I thinks theres a couple of points we may have mis-understood eachother here , but they are not particularly worth bleating on about.
I think we've got the main gist of the argument is whether what is dangerous (or harmful) to the individual should be illegal or not.
For me , i think with some things people need to be saved from themselves . Like drugs , prostitution etc. But i have to agree that infringes on complete freedom.
And for you , you think these things should be legal and although this
may be harmful (and fatal) people should have the freedom to make thier own mistakes(is that a fair comment?)
But do you think this is best purely to maximise
freedom for the individual and/or do you think this would create a more happy/content
society? Take legalising heroin for example . How would regulation better improve this situation , say , over its hypothetical complete
annilation? ( or perhaps that is too extreme an example?)
I think we've got the main gist of the argument is whether what is dangerous (or harmful) to the individual should be illegal or not.
For me , i think with some things people need to be saved from themselves . Like drugs , prostitution etc. But i have to agree that infringes on complete freedom.
And for you , you think these things should be legal and although this
may be harmful (and fatal) people should have the freedom to make thier own mistakes(is that a fair comment?)
But do you think this is best purely to maximise
freedom for the individual and/or do you think this would create a more happy/content
society? Take legalising heroin for example . How would regulation better improve this situation , say , over its hypothetical complete
annilation? ( or perhaps that is too extreme an example?)