Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
But how far should the government go in telling us what is good for us? maybe somebody else can make a better argument, but it seems to me that helmet laws are only intended to protect the citizen on the bike. Is that the government's job? Is it Constitutional?
What about seat belt laws? Where does our freedom to do stupid shit end, and the government's job begin???
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
...maybe somebody else can make a better argument...
|
Maybe someone can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu
Cynical as it sounds, people are, by and large...
|
Yes, we know... dumbfucks.
At some point we are all revealed many times over to be dumbfucks, at least in some field with which we aren't yet that familiar. Life is a learning process, with a curve so steep you cannot finish it in a single lifetime, no matter who you are. Your estimate is indeed conservative, IMO... maybe something more like 100% of us are, have been and in either case, will be (again or not) dumbfucks.
Since you are currently being a dumbfuck... no offense... we all do it... I would like to point out that throughout American history mistakes of almost any kind nearly always result in some sort of positive net outcome.
Argueably the most mistake riddled period of our history so far, the Civil War (and I'm a Southerner so I know what I'm talking about here,) resulted in our dominance of the English economy, the strongest in the world at that time. More American soldiers died in your average month back then as will ever die in Iraq. Hell of a mistake, but what followed should be listed as one of the world's great wonders.
We boomed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScruU2wice
Personally I think I fall in Emu's 60% dumbfuck population because I don't know about anything, and need some government regulation to help steer my life.
|
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.[/retard]
Get real. Life is actually too hard for you to accomplish succesfully? Well, actually since you brought this up in a safety discussion, you must really mean that you lack the confidence that you'll avoid premature death due to your own dumbfuckedness and asininnity, right?
Personally, I doubt your statement. You strike me as better put together than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
What about sky diving? Eating fatty foods? Smoking???
|
What about the stock market? (Managed privately for the coolest parts of history, the original "checks and balances" placed in the way of corporate corruption were installed under private stewardship of the markets. In fact, the greatest periods of unrest in the last several eras have followed the times at which technology... the product of business... has outpaced the management efforts of the government... through corporate regulatory laws...) Think Enron, Napster and anti-spam.
Government just doesn't do things, in general, well. There's a rich historical record that proves that conclusively.
If you are truly concerned for your safety, why would you select the most inefficient means possible to assure it for you?
Roethlisberger may yet prove to be a spokesman for helmet laws, you never know... but regardless, his fame has assured that many kids across the world have heard of his poor judgement. Something that has happened and then been disseminated throughout the world for free seems to have served as a pretty cost-effective PSA: much better, one might say, than any tax-funded government campaign version of the same thing.
Many more people die each year due to most rural county governments standard policy on installing new stop-lights (basically, a certain threshold of deaths due to the lack of a light needs to be crossed) than do those due to sky-diving accidents. The commercial industry is strictly, and privately, regulated. There is government oversight, but it is no where near responsible for the safety of the sport.
Skydiving is, however, regulated by the government, just like "Eating fatty foods and Smoking." In all three of your examples, government has shown to be powerless to improve the existant conditions without the help of the business world. McDonald's hasn't improved it's menu because some politicians made them... they responded to the market. Same reason anti-public-smoking ordinances are being passed in most communities: Bars, restaurants and other businesses aren't legally resisting the "will of the people."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu
But the same thing could be said of helmet laws -- people who drive without helmets put themselves at risk of severe medical care, hurting themselves physically and very probably their family financially....
|
Thanks for bringing up ilicit freedoms. I am, if you already didn't know, a libertarian. I love drug law discussions, and that sort of freedom is the only reason I'm interested in this sort of discussion at all: that at freedom's fringes. The best modern version of this extreme discussion is that regarding drug laws. We are, as you likely know already, against them.
Personally, at least I am also very strongly in favor of government oversight in this area, just not government management of it. Set up access laws based in age and licensing requirements, then actively and severely punish any retailer that cheats. Sell to a minor or someone not properly licensed and you are out of business forever. Let the market work the rest out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Papa Goat
I know this all sounds simplistic and kind of dumb...
|
Nope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Papa Goat
...But my big point is that with questions like this it's all a matter of having an understanding of the importance of the values in question, and then just having an understanding of the significance of the particular issues to the values in question, and then basically weighing them out.
|
"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty."
-- John Adams
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Papa Goat
Saying that as a general principle 'the government should never do such a thing as this' is a pretty simple way to look at politics. Limiting the governments activity to the promotion of freedom as a principle isn't practically going to limit much, it's just going to expand the rhetorical meaning of freedom. The only practical limit will be on things that can't be rhetorically argued for, like helmet laws that are clearly issues where freedom is opposed to some other value.
|
Government is not the only, much less not the most-effective, means with we which we govern our society.
"Let the market work the rest out."
--Me
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
Is just a little bit less free speech ok? Just because a law is merely annoying doesn't make it necessary or just. I don't mind paying my taxes, that doesn't mean i should pay as much as I do.
|
Welcome, once again, to the Dark-SideĀ©, young one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
I guess my overall question is where does th reach of governmen end regarding my own behavior?
|
Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forrest Gump
...and that's all I have say about that.
|