What determines what is acceptable to ban?
Discussion
Leaving smoking aside (far too much talk about it lately) I'm confused as to where the line is drawn in modern society between freedom to do what you want and prohibiting that freedom.
I always worked on the premise that if your actions had a negative effect on other people then it was acceptable to outlaw something because their rights were as important as yours. Conversely if your actions didn't effect others then you were free to do what you liked.
THis line has been blurred lately by events such as banning fox hunting. I don't neccesarily disagree with this banning but I'm not quite sure I like the increasing trend of restricting individuals rights. One reason for this discomfort is that I'm quite an avid fisherman. If fox hunting should be banned then arguably so should fishing. It is a logical next step.
Our society constantly seems on the lookout to get annoyed about something. Prime Ministers appear to want to leave legacies thus if they fail overall they can justify their existence by being'the person who outlawed this and that'. Once something is banned then we start looking out for something else to start on.
It annoys me that we appear to believe that if the majority of people are against something then that thing should not be allowed i.e that democracy should apply to runnig peoples lives.
I've said too much now.
Bye
I always worked on the premise that if your actions had a negative effect on other people then it was acceptable to outlaw something because their rights were as important as yours. Conversely if your actions didn't effect others then you were free to do what you liked.
THis line has been blurred lately by events such as banning fox hunting. I don't neccesarily disagree with this banning but I'm not quite sure I like the increasing trend of restricting individuals rights. One reason for this discomfort is that I'm quite an avid fisherman. If fox hunting should be banned then arguably so should fishing. It is a logical next step.
Our society constantly seems on the lookout to get annoyed about something. Prime Ministers appear to want to leave legacies thus if they fail overall they can justify their existence by being'the person who outlawed this and that'. Once something is banned then we start looking out for something else to start on.
It annoys me that we appear to believe that if the majority of people are against something then that thing should not be allowed i.e that democracy should apply to runnig peoples lives.
I've said too much now.
Bye
blindswelledrat said:
Leaving smoking aside (far too much talk about it lately) I'm confused as to where the line is drawn in modern society between freedom to do what you want and prohibiting that freedom.
I always worked on the premise that if your actions had a negative effect on other people then it was acceptable to outlaw something because their rights were as important as yours. Conversely if your actions didn't effect others then you were free to do what you liked.
THis line has been blurred lately by events such as banning fox hunting. I don't neccesarily disagree with this banning but I'm not quite sure I like the increasing trend of restricting individuals rights. One reason for this discomfort is that I'm quite an avid fisherman. If fox hunting should be banned then arguably so should fishing. It is a logical next step.
Our society constantly seems on the lookout to get annoyed about something. Prime Ministers appear to want to leave legacies thus if they fail overall they can justify their existence by being'the person who outlawed this and that'. Once something is banned then we start looking out for something else to start on.
It annoys me that we appear to believe that if the majority of people are against something then that thing should not be allowed i.e that democracy should apply to runnig peoples lives.
I've said too much now.
Bye
I think the line will always be "blurred" in the case of actions affecting animals. One person will say "we shouldn't harm animals at all", another will say "they are just animals". Neither is "right" or "wrong".
It amounts to a political elite who think they know best.
Smoking was easy because its a human public health issue (rights of workers etc) Hence the free vote.
Hunting is a moral issue which was stated as a manifesto objective. Hence voting (or whiping) on party lines and use of the parliment act.
The real problem is the way they cherry pick issues to pick on. eg. Why no whiped vote on hanging? Why no proper debate on legalisation of drugs, prostitution or hardcore porn? The elite will decide whats best for us, but only allow votes if they think they can win.
>> Edited by Tuska on Thursday 16th February 09:25
>> Edited by Tuska on Thursday 16th February 09:26
>> Edited by Tuska on Thursday 16th February 09:27
Smoking was easy because its a human public health issue (rights of workers etc) Hence the free vote.
Hunting is a moral issue which was stated as a manifesto objective. Hence voting (or whiping) on party lines and use of the parliment act.
The real problem is the way they cherry pick issues to pick on. eg. Why no whiped vote on hanging? Why no proper debate on legalisation of drugs, prostitution or hardcore porn? The elite will decide whats best for us, but only allow votes if they think they can win.
>> Edited by Tuska on Thursday 16th February 09:25
>> Edited by Tuska on Thursday 16th February 09:26
>> Edited by Tuska on Thursday 16th February 09:27
The problem is that it is not the pm who dreams up what should be banned or interfered with. I would suggest that the current incumbent has neither the time nor the ability to dream up half of what is being peddled at the moment. There must be legions of petty minded jealous little civil servants who sit in committees drawing up lists of what can be meddled with next.
I've always been for the legalisation of all drugs, take them away from the criminal world. However I'd accompany that with personal responsibility. Yes, become addicted if you want but if you hurt anyone else because of it then we lock you up and throw away the key.
Can't see it happening somehow.
Can't see it happening somehow.
The bottom line is that things should theoretically be banned if they harm other people without those people's consent.
Herein lies the arguments:
1) What constitues consent? By turning up at a smokey pub, do I give my consent to breath in cigarette smoke? Who has the right to freedom - the smokers that generate it, or the non smoker who wants to go and have a pint?
2) What constitutes morally unnaceptable harm? I find the smell of chewing gum unpleasant, but it isn't gonna be banned is it? (In fact, I find it more unpleasant than the smell of cigarette smoke!). This is particularly difficult to debate when it comes to animals. It is easy to say that a fox feels pain when it is being ripped apart by hounds - but then again this happens in the wild all the time - packs of dogs hunting animals - and do we stand in the middle and try to stop it? Tricky issues!
Some people even debate if passive smoking is bad for you (have a look at the recent smoking threads).
Herein lies the arguments:
1) What constitues consent? By turning up at a smokey pub, do I give my consent to breath in cigarette smoke? Who has the right to freedom - the smokers that generate it, or the non smoker who wants to go and have a pint?
2) What constitutes morally unnaceptable harm? I find the smell of chewing gum unpleasant, but it isn't gonna be banned is it? (In fact, I find it more unpleasant than the smell of cigarette smoke!). This is particularly difficult to debate when it comes to animals. It is easy to say that a fox feels pain when it is being ripped apart by hounds - but then again this happens in the wild all the time - packs of dogs hunting animals - and do we stand in the middle and try to stop it? Tricky issues!
Some people even debate if passive smoking is bad for you (have a look at the recent smoking threads).egomeister said:
Anything can be banned if sufficient moral outrage can be generated....
I also love politicians extolling the virtues of tolerance on issues dear to their hearts, so no tolerance necessary from them, while banning things they don't like...so again no tolerance needed from them. In other news, Britain is such a tolerant society...as long as our leaders don't have to show any. Hypocrisy? Never!
Ah yes.
The Tyrrany Of The Majority
If enough of the proles can be persuaded thay anything is bad it is possible to ban it. It helps if its fluffy. It helps if its obviously bad for you. But pretty much anything is possible.
It is why, in the past, we've had pioneers. Very often they leave to get away from what they see as an oppressive society that does not allow them to live their lives in the manner they wish to. In the past, when the world had undiscovered land, it was possible for these people to set up new communities of like minded people and get on with their lives.
Sadly that isn't possible anymore on any kind of scale.
And so the people who would have left are now faced with being ground under the heel of the "consensus view of the majority".
Its beginning to make the civilised world a grim place in some respects. Of course, in others, we're wealthier, helthier and happier than we've ever been before. On balance I wouldn't trade.
Here is my list of things people do (and like) that will be banned in the next twenty years.
1) Hunting (at all) where dogs are involved (at all)
2) Shooting. Of any kind. At all.
3) Fishing - unless you have a professional permit and its your trade
All the above as they are country pursuits and our population (the majority) are townies. Townies tend to think differently to country folk (this is by no means unversal - just generally).
Next:
4) Any form of Off Road driving - starting with riding and moving on to 4x4s. Despite the fact townies like 4x4s they actually like to think of the country as some sort of quiet, rural idyll for rambling in. Its an image thing.
5) Motorcycling and Scooters. As forms of transport these aren't as safe as cars so they're an easy target. Its also a tiny minority of people who use them. So the majority don't care about them...and,frankly, would no-doubt prefer that the noisy horrid things didn't disturb their Sunday morning - particularly if they're off for a nice ramble in a National Park. That and kids and chavs ride Scooters don't they. And they ride like t
ts - and are dangerous so it would be nice if they couldn't do that...
6) Using your car in towns. After all - once you've got a Congestion charge to discourage people from taking their car to town - why not simply ban them from the town centre! You can provide park and rides three miles out and make everyone take the nice lovely friendly environmental-nutter-ally-friendly bus! Total pedestrianisation of the town centre with little cycle lanes where the roads used to be.
7) Using your car at all to go anywhere.
8) etc etc
Its coming. Sadly.
The Tyrrany Of The Majority
If enough of the proles can be persuaded thay anything is bad it is possible to ban it. It helps if its fluffy. It helps if its obviously bad for you. But pretty much anything is possible.
It is why, in the past, we've had pioneers. Very often they leave to get away from what they see as an oppressive society that does not allow them to live their lives in the manner they wish to. In the past, when the world had undiscovered land, it was possible for these people to set up new communities of like minded people and get on with their lives.
Sadly that isn't possible anymore on any kind of scale.
And so the people who would have left are now faced with being ground under the heel of the "consensus view of the majority".
Its beginning to make the civilised world a grim place in some respects. Of course, in others, we're wealthier, helthier and happier than we've ever been before. On balance I wouldn't trade.
Here is my list of things people do (and like) that will be banned in the next twenty years.
1) Hunting (at all) where dogs are involved (at all)
2) Shooting. Of any kind. At all.
3) Fishing - unless you have a professional permit and its your trade
All the above as they are country pursuits and our population (the majority) are townies. Townies tend to think differently to country folk (this is by no means unversal - just generally).
Next:
4) Any form of Off Road driving - starting with riding and moving on to 4x4s. Despite the fact townies like 4x4s they actually like to think of the country as some sort of quiet, rural idyll for rambling in. Its an image thing.
5) Motorcycling and Scooters. As forms of transport these aren't as safe as cars so they're an easy target. Its also a tiny minority of people who use them. So the majority don't care about them...and,frankly, would no-doubt prefer that the noisy horrid things didn't disturb their Sunday morning - particularly if they're off for a nice ramble in a National Park. That and kids and chavs ride Scooters don't they. And they ride like t
ts - and are dangerous so it would be nice if they couldn't do that... 6) Using your car in towns. After all - once you've got a Congestion charge to discourage people from taking their car to town - why not simply ban them from the town centre! You can provide park and rides three miles out and make everyone take the nice lovely friendly environmental-nutter-ally-friendly bus! Total pedestrianisation of the town centre with little cycle lanes where the roads used to be.
7) Using your car at all to go anywhere.
8) etc etc
Its coming. Sadly.
The explotation of ignorance is the oft-used method.
Take the anti-glorification of terrorism being pushed by the government.
There are laws already existing that can stop this, but seeing a BBC interview with some ignorant fools (in Slough) yesterday made me realise that most people don't know this. The (no doubt selected) interviewees all said they agree with the government's steps to introduce new law(s) to stop the glorification of terrorism. People can be manipulated to agree to anything - take the banning of handguns.
Take the anti-glorification of terrorism being pushed by the government.
There are laws already existing that can stop this, but seeing a BBC interview with some ignorant fools (in Slough) yesterday made me realise that most people don't know this. The (no doubt selected) interviewees all said they agree with the government's steps to introduce new law(s) to stop the glorification of terrorism. People can be manipulated to agree to anything - take the banning of handguns.
I agree with 'blindswelledrat' and think it's psychological. Some people are easily annoyed, want to control everything, and are unable to admit when they are wrong (sound familiar?).
It's a very British way to be, and it's natural for these people to desire the power to be able to change things how they want. Unfortunately, if they get it this affects those of us who really don't care two hoots if a pub smells of smoke or not. Why bother worrying about it? Just get on with your lives and let the rest of the population too you sad, lonely people.
Unfortunately no nice, down-to-earth, happy and satisfied people go into politics (and if they did they probably wouldn't get too far).
Just what I think.
Russell
It's a very British way to be, and it's natural for these people to desire the power to be able to change things how they want. Unfortunately, if they get it this affects those of us who really don't care two hoots if a pub smells of smoke or not. Why bother worrying about it? Just get on with your lives and let the rest of the population too you sad, lonely people.
Unfortunately no nice, down-to-earth, happy and satisfied people go into politics (and if they did they probably wouldn't get too far).
Just what I think.
Russell
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff