DISCORDIANISM: NO SUCH THING

[AFK]

Or, they could say, "fuck those junkies," and no money would go to RWHN.

Which means I go back to Retail Hell and you spags get even more puns.  So make sure you consider all of the unintended consequences before you embark on your new system Rat. 

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I think your punbombs would be considered a social interaction, RWHN. :P

[fomenter]

Smoking a cigarette in your house, is personal. If you would like to kill yourself, feel free. Smoking in a restaurant is a social interaction and you're abrogating the personal freedom of everyone else by making their dinner taste like ass. If you don't want to agree to the personal restriction of freedom... then don't fucking go eat at that restaurant, cook at home.  You get your personal freedom and so does everyone else.

how about owning a restaurant that caters to people that smoke? current law says a restaurant owner cant cater to a the smokers by offering a smoking OK restaurant. is it a restriction his personal freedom to do business as he sees fit or the public's right to stop him because cigarettes are harmful?

Hrmmm, well I don't know. Firstly owning a resturant (or any business) takes you out of "personal freedom" and places you smack in the middle of social interaction, thus I don't see it as an issue of personal freedom for the owner. Iif you were to run a business that catered to a specific group, like smokers... I would say that the personal freedom of the other patrons would not necessarily be abrogated, because they would have the free choice to enter or not as they Will. However, it is an situation where the majority could decide, because its still a social interaction, rather than personal freedom.

OK but if they "restaurant owners" qualify as a social interaction how about the store that sells the cigarettes or the drugs you want decriminalized, they would also be a social interaction and subject to the will of the politicians and the majority wouldn't they?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I'm confused.  At this point I'm finding it hard to understand the major difference between the Rat system and the current system.  I have to admit it suspiciously looks like a convoluted way of decriminalizing drugs.  And if that is your main aim, then I would forget about this system and just focus on decriminalizing drugs.  I think what would help this is if you could delineate exactly which troublesome laws you are trying to eliminate with this system.  Because so far your system continues to penalize sex offenders, drunken/intoxicated idiots who cause public disturbances, impacts upon society by businesses, etc.,  I'm having a hard time understanding what is really different other than you can do drugs in your house legally. 

The point is this:

Our current system states that the majority can restrict the personal freedoms of others without their consent.
Our current system states that the Congress can restrict the personal freedoms of others, without their consent.
Our current system allows the government to punish anyone who breaks these restrictions, even if they did not agree to be bound by them. This punishment may go as far as to completely detain them of their personal freedom in all its aspects.

If we replace "Congress" or "majority" with the name "slave owner" such statements would be horrific to our senses. Yet, since its more than one person in the position of the slave owner... we somehow find it acceptable.

The difference is as minor (and as major) as the difference between Opt-In and Opt-Out telemarketing. The system we have today places the burden upon the person affected by the law, to spend their time and money trying preserve their personal freedom. This is backwards. The individual HAS their personal freedom and they should not need to fight for it, it should simply be guaranteed. There is no reason to suffer under legislated limits to personal freedom (like Prop , there is no reason that we should have to fight against such legislation... such legislation is simply not possible if the State's first requirement is the guarantee of personal freedom.

I'm sure there are far better ways to implement this guarantee than what I've stated. I'm an amateur at this

I don't think it requires a huge change to the existing system, but I think a change is necessary if we are to be a truly free nation.

As much as I would hate to see you return to Retail hell... I would suffer through 23,500 puns if it meant that the US government would say to everyone:

#

Man has the right to live by his own law
to live in the way that he wills to do:
to work as he will:
to play as he will:
to rest as he will:
to die when and how he will.

Man has the right to eat what he will:
to drink what he will:
to dwell where he will:
to move as he will on the face of the earth.

Man has the right to think what he will:
to speak what he will:
to write what he will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will.
to dress as he will.

Man has the right to love as he will

[P3nT4gR4m]

Any system which begins with the words "everyone has the right..." is nothing more than a pile of idealistic gobshite but don't take my word for it, I'll happily retract that statement if and when said system is implemented.

Rights are not given, they are earned. If they're not taken, through blood sweat and tears, then they're not rights, they're just some hippy bullshit that means a metric tad less than nothing.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

OK but if they "restaurant owners" qualify as a social interaction how about the store that sells the cigarettes or the drugs you want decriminalized, they would also be a social interaction and subject to the will of the politicians and the majority wouldn't they?

Businesses would all be social interactions and the government could place controls on what and how things were sold. There is no personal freedom to "Sell as He Will" or "Stock Shelves as He Will". I don't think it would be unreasonable for the government to have the same sort of age restrictions etc as they do today on some products.

However, if products are not illegal to consume, business owners would have the money and drive to be allowed to sell them.

Hell, I don't think there's a personal freedom that says one has the right to "Buy off the shelves, whatever they Will".

Let us say that such a government came to reality, and since we're talking about drugs in this example (though its not the main driver) lets look at a scenario:

Bob says "I wish to smoke pot". He has the right to do so. Finding the pot is his problem. Perhaps he decides that he will grow it himself. Perhaps he decides that he will go see a friend that grows it, Perhaps he will go to the store and see if they have "Green Man" brand nugget in a pouch. He has the right to do all of these things... but he has no guarantee that any of these things will result in him getting stoned. His crop may die, his friend may not have any pot and the store may not carry it. That has nothing to do with personal freedom, he should learn to garden better.  

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Any system which begins with the words "everyone has the right..." is nothing more than a pile of idealistic gobshite but don't take my word for it, I'll happily retract that statement if and when said system is implemented.

Rights are not given, they are earned. If they're not taken, through blood sweat and tears, then they're not rights, they're just some hippy bullshit that means a metric tad less than nothing.

That may be the case. I hope not, but it may be. Such a view would likely condemn our race to self-destruction, perhaps it is the only real option. However, I'd prefer to consider more optimistic options. They may never come to pass, but 10 optimistic possibilities seems to me like a better way to see the world than a single pessimistic assumption.

[LMNO]

"TO WORK AS HE WILL."

Why is that not the same as "to sell as he will"?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

"TO WORK AS HE WILL."

Why is that not the same as "to sell as he will"?

I don't know. That's a good question. I had initially consider that to mean that man has the right to choose when and what sort of work he will do... but perhaps it would include selling what he will as well. Good point LMNO.

[AFK]

The point is this:

Our current system states that the majority can restrict the personal freedoms of others without their consent.
Our current system states that the Congress can restrict the personal freedoms of others, without their consent.
Our current system allows the government to punish anyone who breaks these restrictions, even if they did not agree to be bound by them. This punishment may go as far as to completely detain them of their personal freedom in all its aspects.

If we replace "Congress" or "majority" with the name "slave owner" such statements would be horrific to our senses. Yet, since its more than one person in the position of the slave owner... we somehow find it acceptable.

Okay, so who enacts the laws that you would accept?  The ones governing not smoking in a public restaurant.  The ones keeping adult men from committing statutory rape?  How do those laws get put in place?  How are they put in place in a manner that doesn't involve some sort of decision making process where there is a majority that agrees with the law and a minority that diasgrees with the law? 

[LMNO]

"TO WORK AS HE WILL."

Why is that not the same as "to sell as he will"?

I don't know. That's a good question. I had initially consider that to mean that man has the right to choose when and what sort of work he will do... but perhaps it would include selling what he will as well. Good point LMNO.

So, if Fomenter's premise is accurate, that working in a public space is a social interaction, doesn't this lead to a direct conflict between the individual's freedom and the government's regulation of social interactions?

[fomenter]

OK but if they "restaurant owners" qualify as a social interaction how about the store that sells the cigarettes or the drugs you want decriminalized, they would also be a social interaction and subject to the will of the politicians and the majority wouldn't they?

Businesses would all be social interactions and the government could place controls on what and how things were sold. There is no personal freedom to "Sell as He Will" or "Stock Shelves as He Will". I don't think it would be unreasonable for the government to have the same sort of age restrictions etc as they do today on some products.

this is a reasonable solution, the majority can place restrictions on the age of patrons allowed in a smokers restaurant or in a business that deals in adult products such as drugs or porn or serving alcohol and it can restrict the locations of those businesses using local zoning. but it cant stop them from engaging in this form of commerce only limit and control it in ways that serve the needs of society.

to sell as he will so long as it does no harm beyond the harm the purchaser does to himself,   it sounds good but it smells of tricky territory
                                                                                 /
the purchaser assuming full responsibility for his own actions

 

[LMNO]

Who decides what an "adult" is?

[AFK]

Okay, so in this system, what is the punishment/penalty for the adult who buys the meth for someone underage who then dies after ODing on said meth? 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

"TO WORK AS HE WILL."

Why is that not the same as "to sell as he will"?

I don't know. That's a good question. I had initially consider that to mean that man has the right to choose when and what sort of work he will do... but perhaps it would include selling what he will as well. Good point LMNO.

So, if Fomenter's premise is accurate, that working in a public space is a social interaction, doesn't this lead to a direct conflict between the individual's freedom and the government's regulation of social interactions?

Yes, it would seem so.

The act of selling something, though, is a voluntary act between two people. Perhaps, then the only restriction on buying and selling would simply be full disclosure. That is the seller could not sell a skinned cat as "Rabbit" because this would impact the customer's right to "buy What He Will" he willed to buy rabbit, and Fred the Grocer sold him cat (or lead painted toys).

Perhaps I need to refine this concept of social interaction into two subsets... Social Interactions where all parties agree (such as "I agree to sell this rabbit. I agree to buy this rabbit" ) and social interactions where someone may interfere with the personal freedoms of others ("I got stoned off my ass and accidentally hit your car when I was parking" or "I will blow smoke in your face while you eat"). The former would be an expression of personal freedom of two individuals and the latter examples of someones actions impinging upon the freedom of others.

So I would have to change my answer to FoMEnter... if the store owner wanted to offer tobacco for sale, I suppose it would be an expression of their personal freedom.

Perhaps it is not 'working in public' that would set the standard, but doing ANYTHING in public that would somehow infringe upon the rights of others. Offering something for sale or buying something that is for sale, doesn't affect the personal freedoms of the other shoppers...

Of course, this brings up situations where the goods were produced in a way that infringes on the freedom of others (blood diamonds, sweat shop clothing etc). Obviously such things would be illegal to produce in the US, as any infringement on some persons freedom would be covered under the first rule. Imports would have to be managed through the State anyway (tariffs etc) so perhaps a utilitarian solution would need to be found here. Tricky tricky...

Who decides what an "adult" is?

I don't know. It obviously falls under protecting personal freedoms and would therefore be the responsibility of the State... but 'age of adulthood' seems capricious and arbitrary no matter which way we decide. 16? 18? 21?

I suppose it could be left to the parents, but then parents are sometimes idiots. I could see abuse here, no matter who made the decision.