So there's been, as it seems to me, a worrying lack of debate-worthy topics in the debate section as of late. Maybe it's always like this and I'm only now realising it, however. So I decided to make this thread which I feel we can get some lengthy in-depth discussions from. Perhaps the topic's too broad, as it encompasses many policy areas etc, but I feel that if we keep it down purely to principle and use practicalities to back-up those principles then it should be fine.

The question at hand is whether or not ultimate liberty, as far as not imposing on another's liberty, is a righteous ideology and also whether it is a practical way to run a society.
To expand; should an individual be allowed to do whatever he/she wants to do as long as the action ITSELF (not resultant actions) doesn't infringe upon anyone else's liberty in too extreme of a way?
For instance, some topics to consider:
- Should all drugs be legalised?
- Should euthanasia be legal?
- Should prostitution be legal?
- Should the economy be laissez-faire (other than preventing fraud and coercion)?
- Should consensual harming of others be legal?

I am of the opinion that the answer to all of those questions is yes. You have to approach the question first from a principled standpoint and then from a practical one:

1) In PRINCIPLE, I believe that ultimate liberty should be societies greatest goal wherever possible. The idea of "ultimate liberty/freedom" is somewhat contradictory, however. This is because if society were TRULY free there would be people infringing upon other peoples' liberties, and therefore restrictions need to be made accordingly. Also, unless you're an anarchist, you believe some form of government is needed, however small it is. Therefore there is some need for limiting freedom as, for example, the government needs money to run and therefore taxation is needed. Personally I view a low flat-rate taxation as a sound compromise.

2) You then come to the issue of PRACTICALITY. This refers to ideas such as whether or not ultimate liberty (with the aforementioned restrictions) is beneficial to society and whether it creates a stable society to live in. It also refers to issues of things such as "how can one truly know if this act was consensual" or "is it practical to allow drug usage that could cause crimes, when you could ban the original cause - being drugs". Personally, I've yet to see an argument that convinces me that a Libertarian society will not work, and thus I stick to my belief in it.

3) Finally, you have to decide whether or not PRINCIPLE should override PRACTICALITY. For example, if the legalisation of weed caused more road accidents, you need to question whether or not the more practical approach (criminalising it) overrides the principled approach (legalising it). To me, this very much depends on the extent. I've yet to see an argument in which the practicality of removing freedom far outweighs the principle of leaving the freedom in place.


So, let the discussion commence.

Quote from Automaton

To expand; should an individual be allowed to do whatever he/she wants to do as long as the action ITSELF (not resultant actions) doesn't infringe upon anyone else's liberty in too extreme of a way?

What does that mean? Where is the breaking point?

This topic is too broad, sorry man you've got a really good batch of ideas to go with, but this will go INSANE with so many people talking about these things, it'll be impossible to follow one strand of conversation. I recommend splitting them into different forum topics, or else I don't see this being a productive debate thread.

Wouldn't "ultimate liberty" be equivalent to worldwide socialism?

I'd be happy to discuss this, we're doing On Liberty as our set text in A2, so this'd be perfect practice.

And no, it's not too big a topic. Simply go down the line; to what extent should we apply J.S Mill's arm principle to society? It's quite a small topic if you look at it that way.

Anyone who hasn't read On Liberty, you really should, i highly recommend it, a truly enlightening book. Plus its quite short, so bonus points there :P

As for myself, I completely agree with Mill; the harm principle is an essential way to run modern day society. Doing anything less would be to infringe upon the rights of others.

That's so strange, we're doing Descartes Meditations as an A2 study text, but in A2 politics we've recently been doing liberalism and JS.Mill's harm principle haha.
I tend to agree with the harm principle, except he draws the line at death. I would remove that line. If death is consensual or self-inflicted it should be allowed, regardless of its permanency.

Also, Exilement, how is a controlled economy/means of production ultimate liberty/freedom?
Ask yourself a question: Can anything be done to give more freedom to the individual without infringing on others freedom? If the answer's yes, then it's not currently ultimate liberty.

And Fusion, I was more-so referring to the idea of resultant actions. E.g. someone that's drunk going and killing someone. That's not too extreme (despite its extreme nature) because it's the action itself that's wrong, not the cause.
I'm not certain, however. Maybe if people could provide some examples of situations where a line may need to be drawn on whether or not it's infringing on others rights, because at the moment I can't think of any such situations. Maybe it should be for the courts to decide, but then there still needs to be a line. I don't know to be honest, but I don't think that that detracts from the argument because you have that problem regardless of your ideology.

Quote from Automaton

Also, Exilement, how is a controlled economy/means of production ultimate liberty/freedom?

How else could it be?

I'm poor, homeless, completely incapable of meeting my most basic needs. You're a wealthy businessman who lives a relatively extravagant lifestyle. Since this society has "ultimate liberty/freedom", I have the right to acquire your wealth so that I might meet my basic needs, yes? It's true that this would interfere with your right to keep what you earn, but in defending that right you create a situation that causes more harm than if you defended my right. You'd be morally required to donate whatever you don't need to meet your basic needs.

Same with organs, too. You can live fine with one kidney, so if someone is going to die unless they get it, you're morally obligated to uphold his liberty to life by donating your kidney.

Nothing else is "ultimate liberty/freedom". Sacrifices always have to be made, and the one that's theoretically best for all parties is the one that's most free. It seems to pigeonhole itself into a state of uniform mediocrity, and anything less requires the removal or prioritizing of certain liberties/freedoms, which is a decent description of what we do now.

There's another factor to take into account as well. Influence. And no I'm not making references to "Above The Influence". I'm talking plain influence. If someone is completely free to kill someone else as long as the other person is okay with it, someone else will take all the emotions and variables of the situation into account and relate them with themselves. Therefore, an ultimately libertarian society with such leisure to negative affects on humans would eventually influence the majority of the population, causing negativity to become the norm.

It's not fun to say, but there's a reason why there's a government and people who elect officials to join that government. It's because those people have the capabilities to enforce laws in certain areas and relieve laws in others because they know more than the average person does on how to handle situations like those. Otherwise the people would be the ones proposing laws to each other rather than the government proposing laws to the people. Of course it is the former at times, but rarely do they actually achieve something.

To summarize it all, let's be honest. People can just be stupid. If we let them do whatever they want whenever they want, (I use the terms "we" and "them" lightly considering we're all people) then eventually there would be influence upon others in either mental or physical ways. Along with those, people would easily be able to justify something that could be considered criminal. I can't 100% determine this, but I find it safe to assume that things would be much more disorganized if people were free to do whatever they wanted to themselves.

Firstly, you need a society which is ready for it. In a country with massive illiteracy and poor education it would not be good to legalise all drugs - anyone using cocaine needs to be informed about the consequences. I think an interesting question would be whether or not somewhere like modern Britain is in such a position. On the one hand, literacy and education are as close to 100% as is practically possible, but on the other hand I'm tempted to argue that people still don't really understand the consequences of their actions. People (I'm at least as guilty as any) choose to drink excessively for short-term pleasure and ignore the fact that it'll knock 20-40 years off our lives. And you certainly wouldn't want to give 5-year-olds the right to drink.

I think legalising drugs, prostitution, euthanasia, and sado-masochism is morally ideal in a society with ideal understanding of consequences but I'm not sure you can ever have such a society.

In fact, you can argue that your future self is a different person to your present self in which case drugs don't meet your definition of something which would be legal in an ultra-libertarian society.


There's also an economic argument. Drinking yourself to death doesn't directly affect anyone else (assuming you aren't meant to be looking after a baby or something) but it does impact the labour force and national GDP. The greater good is served by keeping workers healthy. A country which bans drinking and requires mandatory exercise every morning might end up with more overall happiness than a country which lets its citizens drink themselves into oblivion every night.



For the record, I am personally in favour of decriminalising all drugs with sufficient information and education for the population to make their own decisions, although you'd still need minimum age requirements. What I said above about people not being ready for it still applies but I think it's outweighed by tax revenue and being able to monitor and treat addicts properly. I'd also like legal euthanasia and licensed prostitutes.

Still no guns.

Lol, every time I open this thread I read some replies and sigh and realise I really can't be bothered to think enough to formulate a reply. I WILL do it though, at some point being as I'm off college now.

What is the point in this post?