🇳🇱
Bodily autonomy is sacred. That means I beleive all drugs should be legal without a prescription, abortions legal, and no one should ever be forced to take a vaccine, drug or wear a mask.
@freemo Oh buddy, this is where it gets hairy for me!
I do NOT think bodily autonomy is always sacred, particularly under certain circumstances, and there would be plenty you would likely agree with.
A few examples come to mind immediately:
Should individuals who put dramatically more strain on a healthcare system due to their own choices receive equal care (or equally priced care) as compared to those who don’t? A personal example for me is obesity: I am obese (but I’m down 20lbs so far!!) as is my whole family, and perhaps if it was just us, it would be fine. But since ~40% of American adults (and a great many other countries as well, actually) are obese, diabetic, and have multiple chronic health issues, they disproportionately strain the healthcare system. So the question is: should people be allowed to “exercise their bodily autonomy” to balloon up to 600+lbs while expecting public programs to cover for them (SS/MC), or should people be forced to get preventative treatment to mitigate the far-reaching repercussions of their own self-destructive behaviors?
As a follow up to the prior one: replace Covid with highly transmissible “rabies” that has a 50% fatality rate without vaccination and 0.25% for vaccinated individuals. Does this warrant forced vaccinations to prevent the decimation of the populace and civilization as we know it? Should parents be allowed to prevent their kids from receiving the vaccine (as many have with Covid) or would this be considered child endangerment? If we value life and criminalize acts like Russian roulette (technically exercising autonomy here too), shouldn’t roulette with a virus be equally criminal?
A less extreme example: I take a loan from you and choose not to work to pay it back, and I’m broke so even if you sue me you get nothing. Should you not be allowed to force me (via a court order/legal paths, obviously not kidnapping lol) to work the losses off?
Long story short for my take: bodily autonomy is sacred when it doesn’t infringe on the rights and protected privileges of those around you, and when it doesn’t prevent you from fulfilling your moral obligations and duties. Once any of those lines are crossed, that autonomy goes out the window, and depending on laws/public benefits that you take advantage of, I think this necessarily further constrains bodily autonomy or the system would collapse.
And putting fast moving lumps of lead into your body, is IMNSHO also your right, and Russian Roulette (or the Norwegian Roulette with a Beretta) isn't criminal from moral point of view.
Loans; Without a nanny state, not trying to honor contracts would likely lead to being ostracized and death. The lender will take past behavior into account to figure out if the loan is a good thing to provide or not.
1. This “coercion” is already an issue in literally all civilized and developed countries (assuming you mean taxes?). If you want to go live in Sealand or build your own raft in the Atlantic go ahead, but if you don’t consent to taxes then you don’t get to benefit from the infrastructure they provide (e.g. utilities, roads, state protection, police, military, grant funded research, etc).
2. You didn’t answer my question about children, or your moral duties and obligations to other people. And if you don’t think you have moral obligations to other people (other than simply not infringing their rights), then perhaps you should really get that raft in the Atlantic underway sooner than later. Society works when people are willing to collaborate towards improving the common good and their own benefit, not when highly individualistic people who are only “looking out for number one” are just trying to get the biggest slice of the pie.
3. No, I don’t think it is your right to kill yourself for sport. The only way bodily autonomy is sacred is if life is sacred, and that means life is to be protected in all but the most dire circumstances (e.g a DNR order is much different than euthanasia). To illustrate this point, as long as I kill someone instantly without them knowing, I haven’t violated their right to bodily autonomy because (from a materialist perspective at least) they no longer exist and cannot experience any personal rights violations. Hence, we need life to be sacred as a precursor for anything that flows from your life to be sacred.
4. No it would lead to gangs, and power struggles, and pointless violence. The point of the State is to have a highly constrained monopoly on violence so that people don’t take violence into their own hands. Would you really prefer to live in a modern “warring kingdoms” style regime where law and order are suggestions with no real ability to enforce them? Do you want to be in the position where a gang steals your property because there isn’t a higher authority you can appeal to? This was never good in the past and I doubt will be good in the future, despite what anarcho-syndicalists may believe. Nearly all modern innovation, including capitalist thought, occurred within a societal hierarchy with a State because innovation flourishes when people are protected from violence.
To conclude, I agree a Nanny state is a bad thing, funnily enough. But the difference between a Nanny state and a State needs a solid definition. If it’s a state where people’a rights are violated at will, then we should agree more, but rights have limits and must be protected by the people through responsible action. My original post was trying to define what I think those limits are with respect to bodily autonomy with respect to the rest of society.
2. Again, IMHO everything is voluntary interactions. There should be nothing more. Children are part of the equation, e.g. IF you beat your child, I will ostracize you from my life and advocate the rest of your neighbors to do the same. And IF your child abuse is too severe, I would apply appropriate level of self-defense on behalf of your child.
You seem to think that people wouldn't collaborate if the Violent State isn't there. It is a ridiculous position to have.
2/4
3. I am not totally onboard with the word "sacred". Freedom means I can do to myself anything, up to and including ending my life. You don't have that right, I do...for myself. The twisted hypothetical you created, doesn't make sense to me at all. How can you claim that my grievances ends with my life gone? You literally TOOK my life, even embedded in our language.
3/4
4. There are only people. And people will collaborate and help each other.
The "gangs" and "power struggles" will always happen, you think...And perhaps you are right, and the worst Gangs and Power Struggles EVER are the States. Hundreds of millions of people have died thanks to STATISM, and you cherish that?
The point is that we ARE NOT PROTECTED AGAINST VIOLENCE. The State IS Violence, undoubtedly.
"...occurred within...a State...", the word DESPITE is missing.
4/4
I give you this; People are probably not ready to be free. You are yourself a sign of that.
It will take generations to get there, but the journey has already started. Just like we have stopped thinking that slavery and indentured servitude was "natural", I am convinced that we will move beyond "Violent Gangs Stealing Stuff From Everyone", a.k.a States.
With these conversations, I hope that someone else will start questioning his/her superstition of "we need a State".
@niclas @freemo Sorry about your post limit, I'll keep doing what I did with the last one where I just respond to the most recent post (deleted and reposted to your now most recent post).
1. I agree with this point actually, at least with the "consent by existing" point. However, in that case, this is where I think people should have the right to relocate and select the country they wish to be a citizen of, or go rogue with those Atlantic rafts ;) I find that the circumstances of one's birth are too limiting in modern life, and the ability to select who governs you and the people you wish to collaborate with in society should be your choice. But this does not invalidate my previous point. Secondly, these "gangs" as you call them, are at least supposed to be beholden to a constitution, part of the higher authority you can appeal to when they wrong you. True gangs exist in a might-makes-right scheme, and have no restrictions on their ability or desire to violate your personal rights.
2. Okay, so if I, a concerned individual, vaccinate your child without your consent against this 50% fatal rabies. I have merely applied an "appropriate level of self-defense on behalf of your child". You more or less just made my point for me here. And no, I don't think that people wouldn't collaborate. My point was, if you disagree with the ideals of moral duties, then why would you collaborate with people on moral issues instead of ones that only profit you (it was just a hypothetical).
3. I can tell. I, personally, am a divine command theorist; hence, why I make claims about the sacred and the limitations of rights under a moral law. My "twisted hypothetical" was not twisted, it was illustrating a point. And it's obvious that your grievances end when your life is gone (unless you believe in an afterlife or a deity of some sort) because you can no longer grieve anything, particularly if you have no family or friends to avenge you. But what I did is still wrong, regardless of any negative consequences that befall me as a result. Another way to phrase my first point from the original post is "gluttony is a sin; it should not be encouraged and should be actively discouraged", which is a direct contradiction to the idea of "freedom above all" and "sacred bodily autonomy".
4. I don't cherish anything about statism or states. I'm simply pointing out the consequences of your philosophy. I hate war, and I think it's the first evil perpetuated by hierarchies that actively harms everyone involved *except* those who incite them. It's truly cowardly and it uses lives to further consolidate wealth and power. But wars don't stop when states stop existing, they just become smaller but more plentiful and frequent. It's as you say, people will always collaborate and help each other, but you seem to make the assumption that people are fundamentally good and will collaborate for good ends without laws to enforce it, whereas I believe the opposite, and human history bears my perspective out more than yours.
5. You claim to understand my mental state without even asking, lol. I love freedom, but even freedom must have its limits. That is to say: "I am truly free when I am a slave to nothing and have mastered myself". From my perspective, you are a slave to freedom, not having mastered it and understanding its proper place. I used to agree with you when I was younger, but after (IMO) growing in wisdom, I no longer do.
1. I call it a strawman that "might-makes-right" is better than "state-makes-right". To me it is the same thing.
2. I agree that the scenario is not clear-cut in case of a child who wants to be vaccinated (not being hit).
3. I don't follow your rationale. I am used to time being a non-terminating variable, i.e. go back in time, or see into the future, are valid.
4. Great. If people are mostly evil, then the most evil people will be at the head of States.
5. Ok.
I'll just respond to 3 and 4 since I think we've agreed on 2, and we'll agree to disagree with the formulation of my argument on 1.
3. The rationale is that, from your perspective, your right to bodily autonomy wasn't violated (despite being extinguished) even though your right to life was, as (hypothetically) your subjective experience ends with your life. Thus, to you, someone taking your life without your knowledge is the same as dying in your sleep. Both circumstances impact your subjective experience equally, and both end your ability to control yourself and your actions. The outcomes are the same regardless of the means of their occurrence, but one is morally wrong, whereas the other is not. Thus if bodily autonomy is a right, it is a right that necessarily flows from your life, then your life must take precedence over your right to decide what to do with your life (hence the idea of life being sacred, and why I think suicide, betting your life, being hunted for sport, etc. are not within our rights to agree to).
4. Is it better for evil people to be completely free to be evil, or is it better that they are constrained by a system that limits their evil? Is it better to be beholden to something higher or not?
@johnabs
1. The "gangs" already exists and claim that I consent to their coercion, just by existing. The non-voluntary State isn't the only choice, and I suggest that your perception that this is the case, is basically planted into your consciousness by the powers-that-are.
1/4 (my fedi client doesn't allow long articles to be posted)
@freemo