> 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.
And my point was that this position, in and of itself, is a value
judgment which you wish to impose on everyone else. I would bet
that there are others who have a value system in which accepting
personal responsibility would extend to protecting oneself from
others. But you wish to give this responsibility to the State. I happen
to agree with you to a large extent, but I think people who
use the "harm to others" criterion for laws fail to realize that
they are also trying to impose a value system on others. They
just believe that theirs is more noble and beyond argument than
others. But, that's what those wacky fundamentalists think too.
TT
===========================================
Thomas A. Timmerman, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Psychology Department
Austin Peay State University
Clarksville, TN 37044
Phone: 931-221-1248 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================
