Originally Posted by bornjoyful
...i could of course decide to just stop discussing anything but then what would I be accused of? being secretive in my 'little group' which is not so little -its just that no-one else so far has wanted to be in my position and I do not blame them one bit. Easier and more conducive to thought to not be 'public' in this way, especially since no amount of protests could stop the free will of another human being who has decided to take action. i believe this is a libertarian stance.
I would just like to point out that this is not
a libertarian stance, and I think it's an important point to make.
The harm principle
is a crucial tenet of libertarianism:
And to quote (my bold):
The harm principle is commonly described using this analogy by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr..."The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." This idea figures significantly in Libertarianism. For example...from the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism..."It is a basic principle of libertarian politics that no one should be forcibly prevented from acting in any way he chooses provided his acts are not invasive of the free acts of others." From the Encyclopędia Britannica entry on Libertarianism..."Libertarians believe that individuals should have complete freedom of action, provided their actions do not infringe on the freedom of others."
I think that the possibility of harm being caused via redrafting of EHE guidance (and the lack of transparency demonstrated by individuals involved) has been adequately scoped by others here and elsewhere.
I appreciate that you have arrived at a different conclusion, but I just thought that I'd clarify why a libertarian (and/or person who thinks that the likelihood of harm being caused to others by your chosen course of action) might not agree with you.