As an individual person of free will and responsible mostly to oneself freely for one’s actions, the Self’s resultant effects on outcomes, whether beneficial or detrimental, are best not weighed of significant merit if they nearly solely impact the personal welfare of the Self, and while mostly to the exclusion of more than mild effect on Others.
Thus, negative Self effects are given a pass on relevancy, with only effects on Others being of concern, if we aim to assess when intervention should occur socially, or if we deem to legally judge actions. In contrast, effects created by the Self are judged by classic Liberty theory looking only to assess situations of actions solidly having beneficial or detrimental effects on Others, in social interplay ranging from casual to formal.
To the Author’s personally developed and refined Liberty theory, it is impossible for a person to truly be abusive of himself or of herself.
Detrimental effects for the Self caused by the Self, could only stand as feeling abusive to another individual if that third party had – knowingly or unknowingly – adopted a partial slave-owner or inappropriate parental role, involving exertion of partial ownership and a strong amount of control over another individual person. Thus the ensuing sense of misuse felt by a person having that excessive degree of control or unethical ownership thwarted by the actions of the Self, though in such cases that resistance to such vicarious control would seem wise and just.
Once again, here is the truism: to classic liberty theory – it is impossible for a person to truly be “abusive” of himself or herself. The only beast known as “abuse” takes two or more individuals involved for it to even come into play and exist, upon one or more of the individuals at issue.
This truism can sometimes erroneously seem negligent of the welfare of persons who might seem better off with intervention and outside direction into personal living. Also this truism can often seem too liberal, by way of affording what might erroneously seem like too much latitude and leeway to the individual Self, making no demands of Self-treatment, and only concerned with individual behavior as it might happen to be significantly detrimental to Others and their welfare. Potential risk of significant hurt or harm to Others, physical or in terms of opportunity cost in life, is the very key and relevant guide stone issue, and it is crucial that such realm of possible infringements or infractions be understood as fully decoupled and separate from individual Self-treatment benefits or detriments, those to be set totally free, and with no artificial bounds made by self-hiring nasty nannies bent on controlling others, and often self-convinced that they are in the right.
Surprisingly enough, direct self hurt or harm, or even cataclysmic unwise life decisions, are to classic Liberty theory best left to an individual’s own affairs, and not promoted up as anyone else’s concerns, unless by invite. To this viewpoint, self-abusive is impossible, and the only measures of merit would be found in a citizen taking too much liberty from another (rather than reductions in self status), or behaving in such a manner as to pose a high risk of the same.
Reacting to an individual sharing words largely only affecting his or her Self, those in social interplay conversation potential might choose not to pry and not to judge, if a person had indicated some planned or accidental result detrimental to himself or herself. If a situation were to be sensitive or dramatic, a smart defender of liberty would resist reflex instinct of placing himself or herself vicariously at another person’s potential dramatic emotional loss or infectious group grieving, and instead allow for the individual person to chart his or her own path with dignity and respect, free of being socially somewhat enslaved via guide prods to do what is best to be done to the viewpoint of others.
Classic Liberty theory contends that charting of one’s own path stands of nearly greatest value, regardless if others do in fact know what is best or better to be done than the Self.
The objective of “what is best for me” falls short of the blessings of liberty in “living free,” always.
Of course one individual’s actions can have many far reaching direct and indirect resultant effects on Others. Such effects on Others stand as fair play for consideration in advising, criticizing, and even penalizing an individual. If absolutely no direct effect, and only subtle or slight indirect effect of a Self’s actions seems to impact Others, in any way that complements or contends, then classic Liberty theory, in support of individuals and social connections, guides that it is better to abstain from challenging or hassling that Self for any Self-lessening or degradation in that Self’s quality of life, internal and external conditions of Self living, Self liberties to the hours ahead, or healthy body matters of personal health.
The Self as an individual person of actions is not to be judged for only sole Self-effects, and is to be judged for only effects on Others.
Classic 18th Century Liberty Theory stands of merit and noteworthy, only if defined and given dramatic character by its precepts: equal high regard for the individual person in parity with such high regard for social interplay and conventions between multiple persons: embracing a philosophy of personal liberty socialism.
“Liberty Infraction – Social Always” leans heavily toward liberty interplay always being social, or involving two or more persons. It is only sensible and addressable if any personal liberty ebb and flow in conversation is even applicable to the theory at all, meaning that mild or casual social reaction liberty theory, or more intense infraction or legal or governmental level social construct implementation, should stay in line with upholding personal liberty when able, and also wisely abstain from judging any detrimental effects to actions or words by an alone individual on Self only. This even applies for a person in social conversation, but while having prime effect nearly only on Self with the results of their focused actions, and so of course would stand as no risk in any negative impact on others in the conversation or social interaction.
It just makes sense, though analyzing these interactions between individuals form this social contract theory angle may very well be new to those reading this. Once exposed to these ideas, they do tend to sink in well, however.