Isn't legitimacy only a thing if there is already an established (legal) order? Or what do you take the word to mean? — ChatteringMonkey

take it as "logical or acceptable in principle".

There is doctrine, there is hypothesis, then there is fantasy.

I'm touching on doctrine here.

Can you point out where in my argument you found a flaw and counter it by quoting it?

It puts you in jail.

Suggest a solution on who should write the constitution?

I'm talking consequences here.

I'm talking about the world you and I live in.

unless you live in a world with no formal law or government or police, i don't know what you're talking about.

we act as our conscience dictates not the laws of the land. — I like sushi

but jail/police doesn't follow your conscience.

so what's your proposition?

but there are laws and that makes you a criminal.

I see. I'd love your counterarguments against minarchism.

No Constitution seems to be the only answer.

I presented the options with counterarguments to see if any of you can come up with an alternative.

slippery slop?

This would invoke a literal paternalism where a societal demand is placed to care for children, either by the parents themselves or a state surrogate if the parents unavailable, but that need not be expanded to a demand that able bodied adults be cared for as if children. — Hanover

those are terms with definitions. I'm asking for definitions.

The mandate of heaven — ChatteringMonkey

Theocracy? What if the people are secular and prefer free will?

What's your take on minarchism?

No, the terms. What would be considered "coercion", what would be considered "sound mind", etc?

WHO WRITES the constitution?

How do millions (or billions for India and China) of people come under the same roof and draft a publicly acclaimed constitution?

I want an objective framework for subjective undertakings.

That's the purpose of this discussion. Drafting a doctrine.

Who writes it?

spamming threads — I like sushi

Well, I don't know any other way to mention/reference an article relevant to the discussion.

but principles need to be codified.

I see. But how would you standardize "insanity"?

I faced a similar question in this doctrine of mine: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16191/doctrine-of-contractual-sovereignty

what is that supposed to mean?

what do you think of this dilemma: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16198/who-is-the-legitimate-author-of-the-constitution

so you conclude that no outsider should police your actions, regardless of their consequences, as long as they don't directly involve others?

What about suicide? What if you're a single parent with a 3-month-old son and you decide to take your life, leaving him by himself?

And if you say it falls beyond your personal freedom because it "affects" others, then according to the butterfly effect, no action is private.

How do you set boundaries? Speech also affects others but we allow it. But not smoking. Who decides what's private and what's public?

textual doctrinization.

by societies I meant the lawmakers. How do they decide if suicide is my right or not?

it's a philosophical argument, so doesn't have to cross theoretical grounds into practicality.

like I said, it's a libertarian (individualist) POV, where there is no concept of community. Every man for himself with his life, liberty, and property; and his firearms — with no borders or involuntary assemblies.

I don't see how those are relevant here. I asked how to draw the line between my ambitions and my well-being.

can you elaborate what and who you mean by "the commons"?

This is a libertarian outcry, where communitarianism is rejected.

I read past the typo. Still not clear.

Are you going to post the paper? — I like sushi

I'm working on a book of some sort.

Negative liberty trumps Positive liberty when a consensus when a course of action does not have majority agreement. — I like sushi

I didn't quite catch it.

We seem to basically agree on the legal issues of freedom and well-being — 83nt0n

I believe in individual and collective subjectivism. Reality is a subjective perception or input of stimuli. The sun rising from the east is a subjective experience that happens to be the same for everyone.

I believe that morality is objective. — 83nt0n

I guess that makes you lean towards paternalism? Do you believe the individual has the right to practice "objectively immoral" activities?