Strong Like Peanut Butter

[rowyn]

These are some of the things I believe strongly, almost inflexibly, to the degree that argument against them with me would be virtually pointless. This is not an exhaustive list; it’s just the things that came to mind. In no particular order:

I believe people are responsible for their own actions.
I believe we all have choices, even if sometimes they’re all hard choices, or bad ones.
I believe that, generally speaking, it is wrong to physically harm the person or property of a non-consenting other, and it should be illegal to do so. (Barring special circumstances – eg, it is necessary to harm a man in order to prevent him from harming another.)
I believe that, generally speaking, it is wrong to mentally or emotionally harm the person of a non-consenting other, but it should not be illegal to do so.
I believe that it is possible for society to care for the poor and the sick without the government mandating programs to do so.
I believe people should do the right thing because it is right, not because G-d, the government, or their mothers are watching.
I believe all men are not created equal, but the law should treat them as though they were.
I believe that we are all endowed with certain unalienable rights, among them the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I believe I should respect a man’s view if he says, “Homosexuality is a sin against G-d and mankind, and those who consider themselves homosexual should spend their lives resisting their passions.” But I owe no respect to the view that homosexual acts should be illegal, or that homosexuals should be in any way prevented or coerced from doing whatever they want with their own lives.
I believe more people disagree on the means than the ends.
I believe most people think they are making the best choices, even if they’re not.
I believe many people know they are doing the wrong thing and just don’t care enough.
I believe it’s easier for me to figure out what the best choice for myself is, than to figure it out for anyone else.
I believe freedom is one of the most precious and beautiful things in the universe.

I believe I am wrong about a lot of things.

But not about these.

Comments

[prester-scott.livejournal.com]

I agree with a lot of this, but I admit I stumbled over this one:

I believe that, generally speaking, it is wrong to mentally or emotionally harm the person of a non-consenting other, but it should not be illegal to do so.

Lying and manipulation could easily be said to fall under this category. I'm not even talking about the more blatant example of fraud, because that is arguably physical harm: e.g. you knowingly pass a counterfeit $20 at the grocery store, thus effectively stealing from them. I am talking about winning someone's mind and heart, bending them to your will, on false pretenses, for some insane or sinister purpose.

Quickie example: Boy meets Girl; Boy sleeps with Girl; Boy dumps Girl; Girl, enraged, cries rape -- not necessarily to the police, but to another Boy; Second Boy gets his gun and kills First Boy; Second Boy has murdered an innocent person. Isn't Girl culpable?

[rowyn]

Girl has caused physical damage to the first Boy, because her false accusation has caused another to kill him. If her false accusation resulted in his arrest, or in damage to his reputation that prevents him from gaining employment, then again, he has suffered physical harm. The "generally speaking" is my broad disclaimer on this count. I don't think that lying should usually be a criminal offense unless it results in physical harm to the person or property of another. Most cases of fraud or libel do result in physical harm of some form.

Deliberately breaking a person's heart, or manipulating them to do things not in their best interest, is certainly and undeniably wrong. But in the vast majority of cases, it's not something from which government is empowered to protect its citizenry.

However, certainly exceptions arise -- that's why I categorized that as "generally speaking." Harrassment is the most common exception: hounding a person in public, verbally abusing them, etc. There is a point where the maliciousness of "mental or emotional injury" is so manifestly clear that the law can intervene.

It's just that, most of the time, I don't think the law is an a good position to judge or protect on this count. This is the general principal under which I support the legality of a slew of issues, like gambling, prostitution, homosexuality, drug use, etc. One may easily argue that these inflict emotional or mental damage on those not consenting to them (or directly involved in them), but I don't think that's justification enough to make them illegal.

[prester-scott.livejournal.com]

...gambling, prostitution, homosexuality, drug use, etc. One may easily argue that these inflict emotional or mental damage on those not consenting to them (or directly involved in them), but I don't think that's justification enough to make them illegal.

These things can indirectly inflict physical damage upon those not consenting to them. Example: prostitution. John has sex with Whore, who has hepatitis; John goes home and later has sex with Wife; Wife gets hepatitis and dies. Obviously both John and Whore are morally culpable for Wife's death, though in different ways.

But what, if any, part of this chain of events is criminal? Some plausible answers:
1. None of it. Both sexual acts were consensual. In neither case was the transmission of hep intended. It's a tragic accident. (pretty much pure individualism)
2. Whore is culpably negligent with respect to the hep, but not the sex.
3. John is culpably negligent with respect to the hep, but not the sex.
4. Whore is objectively criminal for offering illicit sex, which was the occasion for the hep transmission.
5. John is objectively criminal for having illict sex, which was the occasion for the hep transmission. (pretty much "legislating morality" at this stage)

Naturally, this reflects a continuum. And I -- though I tend toward the libertarian answer -- don't think it's so obvious in every case where along the spectrum justice lies.

[rowyn]

My point is that even in your next example, where again, physical harm is caused, that harm could be punished by a law which does not criminalize the act of prostitution itself. In fact, that John has paid the prostitute for sex has no impact whatsoever on the injury inflicted by the wife; had he engaged in the sex act "for free", the scenario would be the same. (One may argue that prostitutes are inherently promiscuous and therefore more prone to pass on assorted STDs and other diseases, but I believe you and I would already reject that claim as specious: one does not criminalize behavior merely because a statistical connection can be made between it and undesirable outcomes.) In any case, John could contract the same disease, and pass it on to his wife, through perfectly licit means, as well.

You leave out one way, in which I would agree that John could be held legally culpable for his actions: breach of contract. By having sex outside of his marriage, he has breached the contract between himself and his wife, and may reasonably be held culpable for that breach in court. (This assumes he and his wife have a traditional marriage and not an "open" one.)

Another way of looking at the overall picture:

Government is like a hammer. It's a good tool. You can fix a lot of things with a hammer.

But not every problem society has is a nail. :)

I know I'm rather preaching to the converted here anyway. I would like to note that while I do not think that the list of behaviors (gambling, drug use, etc.) should be criminalized, this isn't one of my bedrock, I'm-positive-of-it, convictions. I have my doubts. :) And I put "generally speaking" into my original list of "things upon which I have solid convictions" because it's something I believe applies, oh, 99.9% of the time, but there's still that occasional clear-cut case where the law can and should intervene.

Moral regulation the sneaky way

[telnar.livejournal.com]

How do you feel about the way the state of Missouri regulates gambling, which includes (among other things) limiting the amount a gambler can by in for (and therefore lose) to $500 every 2 hours. My interpretation of this is that the state starts with a model of how gambling causes harm, e.g. "Gamblers are compulsive and can't stop when they should." They then continue with a regulation to try to mitigate this. There is no doubt that there are people out there who rationally and after due consideration have decided that they would like to gamble for more than $500 every 2 hours. I've even met some of them. On the other hand, these people are relatively rare, so the state can argue that the harm caused by this law is relatively small.

A state which wanted to similarly regulate prostitution could require spousal notification or even spousal consent before a married person could see a prostitute. This would eliminate the path to unexpected STDs that was discussed above. The only legitimate harms I can see would be loss of privacy (which would effect unmarried patrons as well), inconvenience to couples with open relationships and eliminating "don't ask don't tell" as a way couples could handle fidelity.

There is a lot which government can do to make behaviors it doesn't approve of inconvenient without making them illegal. Do you see a bright line anywhere in this, or would the freedom vs avoiding harm decision have to be made case by case?