LDS leaders on physician assisted suicide and other topics

[NightSG]

On 10/25/2016 at 10:48 AM, anatess2 said:

Also, the concept of "it doesn't hurt anybody" is a fallacy.  Not wearing a seat belt or a helmet causes insurance claims to be much higher affecting other insurers.

Which could be easily handled by the insurers themselves; you want to be covered for injuries received while not wearing a seat belt or helmet, you have to have an expensive rider to cover the added cost.  Then people who do take the safety precaution don't pay for the extra rider.

Really just the inverse of the discounts for having antilock brakes, advanced airbags, etc.

[anatess2]

On 10/25/2016 at 4:07 PM, LiterateParakeet said:

If we're going to be that loose in our definition of what hurts other people, then if I quit my job, that hurts my neighbor because I have less money to pay into taxes that support the community.  Now to be fair, if you are seating in the back and not wearing your seatbelt causes you to fly forward and injure someone in the front seat then you have hurt someone else.  
 

Exactly.  Hence the fallacy of "It doesn't hurt anybody else".

[anatess2]

On 10/27/2016 at 8:27 AM, james12 said:

Anatess, The "freedom" you espouse here is not true freedom at all. For it appears that you agree with coercing someone to follow the law in certain instances. Said another way, it appears you would be in favor of forcing a person to do what he ought to do so that he doesn't become shcakled by chemical intoxication. 

I wonder if you or anyone else would agree to this statement by Thomas Hill Green who once said of prohibition in England:

Should government seek to impose penalties on our actions so that our higher self has freedom? I say there is grave risk in such an action. 

James12, a law does not "coerce" someone out of his free agency.  For example, knowing that God gave us commandments ("laws") with certain penalties for disobedience doesn't rob us of our Free Agency.  Rather, it lays out the consequence of the choice.  When God gave the Law of Moses there were so many Thou Shalt Nots so that the covenant people that, in that dispensation, have not achieved a level of knowledge for the higher law of Christ can follow.  The Law of Moses was pretty steep - you do this, you will pay with your life, etc.  That doesn't make the covenant people in the time of Moses less free than we are.

 

As far as Thomas Hill Green... prohibition is one thing.  Writing into law that something IS legal is another thing.  Let me explain.  Alcohol is legal not because the law says it is.  Rather, Alcohol is legal because there is no law that prohibits it.  The legalization of Marijuana is different as it does not remove prohibitions against it.  Rather, it codifies into law that Marijuana cannot be prohibited.  The proper way to address Legalization of Marijuana is to remove it from the DEA list of controlled substances, not codify its legality.  Things codified as legal are things that do not harm society.  This is the same as abortion.  Killing is not necessarily a crime.  Yet, we codify in law that Killing is ILLEGAL EXCEPT in certain circumstances.  Abortion law is BAD because we codify that Killing is LEGAL.  Do you see the difference?

 

[james12]

8 hours ago, anatess2 said:

James12, a law does not "coerce" someone out of his free agency.  For example, knowing that God gave us commandments ("laws") with certain penalties for disobedience doesn't rob us of our Free Agency.  Rather, it lays out the consequence of the choice.  When God gave the Law of Moses there were so many Thou Shalt Nots so that the covenant people that, in that dispensation, have not achieved a level of knowledge for the higher law of Christ can follow.  The Law of Moses was pretty steep - you do this, you will pay with your life, etc.  That doesn't make the covenant people in the time of Moses less free than we are.

Anatess, I have read over your comment but I don't believe I see a clear answer to my question: Should government seek to impose penalties on our actions so that our higher self has freedom?

Laws, which must be ultimately enforced at the point of a gun, certainly can and do limit our freedom of action. As evidence I urge you not to pay taxes for a decade and see where you end up. Now, you can always banter around the term free agency and say that even locked up we are free to choose, but I think we both know that this is really outside the bounds of this conversation.

8 hours ago, anatess2 said:

As far as Thomas Hill Green... prohibition is one thing.  Writing into law that something IS legal is another thing.  Let me explain.  Alcohol is legal not because the law says it is.  Rather, Alcohol is legal because there is no law that prohibits it.  The legalization of Marijuana is different as it does not remove prohibitions against it.  Rather, it codifies into law that Marijuana cannot be prohibited.  The proper way to address Legalization of Marijuana is to remove it from the DEA list of controlled substances, not codify its legality.  Things codified as legal are things that do not harm society.  This is the same as abortion.  Killing is not necessarily a crime.  Yet, we codify in law that Killing is ILLEGAL EXCEPT in certain circumstances.  Abortion law is BAD because we codify that Killing is LEGAL.  Do you see the difference?

I'm not sure how your comments here relate to mine, but in general I agree with you. It is not desirable, nor is it possible to enumerate every freedom. However, in certain situations it may be desirable to call out specific freedoms, particularly when they were once prohibited. This was done with our bill of rights, but in order to prevent people from assuming that the constitution or the bill of rights listed all our freedoms the 9th and 10th amendments were added.

9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If states agree to legalize marijuana I don't see a major problem in clarifying the law, particularly since this is a negative right.

[anatess2]

On 10/31/2016 at 10:37 PM, james12 said:

Anatess, I have read over your comment but I don't believe I see a clear answer to my question: Should government seek to impose penalties on our actions so that our higher self has freedom?

No.  Government should only seek to impose penalties on actions that are harmful to society as a whole.

On 10/31/2016 at 10:37 PM, james12 said:

Laws, which must be ultimately enforced at the point of a gun, certainly can and do limit our freedom of action. As evidence I urge you not to pay taxes for a decade and see where you end up. Now, you can always banter around the term free agency and say that even locked up we are free to choose, but I think we both know that this is really outside the bounds of this conversation.

I don't think it is outside the bounds of this conversation.  Let's take taxes for example.  Taxes pay for government.  That's really all that is supposed to be.  It's not supposed to be exacted from one person to give to another so that part of our corrupt government is outside the bounds of this conversation.  Now, you can say you are a Free Man all you want.  When a stronger man comes and makes you a slave, it doesn't matter much how free you think you should be.  So, we pay for government to defend our freedom so it can't be taken away.  So, the government is a defender of freedom.  Your taxes that pay for that government is, therefore, a defender of freedom.  So, when you don't pay taxes and you go to jail... you're basically just choosing between one form of slavery over another.
 

Quote

 

I'm not sure how your comments here relate to mine, but in general I agree with you. It is not desirable, nor is it possible to enumerate every freedom. However, in certain situations it may be desirable to call out specific freedoms, particularly when they were once prohibited. This was done with our bill of rights, but in order to prevent people from assuming that the constitution or the bill of rights listed all our freedoms the 9th and 10th amendments were added.

9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If states agree to legalize marijuana I don't see a major problem in clarifying the law, particularly since this is a negative right.

 

Yes, all rights originate with the people.  The people hand over certain rights to the States for collective defense of these rights (a stick is stronger in a bundle).  The States hand over certain rights to the Feds for collective defense of those rights.

We have already handed over our rights to certain prohibitive substances when we gave the Feds the right to form the DEA.  The DEA prohibited marijuana.  If we want those rights back, we don't enumerate marijuana as a right - because that's not how governments work - you don't tell government, please let me have my marijuana as if all powers emanate from the government instead of the people...  Rather, we mandate that the DEA remove the prohibition of marijuana.  Then each State can decide if they want to prohibit marijuana or not.

Codifying the right to smoke marijuana as a law establishes that the right to smoke marijuana is such a good thing for society that we are determined to write a law specifically for the government to defend that specific right.  Name another substance that we gave specific protections so we enumerated as our right.  Do we have a law that says... we have the right to drink Coca Cola.  We have the right to smoke cigars.  We have the right to buy solar panels (this is actually in Florida's ballot measures for November - and it is a bait and switch stupid bill that if Florida falls for it and votes Yes, then the Constitutional Stupidity of Floridians will be firmly established)... no, we don't do those things.  We have the right to all of them unless we grant the State/Feds the right to prohibit it.  What we do codify is the Right to Firearms... those kinds of things that DEFEND all other rights that are held by the people and not handed over to the State/Feds so that nobody can take those away even if some States decide they don't want theirs.  The right to firearms can only be removed by striking that law out of the Constitution.  So, legalizing marijuana is putting marijuana in the same "rightness" as firearms.  It is so important (as in, it is so good for society) that we have to codify our right to have it.

 

 

Edited November 3, 2016 by anatess2

[askandanswer]

I was surprised to find in my scripture reading this morning that Revelations has something interesting to say on physician assisted suicide, although I doubt that this was what John was actually referring to when he wrote this verse:

6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

 

[llamaglama]

On 10/18/2016 at 11:03 AM, NeuroTypical said:

And again, you can do news searches for stories here in smoky Colorado, about the disturbing numbers of MJ-related violence, homicides, robberies, burglaries, acts of vandalism, destruction of property etc.  Even though the stuff has been legalized, there's no end to the violent felonies being committed by people trying to get their hands on it, fighting over territory, etc.  One big promise that lots of well-meaning folks fell for, was "legalization will eliminate criminal activity".   Yeah, it's not quite happening here in CO...

We are seeing the same thing in Washington state. Before it was legalized, one coworker said "Marijuana is not that much worse than alcohol." Do you see the life destroying effects of alcohol? I couldn't believe he said that considering that another coworker was killed a year earlier by an alcohol impaired driver. He refused to see the connection.

I believe that right there is our problem as humans. We believe what we want to believe regardless of the truth. (And we all claim that we see clearly, right?)