[ExI] (no subject)
William Flynn Wallace
foozler83 at gmail.com
Mon May 9 00:03:11 UTC 2016
The argument you're making here is actually the typical anti-libertarian
one: free people can make bad choices -- choices we disapprove of -- and
this might cause harm to others -- someone might read Karl Marx and form a
revolutionary group to take over society -- so we must limit their freedom
-- control their reading of Marx, for instance. dan
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 4:37 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at gmail.com>
>> I want to end and utterly oppose the government telling anyone what they
>> can and cannot put in their own body.
> We agree on that, the only caveat is that the person should have the
> ability to know what they're putting into their body.
> So for that reason I think laws against selling a bottle of vodka to a 6
> year old are reasonable, and when an adult reads a ingredients label that
> label should tell the truth. But if somebody wants to inject themselves
> with vitamins or heroin or cobra venom that's their decision to make not
> By the way, in my opinion the single most pressing libertarian issue in
> the world today has nothing to do with money, it's euthanasia. I think
> forcing somebody to live who wants to die is as great a violation of human
> rights as forcing somebody to die who wants to live.
> John K Clark
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat