In response to:

There Ought Not to Be a Law

plainsense Wrote: Aug 15, 2012 6:13 AM
Stossel has some good insights. But his agnosticism makes him blind to the role that agape love plays in making human society and freedom work. It comes out in a world view that is often uncaring and unloving, going so far as to advocate that people should be allowed the "freedom" to sell their body parts. An ordinary person rejects the notion that people should be "allowed" to do whatever they want with their own body the first time they have to restrain their todler from running into the street. We reject the notion that people should be "allowed" to commit suicide the first time we have to rescue our teenager from depression from a momentary let-down.
NavVette Wrote: Aug 15, 2012 4:41 PM
Why shouldn't people have the freedom to sell their own body parts? There are a lot of people who died while waiting for organ transplants. How does restraining a toddler from running into the street equate to doing whatever you want with your own body? And finally, the only suicide that is unlawful or "not allowed" is an unsuccessful attempt. Of course we should help our teenagers (or other adults for that matter) avoid suicide, but passing laws against the behavior doesn't mean squat.
nawlins72 Wrote: Aug 15, 2012 6:32 AM
"It comes out in a world view that is often uncaring and unloving, going so far as to advocate that people should be allowed the "freedom" to sell their body parts. An ordinary person rejects the notion that people should be "allowed" to do whatever they want with their own body the first time they have to restrain their todler from running into the street."

So you conflate adults with children? Then its understandable why you support such laws.

"We reject the notion that people should be "allowed" to commit suicide the first time we have to rescue our teenager from depression from a momentary let-down."

And what law has ever prevented such act? Laws against suicide are some of the most useless laws on the book.
plainsense Wrote: Aug 15, 2012 7:00 AM
I certainly don't advocate laws against suicide, simply that we have a right to help them avoid it. The argument is to dispute the notion that there is no room in our moral code to protect people from themselves, as Stossel often advocates. The simple experiences of decent people (like parents) can see the danger and inhumanity of that philosophy.
nawlins72 Wrote: Aug 15, 2012 7:19 AM
And no libertarian claims that you do NOT have a right to help others. They merely claim that the only just laws are those that protect the rights of individuals.

The problem with your argument is that "protecting people from themselves" opens the door for all manner of regulatory and legislative schemes. Bloomberg is "protecting people from themselves" with his nanny-statism.

I’m a libertarian in part because I see a false choice offered by the political left and right: government control of the economy -- or government control of our personal lives.

People on both sides think of themselves as freedom lovers. The left thinks government can lessen income inequality. The right thinks government can make Americans more virtuous. I say we’re best off if neither side attempts to advance its agenda via government.

Let both argue about things like drug use and poverty, but let no one be coerced by government unless he steals or attacks someone....