to have, because you're both trying to make a case from a rational, but different, position. But it is up to you (as a binary unit) to reach a decision, not have one half of your choices excised by an outside entity.

Re: Point 2, the stoner furnace falls down in the original scenario because they're not behaving like responsible people. RPs would go elsewhere or do so when you're not home, so that their doing so does not become a zero-sum (or negative-sum) situation.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

*nod* I know what you're referring to, and, were I given broad fiat to lay policy, I'm not sure how I'd handle those situations, other than hoping that the clods in question would respect your request.

[netgoth.livejournal.com]

I could spin this a completely different way, but I'll just have to say in essence, for once, I don't agree with you.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

I'm firing broadsides from the hip with the original comment, certainly, but that seems to be the only tone of voice some folks can hear; lacking in subtlety and nuance, to be certain.

If you'd like to tease this out offline (or here), I respect your opinions, and would like to hear them. *hug*

[netgoth.livejournal.com]

It's primarily the broadness of the comment I disagree with. I'm certain if we were to discuss specifics, we'd likely fall in line. I just dislike the vagaries of broad statements overall.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

*nods*

At root, I think it's far harder to re-establish an abridged liberty than it is to abridge them in the first place, and certain mentalities are all about abridging things they don't like for everyone.

[the-yellow-king.livejournal.com]

As you have mentioned previously, you are issuing fiat statements as many do not understand nuances. Therefore, I shall limit myself to saying that in general, I do agree with you.
I would say that the only things that I support in the "can't" category are those things that, no matter the interpretation, are bad for the lawful society at large. Murder, for instance, would fall under that interpretation.
Now, things that are definitely bad for the individual but have no effect on society at large...*shrug* I have no issue with giving someone rope to hang themselves. Why not? Cleans the gene pool out.
But then again, it's all about that 'Responsible Persons' thing, really. So that brings us to the crux of the problem: How do we increase the amount of responsible people? How do we enforce such responsibility? Should it be enforced?

[etcet.livejournal.com]

I think the pool-cleaning angle answers your last question - "should it be enforced?"

If responsibility became part of the toolkit for effective existence, the irresponsible will remove themselves.

Why, yes, it -does- smell kind of like a piano keyboard in this tower...

[the-yellow-king.livejournal.com]

Thus the question becomes how responsibility joins the toolkit.

I personally have always been in favor of harshly-enforced legislation, born of a particular fondness for Chinese Legalism and a wish that it could be updated to modern standards.

OTOH, I have also advocated a removal of the 'Bill of Rights' and a replacement with 'Privilege and Duty' - i.e. "It is the privilege of the citizen to have freedom of speech, but only so long as the citizen performs the duty of using it responsibly.", with such responsibility defined by law. Probably extremely unworkable though, in a pragmatic setting.

What method would you advocate?

...You know, it took me until now to get your last sentence. *sigh* I am slow today. I see it as a problem requiring direct practical solution - but then, I also tend to be very lax in my means justification to reach the end.

[the_axel]

I'm sure that there are many politicians who would love that language.

Then they get to pass laws that say "Speaking ill of the President is not responsible", which is why Freedom of Speech has to be an absolute.

[the-yellow-king.livejournal.com]

Which is why I say it is nice in theory, but I cannot envision a pragmatic application. Rather like all-in-one software programs - nice in theory, but they never quite do what you want.

[the_axel]

I think there's an important caveat:
"as long as it doesn't fuck with other people".

As in
1) "you should not fuck people of the same sex" and "you cannot fuck people of the same sex"
versus
2) "you should not kill other people because they have red hair" and "you cannot kill other people because they have red hair"

I'm okay with "cannot" for example two.

Of course that might be where 'responsible people' fits in?

[etcet.livejournal.com]

pretty much, aye, vis a vis the "go for it, if it doesn't directly fuck with others."

[fenixinthedark.livejournal.com]

As has been pointed out, the area between what should be a matter of personal choice and what ought to be rule of law is muddy. I think it is so because we know that a chaotic/good, functioning anarchistic society is an impossibility. People are selfish beings by their nature, and law is *needed* in order for them to *not* step over the line from "I am harming myself" to "I am harming others".

[mighty-man.livejournal.com]

Nuke 'em all 'till they glow.
Then shoot 'em in the dark.