Thomas Timmerman wrote:
> Why is harm to another person/property the criterion? Why is that wrong?
The key is consent. Until your acts infringe on the rights of others,
there are really no valid grounds for the State to take any interest at
all in those acts. Once they _do_ infringe on the rights of others,
however (which is, of course, what occurs if you cause harm to their
person or property w/o their consent), the State not only has a right to
intervene, it has an obligation to do so.
Freedom is about responsibility. If we wish to live in a free society,
versus a police state, by necessity we must accept _personal_
responsibility for our decisions. The government has no right or
responsibility to protect us from our own poor decisions, only from the
decisions of others.
Unfortunately, a very vocal segment of our population tend to feel that
we _must_ be "protected from ourselves" and that it is the responsibility
of the State, instead of the individual, to determine what is or is not
"moral" behavior. As a result, we lack many freedoms that those in other
nations such as The Netherlands enjoy.
Rick
--
Rick Adams
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College
Jackson, MI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the love
you leave behind when you're gone. --Fred Small, Everything Possible "
