The Instigator
bsergent
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Dapperdan2007
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

"The successful solution to every problem we ever face will always be MORE freedom, not less."

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,681 times Debate No: 1297
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (32)
Votes (9)

 

bsergent

Pro

Imagine the following...

You have a patient who for the moment needed to be restrained. And in restraining the person you noticed that they are harming themselves less. But they continue to struggle and the wrists are becoming damaged, so you apply more strap to the upper arms, and this protects the wrists.

You realize that this was only a temporary solution, and regret it being the only option you could think of and set about finding a real solution, wit your loyal but somewhat dim assistant. He develops a deep respect for your obvious intelligence and you've long ago given up explaining why you do things. As a result your aid feels that what you do is intrinsically right, and since you agree for rational reasons you don't argue to much.

The patient continues to thrash, and you add my straps to hold him securely, again helping.

Your assistant, looks at this behavior and comes to a superficially correct conclusions. To help this man I must tie him down as securely as I can, to prevent his harm to himself.

You distance yourself from the problem and in so doing leave your assistant in charge. Eventually while you are away, you begin to realize that whatever it was has now gone away and that most of the harm is being done by the straps themselves. But on the way back to the office you get struck by a car and die.

You assistant idolized you and hears of your death and vows to continue your work and save this poor man from himself. And anyone who argues against the straps gets his wrath for being disloyal to you whom all agree was totally well meaning and extremely rational. The poor patient dies, and those who interfered with the assistant's strapping are blamed.

In time your memory is used to defend the new practice of strapping, where by all patients are by default strapped down for their own protection. In time these straps get more sophisticated, they cut off blood flow less they become stronger and more supple. to such a degree that one almost doesn't notice them when wearing them but for the fact that they cant move in such a way that harms them. Pretty soon everyone is walking around bound up like a mummy, able only to hobble to work and home, just enough to make sure there are more people, and more straps and more doctors to explain why we have to be bound up this way and anyone who suggests we remove them altogether is mad because we'd die.

The idea that we can help a patient's health by continuously adding various forms of bed strap is obviously insane.

The same is true of law. The spirit is lost in time and situations change, laws by their nature resist adaptation, because they are modeled after physical law, which does not adapt at all.

Options lead to solutions, and law limits options.
Dapperdan2007

Con

I'm glad to participate in this debate with you. Let us make it a good one. Good luck and have fun. Hopefully we both learn something in the process.

Let me start by addressing your hypothetical situation and its attempt to justify your conclusion. Putting bed straps on the patient for no reason other than to protect the patient from harming himself -- with apparently no tangible reason to fear he will truly harm himself -- would certainly be a ridiculous practice. However, I feel that it fails to substantially support your conclusion. This situation is an example of limiting freedom -- yes. This situation is not solved by limiting the patient's freedom -- yes. Yet, it fails to address the true issues that lead to the necessity of restraining freedoms on many occasions. It is often needed to protect people from others. Some restraints need to be applied in order to prevent someone from harming others, and infringing on those peoples freedoms. So, let us continue the hypothetical situation. You wish to free the patient of his bed straps. But, the patient, being a patient, happens to be mentally ill and very violent, or, perhaps, he is very sick and very contagious. He is potentially a risk to himself, but more importantly a risk to others. With the latter, you may say he is more than just a risk, but a certainty of damage to others if freed from his straps. The answer now seems clearer -- the bed straps are superior to the lack there of. The bed straps are a successful solution.

"The idea that we can help a patient's health by continuously adding various forms of bed strap is obviously insane."

It does not seem that the goal of the doctor was to help his health in the first place, but rather, to restrain the patient and prevent his harm to himself. The temporary solution of strapping the patient was obviously not insane. If he was not strapped down, he would have hurt himself, or in my version, which allows the restraint of his freedom to be more justified, he would have hurt another. Now, of course, if it appears the patient is soon prepared to be relieved from his straps you would do so. The straps are not inherently permanent. If the patient moves on from this to be fine, he will not be strapped up again. If he begins to infringe on the freedoms of others by harming them, he should be strapped up again. His freedom should then be limited. And, that is a successful solution to the problem. By showing just one viable problem that could arise which is solved with less freedom as opposed to more freedom, your conclusion is nullified.

"The same is true of law. The spirit is lost in time and situations change, laws by their nature resist adaptation, because they are modeled after physical law, which does not adapt at all. "

The spirit of the law does not necessarily become lost over time. Situations may change, but for some laws there may be no realistic situations that would require its adaptation. Some things are always the same, and thus some laws will not require adaptation over time in the first place.

"Options lead to solutions, and law limits options."

However, laws do not eliminate all options. Law, or, 'less freedom', may outlaw viable solutions. It may also outlaw as many or more unviable solutions. By removing law in order to allow new viable options, you would also allow an innumerable amount of unviable, unmoral options.

Perhaps removing law for one problem that occurs in your life will help solve the problem. You find your solution. But, in the process only more problems will be spawned by all the people in the world who would live to take advantage of their new freedoms -- even at the expense of others, and those people's freedoms. To solve these problems, you must reapply the bed straps, once again, you must limit the freedoms, and in doing so find a successful solution.
Debate Round No. 1
bsergent

Pro

"Yet, it fails to address the true issues that lead to the necessity of restraining freedoms on many occasions."

Which are?

"It is often needed to protect people from others."

False dichotomy. Law is merely one abstract way in which people can protect themselves and others. You imply that without law there can be no protection, this is not the case.

"Some restraints need to be applied in order to prevent someone from harming others, and infringing on those peoples freedoms."

Only in certain situations which goverment cultivates to maintain power. Another option would be to empower people to protect themselves and encourage them to protect others. Absolute laws can easily be replace with incentives and guidelines. (but that is not the point of this debate)

"The bed straps are a successful solution."

But certainly not the only viable one. The trick is to find a situation where a person can be safely granted his freedom. The taking of freedom should be the last resort, not the first. Law applies to all, from the cradle. That makes it a first response.

"It does not seem..."

Uhhh, prevention of harm is not an aid to health?

"By showing just one viable problem that could arise which is solved with less freedom as opposed to more freedom, your conclusion is nullified."

That would only be true if there were only one solution to every problem. This is not the case. And the better solution will always come with more freedom. Because more freedom is inherently better. It's self evident to the point of near circularity.

"The spirit of the law does not necessarily become lost over time."

That still grants that it occurs in the majority of cases. Which means the chance is over half, which means that over time you'll approach infinite corruption.

"Some things are always the same."

Not true, change is the only constant beyond the physical laws themselves. This is a fundamental and rationally undeniable paradox of our existence. One of many.

"It may also outlaw as many or more unviable solutions. By removing law in order to allow new viable options, you would also allow an innumerable amount of unviable, unmoral options."

So then law becomes a wash? At which point it neither helps nor hurts to have it? Which is cheaper codifying practicing and enforcing law or simply not having it?

"But, in the process only more problems will be spawned by all the people in the world who would live to take advantage of their new freedoms.."

You're taking personal responsibility and self reliance totally out of the picture. Are humans the children of goverment to be sculpted, schooled, scolded, and looked after for all time? Government is our tool, not the other way around. Law's function by your reasoning seems to be to enforce ethics.

Can you say with a straight face that exploitation cannot be conducted legally and that the bets solution is more laws outlawing the abuse of law? What about those new laws, should we make a law against exploiting the new law? You end up with infinite law, and infinite law means 0 freedom on paper. Which makes all action potentially illegal. Which is kind of where we are now in an era of being being jailed for growing plants, and tazed in school libraries.

Using the law to exploit is so ubiquitous that the evil lawyer is a cultural cliche.

Law is superfluous. It is a tool to control people for the preservation of the state, nothing more.

As I said in the comments, and you may choose to parrot his arguments if you like, laws are not in place to protect people, they are there to protect commerce and infrastructure.

Any given law can be shown to be a protection of the system rather than of a person. Freedoms solve personal problems, and create state problems, because the state depends on our lack of freedom. Therefor for any given problem the better solution will be additional freedom. This is the point of technology.

Technology by definition adds freedoms. Fire for example gave us the freedom to turn wood into heat and safety. All technology is this way. More freedom is generally better for the species and the individual. But usually it's bad for the emergent systems built from us, namely government, religion, corporation. Hence, Law and Sin.
Dapperdan2007

Con

"False dichotomy. Law is merely one abstract way in which people can protect themselves and others. You imply that without law there can be no protection, this is not the case."

I suppose I could see how you may see that I implied that no law and protection are mutually exclusive -- but I believe you are very much stretching this one statement. Here is what I said:

"It [law] is often needed to protect people from others."

I did not say there is no protection without law, but as we are using the word 'protect', I am saying that law often aids in protection of people, and is often needed to provide this protection. I'll give an example. There are plenty of examples of threatening and stalking that lead to an often very helpful and sometimes completely necessary solution -- and it is found in the law. Restraining orders, for instance, come into play many times and may help infinitely to prevent and stop the harm that one person may be causing or will continue to cause to another.

"Only in certain situations which government cultivates to maintain power."

So, you agree that at least sometimes restraints need to be applied to prevent the harming of people. But, you think that the government creates these situations to maintain power? I do not see the connection -- I'll have to ask you to elaborate how this works. It seems you admit law can and does produce successful solutions.

"But certainly not the only viable one. The trick is to find a situation where a person can be safely granted his freedom. The taking of freedom should be the last resort, not the first. Law applies to all, from the cradle. That makes it a first response."

You are stating that problems can allow multiple solutions, yet this is not what your topic title portrays. "The successful solution to every problem we ever face will always be MORE freedom, not less." is the title, I fail to see the word 'best' before successful in your sentence. By just using 'The', it appears that you claim only one solution accompanies every problem, because the it must allow the most freedom in order to be a solution. Anyways, your topic title is a little misleading. I think that, "The best solution to every problem we ever face will always allow more freedom, not less", might serve what seems to be your argument more coherently. Or, am I misinterpreting your collection of statements on this front? I'd like to know your view about my understanding here, and clear this up better. The same problem comes up again later in your second round reply.

"Uhhh, prevention of harm is not an aid to health?"

I was interpreting your statement in a bit of a different way when I first read it. It seemed to me that you were implying the 'improvement' of the patient's health, not 'aid' to it. Improvement, would fall on the side of healing a sick patient back to their normal health. Aid does not necessarily imply improvement, but a mere help to it. Preventing harm, does indeed, aid health, but it does not improve it from the original state before hand. Allow me to get to my point. You you were stating this:

"The idea that we can help a patient's health by continuously adding various forms of bed strap is obviously insane."

If by help you solely mean help, and not any greater achievement, I believe that the idea that we can help a patient's health by continuously adding various forms of bed strap (in order to prevent harm) is not at all insane. You have even stated yourself applying bedstraps prevent harm and can even be used as successful solutions. So, unless you consider something that you claim to be fact as something that is 'obviously insane' -- at which point this debate has a reached a near dead end -- you have some explaining to do for these apparent contradictions.

"That still grants that it occurs in the majority of cases. Which means the chance is over half, which means that over time you'll approach infinite corruption."

It does not necessarily grant it in the majority of cases either, but if you'd like to assume that there isn't much preventing it. Infinite corruption will not be approached simply because more than half of laws may lose their spirit over time (although we've already disputed the truth of even this being true). Let us assume from this day forward, no new laws will be created, and none of them at all will be adapted. From the laws we have now, only a certain amount of them have even a realistic chance of their 'spirit' being 'corrupted' (things like murder are likely to stay the same), and that is as far as it will possibly go. The corruption level has potential of increase, and probable increase, but it will near nowhere near infinity -- and that is assuming the worst possible conditions -- unless laws still being created may be worse, in which case, unless laws start becoming corrupt much more immediately than before, and a higher percentage of laws become subject to corruption in the first place, the corruption level is still held at bay. From here I'll go back to something you said earlier that seems to have come up again.

"The spirit is lost in time and situations change, laws by their nature resist adaptation, because they are modeled after physical law, which does not adapt at all."

Law does indeed adapt, perhaps not at the pace you would prefer, but it does. Laws and guidelines are amended consistently over time. Reference the Constitution for one easy example.

"Not true, change is the only constant beyond the physical laws themselves. This is a fundamental and rationally undeniable paradox of our existence. One of many."

This may be true, but it does not render the statement, "Some things are always the same", to be false in it of itself. Unless the human race has a future of immortality somewhere in the future, then the outlaw of murder is extremely likely to continue in its enforcement as long as order in the form of some type of government is in session. This is just a minor example of something that should easily disallow the notion that everything changes and will change. As long as you believe the human race does not have immortality in its future, in which case I can't make the argument it's extremely likely some things are always the same to you on this front.

"So then law becomes a wash? At which point it neither helps nor hurts to have it? Which is cheaper codifying practicing and enforcing law or simply not having it?"

It does not become a wish. In my opinion, which I hold as an almost absolute fact, most laws eliminate much more unnecessary, unhelpful, unviable, distasteful, immoral, and unethical options than they prevent necessary, helpful, viable, moral, and ethical options. This would mean that laws are not a wash, but indeed helpful, useful, and very often successful. The question of what is cheaper eliminates all other variables -- even if you assume that law is a wash in terms of its use and harm -- the answer to what is cheaper leaves out too many necessary values to be helpful as is.

"You're taking personal responsibility and self reliance totally out of the picture. Are humans the children of government to be sculpted, schooled, scolded, and looked after for all time? Government is our tool, not the other way around. Law's function by your reasoning seems to be to enforce ethics."

I'm not taking it out of the picture. Some people will simply not be responsible without the restraining guidelines (along with threat of punishment) in place. Not only on the large scale view of law as a whole via government, but also on small scales that are more tangibly viewed in everyday life.

"Law is superfluous. It is a tool to control people for the preservation of the state, nothing more."

Law offers protection, guidelines, aid, and successful solutions -- it is not all superfluous. In your next round please provide a successful solution provided by the use of more freedom-Limit
Debate Round No. 2
bsergent

Pro

"...an often very helpful and sometimes completely necessary solution -- and it is found in the law. "

I don't dispute this, but my claim is that removal of laws somewhere else would be more effective. Most laws are in response to consequences of previous law, which is why they pile up over time like an elderly person's medications, which are riddled with side effects. I think this answers many of your other points so apply it to the ones i don't specifically mention please before you think I ignored something you said.

"...restraining orders, for instance..."

Repeal of gun law, and much looser regulations on lethal self defense of ones self or ones family and friends. I have a CDWL, and I'm going to make a guess here and say non of us need restraining orders. This to me is a lot like the fishing parable. Teach a man to fish and he's fed for life. Teach a person to defend themselves and you don't have to defend them.

The problem is, a person who can defend themselves can choose to do s from anyone, even from government. The problems of how to weaken a populace enough to rule, and yet keep it strong enough to produce are collectively called 'statecraft'.

"It seems you admit law can and does produce successful solutions."

Of course, but the repeal of laws produces better ones. See above.

"(Your title beef)"

If you want to turn this into a semantics debate, be my guest, I'm going to ignore this because neither of believe that every problem has a single solution. Granted a few might but the vast majority have many. and thus the search for the best solution because the point because semantically, an inferior solution is not a solution in the presence of a superior one. Example: The choice between taking a pill, or cutting off your hand, to prevent infection is not a real choice.

"...am I misinterpreting your collection of statements on this front?"

Not at all and think you for asking. The reason I worded the debate like that is because it's a quote from some guy in some other forum and it intrigued me.

"(The bed straps thing)"

Again, freedom would be better. But this opens up a dangerous door. Are straps any different form a padded room? From an island? From a planet? At what point does control become oppression. I think a room is better than a strap and a island is better than a room because they are 'more' free. But freedom could be seen as a binary as well, hence the danger. I'd rather not get into that (right now) as it's beyond the scope of this debate.

"..you have some explaining to do for these apparent contradictions."

I believe I have, but if you feel I have not please try again, and I apologize for the delay.

"but if you'd like to assume that"

Don't do that, if I'm wrong, call me on it. I'm not gunna hold a belief out of obstinence. Just show me.

"(freeze the laws)"

Fair enough.

"but it will near nowhere near infinity -- and that is assuming the worst possible conditions"

I disagree, the worst conditions, would lead to corruption by definition. I think you have a somewhat rosy picture of our current laws.

"Law does indeed adapt..."

At a fixed human speed, that slows as population increases. But the speed difference between that and nature is like trying to ride your bike to catch a jet. So effectively it's stopped.

I see now that you're going to demand a wealth of hedging and qualification. I'm going to write up a general disclaimer for my debates. I should not have to put "in general" in front of everything I say and then explain how every condition has an exception. Pet peeve. If you can assume a qualification or hedge safely, please do.

"This may be true, but it does not render the statement, "Some things are always the same", to be false in it of itself."

Uhh, yes it does. Outside the physical constants ALL things change given sufficient time. Because 'things' are human descriptors. And we change. You speak of immortality and murder, but an immortal may have no concept of murder. And unfortunately for you I am a transhumanist, I do see immortality in our (somewhat near at these scales) future.

"most laws eliminate... "

Yes, once again, laws good at times, less laws better at more times.

"This would mean that laws are not a wash, but indeed helpful, useful, and very often successful."

So is a hack saw on the battle field, but there are better options and its our human duty to seek them out. There are alternatives to rule and coercion and law that must be explored. But before that can begin we must realize that what we have is flawed. Raw pain makes it clear that the hacksaw is flawed as a medical tool, but the law is far less blunt and far more insidious.

"Some people will simply not be responsible without the restraining guidelines (along with threat of punishment) in place. "

This does not justify the application of law to all people any more than shooting a mugger in the face justifies shooting your boss in the face. Your idea doesn't scale. My suggestion is guidelines and a democratic application of law. Instead of a grand jury to determine if a law has been broken a grand jury to determine if it matters in this case.

Grand juries don't get to say "yes he broke the law but in this case the law was wrong" the position legally that law is always right is absurd, that is the nature of the law. Law is not a guideline, a guideline is what I suggest. Guidelines flex, laws only flex via deception, interpretation, or enforcement. The complexity of the law is such that everyone is a criminal to some degree or another. From stealing pens to jay walking to mp3s to drugs and up, everyone is a criminal to some degree. This will only get worse until we realize what law is and what to do about it.

"In your next round please provide a successful solution provided by the use of more freedom-Limit."

Repeal gun law, eliminate most crime. Crime is a rational behavior, ask any economist. You rob a house because the profit out weighs the risk. You've hidden your opinion on the issues so I don't know where you stand on guns.

All gun law is an example of law hurting people and how simply removing them solves the problem. But again, as I said above, statecraft.
Dapperdan2007

Con

Dapperdan2007 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
bsergent

Pro

Ditto.
Your argument must be at least 100 characters in length.
Your argument must be at least 100 characters in length.
Dapperdan2007

Con

I'm sorry that I couldn't posted my last round in time -- life struck again. Luckily, we have a 5 round debate on our hands.
________________________________________________________________________

"My suggestion is guidelines and a democratic application of law. Instead of a grand jury to determine if a law has been broken a grand jury to determine if it matters in this case.

Grand juries don't get to say 'yes he broke the law but in this case the law was wrong' the position legally that law is always right is absurd, that is the nature of the law. Law is not a guideline, a guideline is what I suggest. Guidelines flex, laws only flex via deception, interpretation, or enforcement. The complexity of the law is such that everyone is a criminal to some degree or another. From stealing pens to jay walking to mp3s to drugs and up, everyone is a criminal to some degree. This will only get worse until we realize what law is and what to do about it."

I find it awful unfair to me as a debater when you consistently change your position everytime I defeat the one that has been presented. It was much implied in your arguements that you suggested the removal of all law for the betterment of society -- that more freedom is always better. Then, you admit that there are exceptions to both stances, and act as if I know that you mean 'in general' when you had not said so until round 3 of the debate. All I can do now is point out another apparent contradiction in your argument, and attempt to chop away at its premises by doing so. What exactly are the voters voting on here? Whether or not the title of the debate is truthful, whether or not bedstraps are a successful solution, whether or not laws are corrupt, or if guidelines are the best solution for society as opposed to laws? Or is it something else? If we are simply engaging in a discussion in which voters must determine who is 'most right' on the 'most issues' then this will get awful hairy. I'm perfectly fine with discussion, debate, and argument for the purposes of eliminating flaws and learning, but that is not the only factor here.

This -- would there not be more freedom if we did not use any guidelines? Surely, if guidelines are superior to laws because they offer more freedom, then having no guidelines would be superior to having them, because it would offer more freedom. But, you suggest guidelines as the solutions to our problems of lack of freedom, and crime. Well, let's assume that they are, even though a major part of your reasoning for them seems to have a contradiction, and I will attack that idea as well.

Your proposed guidelines are so flexible, they are inevitably due to mean too little too much of the time. How can one truly determine if the law is wrong in particular situations on a great deal of situations? For just as many situations that propose the ability to say, 'the law is wrong', and let someone off the hook, there will be situations where it is very unclear as to whether or not it is. You also open up the ability to have people who are tried argue whether or not the law was wrong rather than whether or not they were wrong. 'Guidelines' would be difficult to enforce, and ultimately lead to a lack of credibility in the entire system -- simply because it will be bended with its flexibility all the way until it starts to break. That is until you start adding more rules, and more guidelines as to how exactly it will work. Laws exist, and people are still able to lead happy lives -- the addition of a wishy-washy way of enforcing guidelines will do little to help it. In general, most 'good' (I use the term loosely) people are not negatively affected to any reasonable extent by law. But, rather, the 'bad' (") are affected by the law. The law does what it can and does it well. It provides a means for order, and stability where otherwise it may not be. Yes, it provides for the state, but inherently in doing so it aids the people. The repeal of certain laws -- warranted. The complete removal of the entire system -- not warranted.

"Teach a person to defend themselves and you don't have to defend them."

Easier said than done. In a world where everyone can defend themselves, it is little different than a world where everyone cannot. The 'evil, and the 'good'. in each situation. still remain on the same level.

"Again, freedom would be better. But this opens up a dangerous door. Are straps any different form a padded room? From an island? From a planet?"

Padded room -- no. Island -- yes. Unless you propose that the island houses no other roaming people on it, but in any case, we don't know have enough islands to simply place on the people that need to be restrained in the world. A planet -- yes. A planet isn't restraining anybody from anything unless we place that person on their own planet all alone in order to 'restrain' them.

"I believe I have, but if you feel I have not please try again, and I apologize for the delay."

Your words have become a bit twisted along the way on this matter that I brought up -- I probably can't explain it any better than I already have. You've claimed that bedstraps help people and at the same time the idea that bedstraps help people are insane.

"Uhh, yes it does. Outside the physical constants ALL things change given sufficient time. Because 'things' are human descriptors. And we change. You speak of immortality and murder, but an immortal may have no concept of murder. And unfortunately for you I am a transhumanist, I do see immortality in our (somewhat near at these scales) future."

The statement 'all things change' cannot be proven from what I can see. But this part of our discussion seems to be a bit off-topic.

Sorry for my delays, and I am sorry that I haven't had time to proofread this round's post sufficiently. I am pressed for time.
Debate Round No. 4
bsergent

Pro

"I find it awful unfair to me as a debater when you consistently change your position"

I find it awful unfair that you keep accusing me of that when in fact I'm merely clarifying what you've clearly misunderstood. English is ambiguous, you may choose what I mean until I clarify, I'm sorry that my real meaning doesn't match your chosen meaning.

"It was much implied."

Don't assume.

"What exactly are the voters voting on here?"

I don't care about votes.

"They are inevitably due to mean too little too much of the time."

Why? I don't think so. You assume that flexibility is bad or weak, I disagree.

"You also open up the ability to have people who are tried argue whether or not the law was wrong rather than whether or not they were wrong."

Uhhh, yea, that's the point, slave. Sometimes the law *IS* wrong. For example we didn't shoot the Enron execs.

"'Guidelines' would be difficult to enforce"

So ease of enforcement is your primary concern? Why not just have a declared "because I said so" system then?

"simply because it will be bended with its flexibility all the way until it starts to break."

We've already crossed that bridge, "if the glove don't fit you must acquit." The system is already bereft of credibility.

"Laws exist, and people are still able to lead happy lives"

So? That does not mean there is no room for vast improvement, or should we just halt innovation in general and take the whole "If it ain't broke don't fix it" approach to social systems design.

"In general, most 'good' (I use the term loosely) people are not negatively affected to any reasonable extent by law."

Circular, good is defined by adherence to the law in many minds. Besides, the exact opposite is true. Evil people typically don't care about the legality of their acts. This fact is well exploited in gun law debate, because a crack dealer does not care if his mac-10 is legally registered.

"The law does what it can and does it well. It provides a means for order, and stability where otherwise it may not be."

Again, just because the law is the best means for generating "order and stability" does not mean they are inherently good things. They could just as easily be seen as stagnation. An ant colony is orderly and stable as well, you wanna live like an ant?

"Yes, it provides for the state, but inherently in doing so it aids the people."

Only if you assume the state is a necessary construct. I do not.

"Easier said than done. In a world where everyone can defend themselves, it is little different than a world where everyone cannot. The 'evil, and the 'good'. in each situation. still remain on the same level."

Can you rephrase this? I simply don't understand but I know you're trying to make a point. But I don't see it.

"Padded room -- no. Island -- yes."

Slippery slope. The island leads to the room, to the strap.

"You've claimed that bedstraps help people"

No I claimed that cutting someone's hand off helps to prevent infection, but so does an antibiotic.

"The statement 'all things change' cannot be proven from what I can see."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

And no worries about your delays.
Dapperdan2007

Con

Dapperdan2007 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
I'm sorry you didn't get a chance to complete your thoughts. I hope you enjoy your time here, I know I do :)
Posted by Dapperdan2007 9 years ago
Dapperdan2007
Damnit, didn't get around to the last debate. I had absolutely 0 time to get around to this debate yesterday. There should be extensions available to fix this kind of thing.

Anyways, this was my first debate here. I think you raise a lot of good points, bserge, but I did my best to argue from my position. Good debate.
Posted by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
Brit: the freedom vs pictures debate is a matter of scale. The pictures thing was working within a corrupt system, and the freedom thing is about the system in general. I don't see your question as an attack at all.

Mmadderom: "You argue that people are better served by being taught to protect themselves rather than be protected by law, do explain how one can be taught to protect themselves from a drunk driver running them over."

Cars, booze or not, kill more people than war. Perhaps cars in general are a bad idea. Blaming rule violators is merely a distraction. As I said above most reasons for law stem from the consequences of other laws. Further people go to bars largely because they are hunting sex, and they get each other drunk because of social reasons stemming from sexual and economic regulation. In a truly free setting bars would vanish by and large.

Dan:
"If you've read the debate, you would realize that bsergent actually doesn't mean 'always'"

No, I mean always. Find me your single law that does a good thing and I'll tell what a better solution that uses the removal of law instead of the imposition of one.

Connor: Why am I not surprised that you want to put your life in the hands of the government.
Posted by Dapperdan2007 9 years ago
Dapperdan2007
You said you weren't going to post anymore comments in this debate. *sigh*
Posted by killa_connor 9 years ago
killa_connor
"Teach a person to defend themselves and you don't have to defend them. "

Just worry about defending yourself! If public safety were put in the hands of an armed constituency there would inevitably be violent conflict. Sounds a little bit like libertarian/anarchist idealism at its worst.
Posted by Dapperdan2007 9 years ago
Dapperdan2007
"Bseargants contention that "The successful solution to every problem we ever face will always be MORE freedom, not less." is easily defeated simply by finding a single law where more freedom is the better solution. Of course there are thousands of examples, but an easy one:"

If you've read the debate, you would realize that bsergent actually doesn't mean 'always', but means 'in general', and that the title of the debate has hardly become what I am arguing against now.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
that should have said isn't the better option, of course.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
Bseargants contention that "The successful solution to every problem we ever face will always be MORE freedom, not less." is easily defeated simply by finding a single law where more freedom is the better solution. Of course there are thousands of examples, but an easy one:

DUI law. Without this law, it goes without saying there would be a much bigger problem with drunk driving than we currently face.

You argue that people are better served by being taught to protect themselves rather than be protected by law, do explain how one can be taught to protect themselves from a drunk driver running them over.
Posted by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
Well, it's very clear to me that you do believe or believe in what you write. What made me ask (and I am not trying to keep this thing going here, trust me, I think everyone there is very clear about others' positions, so there is no need to beat a dead horse) was how you stated the title of the avatar debate. Disallowing the use of personal pictures on this site would mean less freedom for its users (you and I included, obviously.) Please do not take this as an attack; it is my personal curiosity and I wanted clarification, no more, no less.

Britt
Posted by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
Might I ask what would give you the impression that I don't believe what I'm saying?
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 9 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
bsergentDapperdan2007Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by TonyX311 9 years ago
TonyX311
bsergentDapperdan2007Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mrmazoo 9 years ago
mrmazoo
bsergentDapperdan2007Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
bsergentDapperdan2007Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by YaleMM 9 years ago
YaleMM
bsergentDapperdan2007Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
bsergentDapperdan2007Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
bsergentDapperdan2007Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by killa_connor 9 years ago
killa_connor
bsergentDapperdan2007Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
bsergentDapperdan2007Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30