jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (231 posts)

Why won't you let me do what I want?

  1. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    As long as I'm not harming anybody else, why won't you let me do what I want?

    Why won't you let me accept a job offer that includes a requirement that I exercise three times a week?

    Why won't you let me sign a contract, allowing someone to beat me with a wooden dowel in exchange for money?

    Why won't you let me do what I want to do? Why do you feel the need to infringe on my right to make choices?

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Sometimes people need to be rescued from themselves.....

      1. innersmiff profile image80
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So you wouldn't have a problem, if, tomorrow, Obama decided that everyone should be atheist and he's going to re-educate Christians to 'save them from themselves'?

        The problem with allowing any erosion of liberty is that it depends on your favoured guy in power for you to get any benefit.

        1. Mighty Mom profile image91
          Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Doesn't a capitalist system, by its nature, erode individual rights?
          I give up freedom to do whatever I want when I agree to go to work for someone else in exchange for
          pay.
          They become the "favoured guy in power," and de facto, they do put limits on my personal liberty.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, it does not erode your rights.

            You don't give up freedom to work.

            You are still free to stay home and do whatever you want, but that can cause your termination to be ended. If you agree to do X, you can't say that agreement erodes your rights to do something else instead of X. You still have the choice, so you still have the freedom, which means you still have the right.

            EDIT If your right were really taken away, you would LITERALLY be unable to not-work. I've never seen someone in a capitalist society LITERALLY unable to not-work.

            1. Don W profile image84
              Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              In reality there is an element of coercion inherent in the system. Saying someone can choose not to work is, in many cases, the same as saying they can choose not to eat. Technically it's true. Practically (assuming survival is one of their goals) it's not a viable option. In that respect many people are wage slaves. The only way they can pay for the cost of living is to sell their labour. That's not a choice, but a necessity.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The job is an option given to the person. Starving is the default. Either they take care of themselves, or find someone to pay them to work, but a job CANNOT be coercion, because the job is an added benefit over the default.

                1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                  Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Let me see; job or starve, job or starve- Not much of an option, Jaxson.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Again, the job is a choice. Without the job, there is no choice.

                    Giving the choice increases freedom, not the other way around.

                    Would you seriously say that, if you had no jobs available, and I offered you a job for $5/hr, that I was coercing you into working for a low wage? That somehow I was doing you harm by offering you the position?

                2. Don W profile image84
                  Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "The job is an option given to the person. Starving is the default. Either they take care of themselves, or find someone to pay them to work, but a job CANNOT be coercion, because the job is an added benefit over the default."

                  If someone did not work for money, they would not starve because of lack of food. There is no shortage of food. They would starve because of a lack of money. Obtaining money is therefore no more an option than breathing is an option. For most people that means selling their labor. It is impossible for most people to opt-out and live in a way that does not require them to sell their labor for money in order to survive, even though that is not the only option for survival. Being compelled to do something under pain of death is not a choice. It is coercion.That coercion is inherent in the nature of the current economic system in which bits of paper with special ink are more valuable than life.

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                    Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    +1

                  2. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Lol.

                    I understand what you are trying to say. I really do... but it's like saying that if I came up to you and offered you a million dollars, you would be coerced into accepting it, because really you have no choice. Who's going to say no to a million bucks?

                    How can you live life with that viewpoint? It's sad, it really is.

          2. innersmiff profile image80
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Personal liberty is restricted to your person, your property and the freedom to make contracts with others. This also means freedom not to make contracts with others. It may restrict 'freedom', in the sense that you don't have the freedom to do whatever you want on someone else's property without their permission.

      2. GA Anderson profile image87
        GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        And that... begs the question that summarizes the nature of OUR human problem...

        How do you validate the correctness of prioritizing judgement?

        What if Jaxson, after much thought, deemed the reward for the beating justified the act?
        What if Jaxson enjoyed the sensations resulting from being beaten with a wooden dowel?
        What if the physical consequences to his body, including possible mental consequences, resulting from the beating were negligible and transient?
        What if   the action of the beating affected absolutely no other human in any way - harmful or beneficial? (assuming the same consequences apply to the "beater")

        What validates your judgement that Jaxson has to be protected from himself as more correct than his judgement that he has made a fair exchange?

        GA

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I was simply making a statement.  One which is true, by the way.

          However, I suppose JaxsonRaine's willingness to "be beaten with a wooden dowel" is a right that he should retain for himself, if indeed he wants to be beaten with a wooden dowel!  lol.

          And I suppose part of my aversion to that is that he posted asking why he wasn't ALLOWED to sign a contract to that effect.    There's the problem-------he wants his desire officially validated by others.    Why would he want to force someone else to validate his desire to be beaten?   When in fact we all know that no one should be beaten unless they've committed a crime or something,  or to be taught a lesson.   And even then, not "beaten" in the sense of doing permanent bodily harm.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            By saying 'allowed', I mean 'not having my right to do so legally restricted'.

            If you make it illegal for me to sign that contract, you are not allowing me. You are taking away my right. It has nothing to do with any kind of acceptance or validation. My contract has nothing to do with anyone else than those involved.

            Either it's legal, and therefore allowed, or it's illegal, and therefore not allowed.

        2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Then he could write an awesome book about it, sell millions of copies, develop a line of adult recreational products and make millions...

          Um... Jaxson.... Do you enjoy the sensations resulting from being beaten with a wooden dowel? 

          On a completely separate note, how do you feel about Ghost Writers?

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            lol

            Have you ever seen Dirty Rotten Scoundrels?

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
              MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Nope... but if it has some wooden dowel action in it, I can fire up netflix. smile

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                GO WATCH IT!

                It's a hilarious movie with Steve Martin... there's a scene where he's pretending he can't feel his legs, and someone is whacking his legs with a metal rod. If you watch it, pay attention to his poker face. If I were on TV pretending I enjoyed being beaten, my poker face would be worse tongue

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                  MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  LOL, if I can find it I'll put it on my play list...

                  How many children will I have to kick out of the room?  Just the ones under 13 or all of them?

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    IIRC it's quite clean. A few scenes with a beach might have some women in bikinis(and Steve Martin in a speedo, not sure lol), and a scene with a woman in a non-revealing nighty, it doesn't go anywhere.

                2. 0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So....do you also want to have a job where your employer requires you to exercise 3 times a week?    Do you not find that undue discrimination?   Assuming, of course, that the job can be done by you without exercising?

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    My job only requires what I want it to require, and I hope to never work for anyone else again.

                    But, if I wanted a job and that was a stipulation, I'd accept the job no complaints if the pay were sufficient. I wouldn't find it discriminating at all. I can just say 'no' if I want.

      3. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        As long as you admit that you are OK with taking away someone's freedom of choice, 'for their own good'. I hate when people claim to love freedom while they support taking it away.

        Why save people from themselves? You end up with a populace that depends on someone else, instead of having to think for themselves and take life seriously. It's demonstrably harmful to society.

      4. lone77star profile image90
        lone77starposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Brenda, why don't we rescue you from yourself and put you in "protective custody" forever? Sound like fun?

        The government can do similar, right now. The Constitution and Bill of Rights have been shredded and you can be locked up without charges, without a phone call and without an attorney. Ah, sweet rescue! Imagine, you won't ever have to face another day of work again. Life in a dark cell, with a daily round of torture. Yum!

        You really need to be rescued from yourself.

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hmm.
          You might want to go back and see why I said what I did, starting with the scenario that the original post indicated.
          I was responding to the idea in particular that someone would like being whipped with a wooden dowel.    Heck, I don't like the idea of being beaten with anything, even a thin wooden dowel.   And don't think it normal for anyone to enjoy being beaten with anything.
          So.....it's perfectly normal for me to have said that some people need rescued from themselves.
          I for one do not go by the idea that some people want to be abused.   If they do want that, then, surely they may indeed need rescuing.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I think you need rescuing. Pain is a stimulus, it is mental activity, it actually causes growth and new connections. It increases tolerance to pain, increases your self-control.

            You need to be rescued because something is clearly wrong with you, since you don't like pain.

            "How do you like having someone else say they know better than you, about what you want?"

            What about sugar? It's bad for you. We need to rescue you from eating sugar. Sound good?

    2. Silverspeeder profile image60
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Humanitarians would take away all of your rights to give themselves peace of mind.

    3. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      My two cents is there is a big difference between things that are wrong (exploitative contracts that abuse the unemployment desperation) and things that should be illegal, wrong as it is IMO it should not be illegal.

    4. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No one is stopping you from signing any form of contract, that is your right and decision. However, other's have the right to protest and become quite vocal when they believe that particular practices are exploitative. So, turning that question on it's head- why are you restricting my freedoms by suggesting that I not protest or speak up?

      1. innersmiff profile image80
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You do have the right to protest, but you don't have the right to enforce your preferred contract.

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
          Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So, only one party in the equation has the right to enforce their preferences. Hardly balanced is it?

          1. innersmiff profile image80
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The employer has the same rights you do: to present their terms of a contract, and to negotiate. The employer can't force you to work for them on his own terms, and you can't force the employer to hire you on your terms. You need to find an agreement.

            I think people often see the employer/employee relationship as authoritarian simply because the employer often has more resources than the employee, and therefore has more leeway in negotiation. But this doesn't change the voluntary nature of the relationship.

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
              Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The employer has the same rights you do: to present their terms of a contract, and to negotiate.

              You mentioned the key word there; negotiate. Yet, in reality, there is very little negotiation. The employer lays out the terms and you accept them or otherwise. And what about when employers decide to change those terms, the terms to which you have both agreed, which happens all the time? Historically it has been the unions, with the consent of their members, enter into collective bargaining and/or dispute to fight for the rights and freedoms of workers which have already been agreed upon. Yet, those rights and freedoms are withdrawn by force when legislation is changed centrally. Are the workers rights and freedoms not being violated in such scenarios?

              I think people often see the employer/employee relationship as authoritarian simply because the employer often has more resources than the employee, and therefore has more leeway in negotiation. But this doesn't change the voluntary nature of the relationship.


              Yes, it is authoritarian because the balance of power is held by employers. Nothing to do with resources- an employer has no resources without employees. If you have no other options and need to accept those terms even when they encroach on your rights and freedoms, the change is enforced, not voluntary.

              1. innersmiff profile image80
                innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The employer conventionally does lay the terms, and in many jobs the worker can negotiate back. At the very least they have the right not to accept the contract, which is a choice no matter how difficult it is. And yes, I am against legislation that aggresses against anyone, including unions. I am also against legislation dictating the terms of contract favouring unions. Both the employers and employees rights are restricted to negotiation, not force.

                It is often difficult to find a job, but considering all of the problems in the economy and social issues why is it incumbent upon the employer to pay for them? If the only way the business can be efficient is through these methods, the only other option is unemployment for that worker.

                1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                  Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I think when each side Unions (representing employees) and employers work towards the mutual benefit of workers and the company's future, the outcome can be very encouraging. I'm thinking of what happened recently with the car plant (can't remember the name) where the unions and company got around the negotiating table and each compromised. The workers agreed to a pay cut (or freeze) can't remember which, and the company agreed no more redundancies, which in essence meant smaller profits for the shareholders and execs. Nevertheless, on this basis the company were able to attract a large contract which ensured employment for all for the next ten years.

                  Problem is, when either side holds the balance of power it becomes, well, a power struggle.

                  I still think the co op models are an excellent business model overall.Everyone benefits from hard work and mutually agreeable terms.

                  1. innersmiff profile image80
                    innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I completely agree with you about the unions and employers working together. The only way we could possibly come to blows, then, was if you decided that your preferred business model should be enforced upon anyone.

          2. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            OF COURSE!

            Only the parties that are part of the contract should have the right to decide what the contract contains!

      2. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I'm not. I have never suggested that you not protest or speak up.

        Also, you are wrong, courts have ruled that there are contracts that we cannot make.

    5. cheaptrick profile image62
      cheaptrickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I've been to China and I follow the Dowel; No where does it say you should beat people with it...and it isn't made of wood either...it's a book!(is he serious...or is he being fallacious?).
      There's only one guide line to the do's and don'ts of freedom. Does it harm another?

    6. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The universal rules are not just made for you, they are made to protect vulnerable people.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So you restrict my rights to protect other people?

        Why not just protect other people?

    7. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      This isn't about doing what you want to do, it's about you doing what other people want you to do.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No, it's exactly about doing what I want to do. If I want to work for a company and agree to not ride a motorcycle, I should be able to.

        Don't start with your wishy-washy, both sides of the subject arguing about this again. You've flipped back and forth so many times.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Still right in there with your well thought out bull I see smile

  2. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    I think the concern is less for you exercising your free will, as a reasoned and intelligent adult,
    than for those who would exploit others into making the same choice which ceases to be a choice
    if it is imposed.

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Ah, now that makes sense.
      Influence on others who aren't as mature or wise or capable.

      But....who's to say that JaxsonRaine's capable of handling such a thing himself?   Who makes that judgement?    Remember that he's asking others to condone the action.   So....yes, that would set in motion a "law" or rule that would have detrimental effects on other people besides himself.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think he's saying that the rule (or law, or lack of rule or law) applies only to him.
        Think he's saying that everyone else should be free to make their own deals.

        As it is, is there any law, federal or state, that prohibits such a contract?
        I think, Jaxson, that if you and one person want to get kinky with a wooden dowel
        and money changes h
        ands, that's not illegal.
        Now if the dowel-wielding employer finds 49 other rugged individualists willing to make
        the same contract, that's a different story..
        smile

        1. innersmiff profile image80
          innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          How is that different? A contract is a contract no matter how many people are participating in it.

    2. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The biggest problem with that line of thought is the meaning of the word 'exploit'.

      Can we agree that you should be able to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't cause someone else any harm against their will?

      If so, imagine John who has no job, and there are no job openings within a thousand miles. Jack opens up a shop and tells John that he will hire him to work at the shop for $20/hr, but John has to submit to being beaten once a day with a wooden dowel. If John refuses, then he is in the exact same position as before, except he has the choice to take a job which he doesn't really want. Therefore, Jack, by offering, hasn't done John any harm. If you think an unwanted choice is still better than no choice, then Jack has actually improved John's situation.

      If John takes the deal, it is because he thinks the job is better than not having the job. So, while not ideal, John has voluntarily agreed to take harm, and his position is better.

      Now you might say this is an exploitation, but I say it is a voluntary agreement between two people. There could be no coercion to force John to take the job, because not taking the job wouldn't cause him any harm. Let me repeat: refusing the job offer would have caused John no harm.

      Can I coerce someone by saying 'You'd better do this or nothing will happen!'?

  3. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    So how about when you develop blod clots from being beaten black and blue with the wooden dowel?
    You claim you haven't hurt yourself or anyone else.
    But the doctors who have to treat you to keep the clots from breaking free and going to your brain
    might disagree.

    And what if, one day, the dowel breaks? As pieces of wood are wonto do when used in this manner (my husband said his mother broke many a yardstick on him as a child).
    Now there are sharp shards of wood at one end of what remains of the dowel.
    The person you are contracted with decides it's ok to now poke you with the sharp ends.
    Your contract stopped short of this level of detail.
    The contractor claims he's still within his rights to poke you. You signed the contract.
    But it's breaking your skin now. No longer just a fun, slightly kinky sensation.
    He says if you don't allow him to poke you with the. broken dowel he's going to make you give
    back all the money he's already paid you. You broke the contract

    See where exploitation so quickly rears its ugly head and someone's rights need protecting - on the front end in formulating the "free will" contractor or after  the terms get mangled?

    Maybe I've just been spending too much time with lawyers recently.
    lol

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No, no... you have every right to hurt yourself, just not anybody else. If I get clots, I get clots.

      Clearly, a stabbing action from the stick is not covered by the contract. Good point though, I'll make sure the contract is very clear that only blunt strikes with the long edge of the dowel are allowed.

      Yes, get away from the lawyers... they are like radiation. You can survive small doses only.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Glad I could be of help with your career change, Jaxson!
        Don't forget to take videos and post to YouTube with links here.
        You never know who you might rescue from the shackles!

  4. prettydarkhorse profile image63
    prettydarkhorseposted 3 years ago

    chaos

  5. Will Apse profile image89
    Will Apseposted 3 years ago

    Why won't you let me do what I want?

    Something I routinely said to my mother when I was a child.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So you view yourself, as an adult, as a child and the government as your mother?

  6. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    I'm sure every employee in the world would be happy if their employers just went away, so they could stop being coerced into working to survive!

  7. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    Lol, assume more about my life why don't you?

    If Bill Gates walked up to you with a check for $1,000,000 would you take it?

  8. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago
  9. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    It's a difficult question to answer Melissa.

    Some of it has to do with education... both lack of education, and lack of education that is 'wise', for lack of a better word.

    For the lack of education, we need to reform education. That doesn't mean throwing more money at it, we've been throwing money at the problem for years and it just gets worse and worse. Nothing works better than competition. Nothing. Competition always nets better results for society, so we need to introduce competition into the education system.

    That would address the 'unwise' education as well. We teach toward an education, we don't teach toward life skills and careers. A trade school can get a kid out of high school into a software programming job in two years, with better skills than a university can provide him in 4 or 6 years.  Same thing for a lot of other careers. We need to focus our education at making productive citizens, rather than just focusing on education and passing tests.

    That would be a system that would allow a greater range of people to become desirable in the job market.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      But there will always be someone with the lowest amount of ability/desirability.  So do we hire him at the same wage to do inferior work... or does he fall through the crack?

      Say he wants to be a nurse.  He is the worst nurse on the planet.  Do we still hire him at the same wage because it is human right to be given the job he wants at the same pay?  Even if he sucks at it?

      There is always the least capable person.  Do we change the whole system for them because they are inherently incapable? Is it society's responsibility to ensure equality for those who lack the resources to be capable?  Even if it is at the detriment to everyone else?

      I would hate to be paid the same amount for my writing as someone who can't string a sentence together.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        There doesn't necessarily have to be a least capable candidate. In one particular field? Sure, but overall? I doubt it. Of course there are exceptions like disabled people, but the greatest doctor could make the worst chef. We need an education system that helps people, from an early age, to discover what they are good at and what they enjoy, and prepare them to be productive doing it.

        People should still be paid based on merit(based on the market), failure to do so removes incentive which I think we agree is a bad thing overall. For the people who are still struggling, I'm not sure. I think we could do a lot more good work with our money than we do, and I personally know some very wealthy folk who have stopped donating to charities because of how much the government has taken from them.

        For me, I want to focus on the orphans... I think our best hope will always be in people who do good of their own free will to help those who are less fortunate.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That's a good point, but does a chef deserve the same pay as a doctor?

          Their work is inherently unequal in value.  Even if they work equally as hard, a chef's work will never have equal value to a doctor. 

          In addition, should I be paid as much as someone who cleans toilets?  While it is arguable that my work has more merit than a clean toilet, the fact is I have a skill set that is more difficult to obtain than the skill set required to clean a toilet.

          I know this because my four year old can clean a toilet with equal skill as me, yet I still haven't been able to get my clients to accept her writing in place of mine.

          I also wouldn't want someone who was cleaning toilets to get the equal wage as me just because they didn't have the same opportunity to go to college.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I think people only 'deserve' the sort of pay the market is willing to pay. Basketball players make a ton of money, do they deserve it? They only get it because so many people want to watch them play... everyone who is paying them is parting with their money voluntarily, so I don't see why not.

            It does work out that low-skill jobs tend to pay less and act as springboards for a lot of people, and that's an important role in the market... but we rely on it too much.

            Did you know there are expected to be tens of millions of computer programming jobs that aren't going to be filled over the next decade? Something like 20% of all new jobs are in computer programming, but only 2% of college students are studying in that field. These are the kinds of things where we need to engage people at a younger age and help steer them to something they are good at, can enjoy, and most importantly will actually get them a job.

    2. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Nothing works better than competition. Nothing. Competition always nets better results for society, so we need to introduce competition into the education system.

      Jaxson, that's completely untrue. It does not always net better results for society, there are occasions when it has and equally as many where it hasn't. If we're talking about education and lack thereof, wouldn't it be appropriate to back up statements like those?

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Competition always leads to increases in efficiency. It forces it, compete or die.

        Our government doesn't have competition for what it does, which is why it spends $50,000 on a set of curtains. Businesses have to compete, which is why corporations employ things like Six Sigma in order to increase efficiency by 0.1%.

  10. Will Apse profile image89
    Will Apseposted 3 years ago

    More often that not, one person's freedom (in the areas that matter) is another person's unfreedom.

    Life is a matter of negotiation with others not the infantile pursuit of one's whims.

    Except in forums. Where the infantile pursuit of one's whims is just normal.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No, if the actions of one person infringe on the rights of another, that action is not a freedom.

      1. mahmud11557 profile image60
        mahmud11557posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No,we can't think too much other things, we do whatever job we like as long as it is not illegal.

  11. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    The whole concept is ridiculous and flies in the face of 'do no harm'.

    You would harm people who have done nothing wrong, to give something to people who have not been harmed.

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yup.

 
working