Freedom vs the Nanny State

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Craig234

link

It's a lesson to be learned about the 'free market rhetoric' to note that the 'free market' was largely opposed to mandatory seat belts in cars. It took the government 'leading the way' for people to get used to the idea that it made sense. But no, we don't want the government doing that a lot. In that case, many thousands of lives a year are saved with no 'real' downside.

This is just wrong. How does this have anything to do with the "free market?"

The free market could put seat belts in all cars, or it could not. You can argue all day how it 'should', but the bottom line is, it resisted doing so after they were invented.

So, it's an example where there was a need for the government to play a role, if this was going to be done, and a lesson in the 'ideology' of the free market vs. facts.

That's nonsense. Automotive manufacturers were putting seatbelts in since the 50s and most cars came with them as standard equipment by the mid 60s. The federal law merely made it mandatory for all cars in the late 60s.

To say the free market rejected or resisted the idea is pure fabrication. It was the free market that brought seatbelts to the American public. It was the American public who were not so hot on the idea.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Moonbeam,

If a person builds their home below sea level, right next to an ocean, is the government responsible when the flood comes?

You need a permit to build a home, no?

 

[Moonbeam]

So, should the government require you to wear a seat belt, regardless of government?

Who will answer if we are our brother's keeper? Isn't that a biblical command and what does it mean if it is?

 

[Vic]

Seat belts were primarily a problem of public education. I remember back in the 70s and 80s that many people still believed that seat belts were actually unsafe. That it was better to be thrown clear of the accident, or you might get trapped, and so forth. Even in the 90s, I'd have cases where I'd have to tell some passengers in my car to belt up or get out.
IMO it is unfair to fault free markets in general for the actions of uneducated consumers. Uninformed people cannot make informed choices.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
The .gov should only have interest in protecting minors, the infirm or those mentally incapacitated. They have no legitimate reason to protect adults from their own choices, regardless of how bad those decisions may be.

:thumbsup:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
So, should the government require you to wear a seat belt, regardless of government?

Who will answer if we are our brother's keeper? Isn't that a biblical command and what does it mean if it is?

There's a lot of commandments in the Bible we don't abide by anymore.

However, I think you're talking 'brother's keeper' out of context. Cain didn't stand by and watch while Abel did harm to himself, Cain murdered Abel. So yes, we are our brother's keeper... from ourselves. From themselves is a deeper question.
But you have to ask, when does protecting others from themselves cross the line to not protecting them from ourselves?

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How about protecting us from ourselves? Do you have a right to waste or destroy your own life or should the state step in and help you? Are we our brother's keeper? Where are the lines?

No, if there's one thing that the state should not be protecting us from, it's ourselves. The question in its very nature challenges the right of individuals to do to themselves as they wish, which includes driving themselves down as low as they wish, until they hit their own bottom.

The state also has no real idea about the meaning of life, so the question of having politicians decide what's a waste or correct living of a particular life is absurd -- it's up to us as individuals to find and determine this for ourselves.

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am reminded again of this important question by the thread on 401Ks. We can't drink and drive, we can't take drugs, there are so many laws designed to protect us. Does the state have a place in our lives? It seems to have a function in protecting us from others. How about protecting us from ourselves? Do you have a right to waste or destroy your own life or should the state step in and help you? Are we our brother's keeper? Where are the lines?

Per a local radio person:

"Stupid People Die in Stupid Ways ... and that's not necessarily a bad thing"

Darwin will prevail in all cases.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Moonbeam,

If a person builds their home below sea level, right next to an ocean, is the government responsible when the flood comes?

Lets see, Amsterdam is below see level and has been for decades. Yet, they've never had any problems.

If there's a home in Tornado Alley and it gets hit. Should we see rescue? Why?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
The .gov should only have interest in protecting minors, the infirm or those mentally incapacitated.

They have no legitimate reason to protect adults from their own choices, regardless of how bad those decisions may be.

The Government however should have safeguards and repercussions in place for adults that take advantage of other adults nefariously.

There used to be laws against fraud especially in regards to money and usury.

Those laws have been overturned masqueraded as Corporate culture.

 

[piasabird]

I can see lots of holes in some of your arguments.

The federal government controls drugs to insure our safety from the practice of the drug companies. In the past we have been protected from some of the birth defects we saw in Canada.

In case you do not know it the federal government has the right to manage interstate trade. This is based on constitutional law and labor law.

I have seen some things that might be managed better by Federal legislation. For instance, I think some Motor vehicle laws should be managed by the federal government. It would definitely make sense for a Federal Driver's License and a federal computer system for driving violations.

Another problem is Divorce and Marriage. Often men or women move to another state to try to avoid state divorce courts and decisions. This is an area where we need a federal law deciding what is marriage and a method to federalize divorce preceedings so people can not hide so easily. It would still be a state decision but it would have to have the weight of federal juristiction.

Take State Gas Taxes for instance. The federal government has a low 0.18 tax per gallon of gasoline but some states have as high as a total tax of Federal + State tax of 0.60 per gallon. That is around 0.40 of tax for each gallon going to the state. How can people claim that Oil companies are making too much profit per gallon of gasoline, when the State makes more than that in profit per gallon of gasoline? How about a gas receipt with the amount of the charge that is Federal and State Tax? How come gas receipts dont have the tax amount on them? It should be required by law!

So how much State Tax for Gasoline is too much? How about telling the truth on all Gas Receipts?

 

[palehorse]

The only function our government should have is protecting me from other people, not myself. And even then, that protection must be limited; and I must still maintain the right to protect myself when necessary.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse
The only function our government should have is protecting me from other people, not myself. And even then, that protection must be limited; and I must still maintain the right to protect myself when necessary.

How very Idaho militia of you. The challenges facing us as a society and individuals go beyond the frontier town idea that a lot of conservatives seem to believe in. I'm certainly willing to agree that government should not protect us from ourselves to too great an extent. But I don't think the role of government should be as limited as you suggest...there is a middle ground.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse
The only function our government should have is protecting me from other people, not myself. And even then, that protection must be limited; and I must still maintain the right to protect myself when necessary.

How very Idaho militia of you. The challenges facing us as a society and individuals go beyond the frontier town idea that a lot of conservatives seem to believe in. I'm certainly willing to agree that government should not protect us from ourselves to too great an extent. But I don't think the role of government should be as limited as you suggest...there is a middle ground.

I certainly agree that there needs to be some government involvement in protecting the citizens from one another, but that "ground" needs to fall far short of the actual "middle" of the issue.

notice I never said "none."

less is better.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How about protecting us from ourselves? Do you have a right to waste or destroy your own life or should the state step in and help you? Are we our brother's keeper? Where are the lines?

No, if there's one thing that the state should not be protecting us from, it's ourselves. The question in its very nature challenges the right of individuals to do to themselves as they wish, which includes driving themselves down as low as they wish, until they hit their own bottom.

The state also has no real idea about the meaning of life, so the question of having politicians decide what's a waste or correct living of a particular life is absurd -- it's up to us as individuals to find and determine this for ourselves.

But not for children, right?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
So, should the government require you to wear a seat belt, regardless of government?

Who will answer if we are our brother's keeper? Isn't that a biblical command and what does it mean if it is?

There's a lot of commandments in the Bible we don't abide by anymore.

However, I think you're talking 'brother's keeper' out of context. Cain didn't stand by and watch while Abel did harm to himself, Cain murdered Abel. So yes, we are our brother's keeper... from ourselves. From themselves is a deeper question.
But you have to ask, when does protecting others from themselves cross the line to not protecting them from ourselves?

So your are saying then that there is a deeper answer, when the question of the purity of ones own motives are understood, where it's OK to protect others from themselves? That would seem to be what you are saying.

 

[Mardeth]

Its just not about protecting yourself from yourself but also what implications it might have. Like you do something stupid, you get injured and for the rest of your life others pay for your healthcare etc...

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Mardeth
Its just not about protecting yourself from yourself but also what implications it might have. Like you do something stupid, you get injured and for the rest of your life others pay for your healthcare etc...

Then the problem is not being allowed to do stupid things, it's forcing others to take care of you after your stupid decisions. Again, a failure of the nanny state.

I ride a motorcycle. I ride without a helmet. I know the implications and I do it anyway. If/when I go down at 65mph and become a vegetable, why should everyone else have to pay for me to lie there for the next decade? Just pull the damn plug and let me die. Same goes for everyone else who gets hurt doing stupid things, or eats their way to diabetes and heart attacks.

 

[Mardeth]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Mardeth
Its just not about protecting yourself from yourself but also what implications it might have. Like you do something stupid, you get injured and for the rest of your life others pay for your healthcare etc...

Then the problem is not being allowed to do stupid things, it's forcing others to take care of you after your stupid decisions. Again, a failure of the nanny state.

I ride a motorcycle. I ride without a helmet. I know the implications and I do it anyway. If/when I go down at 65mph and become a vegetable, why should everyone else have to pay for me to lie there for the next decade? Just pull the damn plug and let me die. Same goes for everyone else who gets hurt doing stupid things, or eats their way to diabetes and heart attacks.

I agree with you. But its not always clear who fault it is. If you crash without a helmet then even if it was somone elses fault, should you get treatment? Or if you smoke and get lung cancer... It could be just a coincidence.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Mardeth
Its just not about protecting yourself from yourself but also what implications it might have. Like you do something stupid, you get injured and for the rest of your life others pay for your healthcare etc...

Then the problem is not being allowed to do stupid things, it's forcing others to take care of you after your stupid decisions. Again, a failure of the nanny state.

I ride a motorcycle. I ride without a helmet. I know the implications and I do it anyway. If/when I go down at 65mph and become a vegetable, why should everyone else have to pay for me to lie there for the next decade? Just pull the damn plug and let me die. Same goes for everyone else who gets hurt doing stupid things, or eats their way to diabetes and heart attacks.

You know the implications? Do you? You didn't list any. Who will post your delightfully acerbic post and who will raise your kids? You don't wear a helmet for yourself but because of your duty to us. There is only one unique you, the only one the universe will ever make.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
So, should the government require you to wear a seat belt, regardless of government?

Who will answer if we are our brother's keeper? Isn't that a biblical command and what does it mean if it is?

There's a lot of commandments in the Bible we don't abide by anymore.

However, I think you're talking 'brother's keeper' out of context. Cain didn't stand by and watch while Abel did harm to himself, Cain murdered Abel. So yes, we are our brother's keeper... from ourselves. From themselves is a deeper question.
But you have to ask, when does protecting others from themselves cross the line to not protecting them from ourselves?

So your are saying then that there is a deeper answer, when the question of the purity of ones own motives are understood, where it's OK to protect others from themselves? That would seem to be what you are saying.

I'm saying that protecting others from themselves usually does more harm than good. To paraphrase another part of the Bible, take the plank out of your own eye first so you can see clearly enough to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am reminded again of this important question by the thread on 401Ks. We can't drink and drive, we can't take drugs, there are so many laws designed to protect us. Does the state have a place in our lives? It seems to have a function in protecting us from others. How about protecting us from ourselves? Do you have a right to waste or destroy your own life or should the state step in and help you? Are we our brother's keeper? Where are the lines?

There is a world of difference between the legality of drug use and the legality of drinking and driving. One threatens only yourself directly, the other directly threatens all those around you.

No, the government should have no involvement in personal choices like sex, drugs, etc. That doesn't mean they can't step in when you endanger others because of those things however. It should be legal to drink, legal to do drugs, etc...but it should also be an immediate maximum sentence if you break a meaningful law while under the influence of those things.

 

[sunzt]

Well, the whole sub-prime mortgage and credit bubbles were created because people can't objectively see the risks of their really bad mortgage and debt. We all know what happened because of that.... POP!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: sunzt
Well, the whole sub-prime mortgage and credit bubbles were created because people can't objectively see the risks of their really bad mortgage and debt. We all know what happened because of that.... POP!

How true. It's OK to interfere if you're too important to fail.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Mardeth
Its just not about protecting yourself from yourself but also what implications it might have. Like you do something stupid, you get injured and for the rest of your life others pay for your healthcare etc...

Then the problem is not being allowed to do stupid things, it's forcing others to take care of you after your stupid decisions. Again, a failure of the nanny state.

I ride a motorcycle. I ride without a helmet. I know the implications and I do it anyway. If/when I go down at 65mph and become a vegetable, why should everyone else have to pay for me to lie there for the next decade? Just pull the damn plug and let me die. Same goes for everyone else who gets hurt doing stupid things, or eats their way to diabetes and heart attacks.

You know the implications? Do you? You didn't list any. Who will post your delightfully acerbic post and who will raise your kids? You don't wear a helmet for yourself but because of your duty to us. There is only one unique you, the only one the universe will ever make.

I have no duty to you. Your claim that I do makes me your slave. Why do you support slavery?