Posted on 01/08/2003 11:57:05 AM PST by MrLeRoy
I know of no other right denied by some self-styled "conservatives".
Upon what do you base this right
It's THE fundamental right. If you don't own your body, then you have no grounds for objecting if it's punctured with a knife by a random psycho---or put in a cage for any reason whatsoever by Leviathan.
and how does it with with conservatism.
See above; if one doesn't own one's own body then conservatism is meaningless.
OF THE LIMITS TO THE AUTHORITY OF SOCIETY OVER THE INDIVIDUAL
WHAT, then, is the rightful limit to the sovereignty of the individual over himself? Where does the authority of society begin? How much of human life should be assigned to individuality, and how much to society?
Each will receive its proper share, if each has that which more particularly concerns it. To individuality should belong the part of life in which it is chiefly the individual that is interested; to society, the part which chiefly interests society.
Though society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from it, every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest. This conduct consists, first, in not injuring the interests of one another; or rather certain interests, which, either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights; and secondly, in each person's bearing his share (to be fixed on some equitable principle) of the labors and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members from injury and molestation. These conditions society is justified in enforcing, at all costs to those who endeavor to withhold fulfilment. Nor is this all that society may do. The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law. As soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion. But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person's conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding). In all such cases there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences.
It would be a great misunderstanding of this doctrine, to suppose that it is one of selfish indifference, which pretends that human beings have no business with each other's conduct in life, and that they should not concern themselves about the well-doing or well-being of one another, unless their own interest is involved. Instead of any diminution, there is need of a great increase of disinterested exertion to promote the good of others. But disinterested benevolence can find other instruments to persuade people to their good, than whips and scourges, either of the literal or the metaphorical sort. I am the last person to undervalue the self-regarding virtues; they are only second in importance, if even second, to the social. It is equally the business of education to cultivate both. But even education works by conviction and persuasion as well as by compulsion, and it is by the former only that, when the period of education is past, the self-regarding virtues should be inculcated. Human beings owe to each other help to distinguish the better from the worse, and encouragement to choose the former and avoid the latter. They should be forever stimulating each other to increased exercise of their higher faculties, and increased direction of their feelings and aims towards wise instead of foolish, elevating instead of degrading, objects and contemplations.
But neither one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years, that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it. He is the person most interested in his own well-being, the interest which any other person, except in cases of strong personal attachment, can have in it, is trifling, compared with that which he himself has; the interest which society has in him individually (except as to his conduct to others) is fractional, and altogether indirect: while, with respect to his own feelings and circumstances, the most ordinary man or woman has means of knowledge immeasurably surpassing those that can be possessed by any one else. The interference of society to overrule his judgment and purposes in what only regards himself, must be grounded on general presumptions; which may be altogether wrong, and even if right, are as likely as not to be misapplied to individual cases, by persons no better acquainted with the circumstances of such cases than those are who look at them merely from without. In this department, therefore, of human affairs, Individuality has its proper field of action. In the conduct of human beings towards one another, it is necessary that general rules should for the most part be observed, in order that people may know what they have to expect; but in each person's own concerns, his individual spontaneity is entitled to free exercise. Considerations to aid his judgment, exhortations to strengthen his will, may be offered to him, even obtruded on him, by others; but he, himself, is the final judge. All errors which he is likely to commit against advice and warning, are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to what they deem his good.
The evil here pointed out is not one which exists only in theory; and it may perhaps be expected that I should specify the instances in which the public of this age and country improperly invests its own preferences with the character of moral laws. I am not writing an essay on the aberrations of existing moral feeling. That is too weighty a subject to be discussed parenthetically, and by way of illustration. Yet examples are necessary, to show that the principle I maintain is of serious and practical moment, and that I am not endeavoring to erect a barrier against imaginary evils. And it is not difficult to show, by abundant instances, that to extend the bounds of what may be called moral police, until it encroaches on the most unquestionably legitimate liberty of the individual, is one of the most universal of all human propensities.
JS Mill.
Thus people who rent have no right to object when their house is burgled?
It's not a position. I don't and connaot know.
My impression is that you do use drugs and I don;t think you are telling the truth.
I don't trust drug obsessed drug legalization zealots.
Thus people who rent have no right to object when their house is burgled?
A rental agreement temporarily extends the right to not be burgled to the renters. From whom do you suggest we are renting our bodies?
Based solely on my position on legalization. If you want to thus embarass yourself, go ahead.
Try this on for size, you can do whatever you want with yourself as long as it doesn't impinge upon the rights of others.
That being said, and taking as fact that the use of drugs, be they legal or illegal, can lead to the impairment of judgement behind the wheel of a motor vehicle, the state should, in the interest of personal freedom, allow anyone to ingest any type of mind altering substance, as long as they have also voluntarily forfeited their driving priviledges.
Since the use of drugs by parents of children has been shown to increase the use of drugs by said children, drug users should voluntarily subject themselves to sterilization.
Since impairment in the evening often leads to poor job performance the next day, drug users should also not be gainfully employed lest they impinge upon the employer's right to make a profit.
Since the use of drugs by an individual often leads to the emotional distress of family members, drug users should consider severing all ties with any relatives that care about their well-being.
Since the self is absolutely sovereign, the self needs to take into consideration the rights, feelings, and well-being of those it comes in contact with. Should the self live on a desert island, I am sure the self could do totally as it pleases, but since most selves don't live in seclusion, it is up to the self to make certain that he doesn't impinge upon the rights of other selves. If that self is chemically altered, the self may not have the faculties with which to make that determination, and thus the other selves with make that determination for the self.
Arresting and jailing people who grow and smoke their own marijuana is immoral.
Tyranny of demoracy...ect.
It seems to me that we in this country are trying to create either a socialist state or a fascist state. Both political parties seem to embrace both although they differ in their order of priorities. Our Constitutional Republic is becoming unraveled. We were warned by those who founded this Country what to be carefull of. George Washington said; "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Don't be so quick to embrace it.
Since the use of drugs by parents of children has been shown to increase the use of drugs by said children, drug users should voluntarily subject themselves to sterilization.
Since impairment in the evening often leads to poor job performance the next day, drug users should also not be gainfully employed lest they impinge upon the employer's right to make a profit.
Since the use of drugs by an individual often leads to the emotional distress of family members, drug users should consider severing all ties with any relatives that care about their well-being.
Does all that apply to the deadly addictive mind-altering drug alcohol? If not, why not?
Whom would you think?
No.
Mills said that?
Now replace booze with GUNS!...and be sure to add the !!!!
God, I suppose. And if His ownership of our bodies were a legal as well as a moral fact, it would be relevant---but it ain't.
If you don't like his synopsis, provide your own. Or does Mill use too many big words for you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.