I would support a prohibition law for little hitlers like vhehn. They could be herded into concentration camps and then members of the public could go in for a day and order them about, telling them everything they can and can't do. Signs saying "It's for your own good!" could be plastered all over the barbed wire and sentry towers. I wonder if they would like that taste of their own medicine?
Really? What evidence do you have to think that this would happen? Perhaps there is some society you have seen where no self-destructive behaviour exists? Even if all of humanity were iron-willed disciplinarians, there is still the intractable problem of how to define self-destructive behaviour. Clearly people will disagree on what is self-destructive and what is harmless - how do you intend to resolve that conflict? Perhaps you should ask yourself how you would react if society criminalised all your favourite recreational activities on the grounds that they were "self-destructive".
"Whacked out" would mean too much taken. Anyway, my source is my study of symbolic interactionism in college. Cutten, above, is touching on the same theory.
That can only be true if you view involuntary servitude as humane. Social democracies often have higher tax bands in the 60-70% range, which when added to VAT and other taxes, often means that people on higher incomes work 3/4 of their working life for other people. Subtract say 10-20% necessary for genuinely reciprocal state functions (national security, law & order, national insurance etc), and these people are basically having half their lifetime labour forcibly confiscated and given to others. If I did that to you, I'd be locked up for 15 to life. How can it be humane then for it to be done to millions?
Substance abuse has destroyed many lives and families. I have seen it from fairly up close on a number of occasions over the years. It's not pretty. In each instance, the center of the storm was preoccupied with his "freedom." The fault always lay elsewhere. Just an observation.
They don't (and I don't mean to imply everyone, of course) think it inhumane if they are socialized to believe it is a good. Just as our own more individualistic culture socializes us to believe the opposite. Presumably, if they are democracies, they can change things. Or, vent by arguing continually as many of us do. ; ) Now I know some will call this cultural relativism, and it is. But I believe it's pretty obvious to many that there is no agreement on an objective superiority of either individualism or collectivism. And how could there be? They are two philosophical views, from either side, of the same coin.
She is sick to find something good from a man who kill a child, then have pleasure to tell the child parents. Is sick. If to use her thinking to kill all the parasite in society is good, then she is the parsite to kill. People have to have cooperation to survive. Is not weakness to help each other.