This very much depends on your definition of harm. Somebody who likes S&M might like having pain inflicted on them, but that is not the same thing as harm in this context.

Someone committed to Sharia law as an article of faith may accept death for transgressing Islamic law and take their chances as a good Muslim in the afterlife? Its a crazy world.

The best you can say is that there are grey areas. Because of that someone has to decide where the line is. In my opinion that is why truly libertarian ideals cant be achieved. Laws are needed to protect people from being exploited by those who would seek to take advantage of them otherwise.

I think the law recognises that children are responsible for decisions they make at ages well under the age at which they can legally purchase cigarettes.

I agree libertarian beliefs are not the same as "socially progressive" although there is probably some significant overlap. Anyone other than a libertarian though, whether they are social progressives or conservatives, is making the judgement that their way is the best way and seeking to enforce that on others.

Isnt the point of a democracy to temper that to some extent... what is permitted being determined by a majority of the representatives, who in theory are representative of those who elected them? Collective values and responsibility yadda yadda yadda.

I think everyone knows that this is a purely hypothetical case, and in reality nobody is going to consent to be stoned. Still, fair enough, if it can be proven that consent was given at the time and without duress then I guess there is a certain social darwinism at work.

No ideology stands up under extreme cases. Extreme libertarianism is nuts.

Consent for Sharia was given at the time... the consequences may not have been what was anticipated though.

Do those on death row in the good old "One nation under God" USA ever give consent to be executed one wonders?

Some do. Some petition for a firing squad.

I would say that it has to be at the time of the actual stoning for it to be considered consent.

WTF are you all prattling on about Sharia Law?

We've got an election on here or are you all bored already?

Jeez, attention span of a gnat.

But it's only a Canadian election.

I hope that was rhetorical? We are all posting on BE... doesnt that answer your question?

Imagine one day a cricket bat the day after whatever next.........

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...on-harper.html

I paid attention long enough to enjoy this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/rich...-conservatives

"The fractured opposition, with Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff going around the country stirring up apathy, is unlikely to construct a coherent case to the electorate for a change at the top."

"Charisma-free and charmless, Canada's prime minister Stephen Harper..."

Wasnt "Stiring Up Apathy" first applied to Harold Wilson... Even the guardian cant come up with something original to break the tedium.

I still havent reached a level of boredom to google harpers rendition of Imagine though. No cable TV is a distinct boon during an election I suspect.

Not original and not properly the Guardian either, still in the scheme of things an election in Canada is like one in Auchtermuchty, it's not going to involve the best writers.