War On Drugs

[The Duke]

All actions effect the society at large.  All laws enforce morality.  To pretend otehrwise is foolish.

The only way anyone can credibly claim that either of these statements is untrue is that some effects on society are indirect, and can be obscured or denied, and some laws enforce a morality that is so commonly accepted that it does need seem to be an imposition at all to most.  But both claims remain true nonetheless.

[The Duke]

All actions effect the society at large.  All laws enforce morality.  To pretend otehrwise is foolish.

The only way anyone can credibly claim that either of these statements is untrue is that some effects on society are indirect, and can be obscured or denied, and some laws enforce a morality that is so commonly accepted that it does need seem to be an imposition at all to most.  But both claims remain true nonetheless.

I don't think anybody has ever denied this, but you know what is meant when it is said. If you don't, let me clue you in - there are essentially two types of laws. 1. What you can't do by yourself or with consenting individuals. 2. What you can't do to others.

Take a guess which one 'imposing morality' is meant to refer to.

So you do deny the first tenet, that no action can be isolated to those individuals that participate in it?

I think this belief is self evidently false.

[The Duke]

Do you really want to spend this thread having me prove that in some way all actions affect others?  How about I simply give a blanket answer to anything you give me- substituted effects.  Any time I do one thing, I am not doing another.  Therefore even the most private, hermit like behavior has an effect simply by my absence from society at that time.  Even if you could show me an action that had no effect on others, I could simply say that by dong this action, the person has affected society by withdrawing from it.  This is so easy its not even funny, look, there is nothing you do that isn't connected to what's around you, even if this inconvenient fact does invalidate everything you believe.

[The Duke]

Actually, my point was relevant.  Diblle's argument is that you should have the liberty to do anything that only affects you, regardless of moral judgements of whether the behavior is right or wrong.

If I can establish that all actions affect someone else, even in a small way, then I have defeated his argument.  Hence, my comment was relevant.