Shove Your Rights Up Your Ass

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]pookie wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
How about my right to eat out and not be poisoned with trans fats?

Aren’t you able to choose you own restaurant?

Why do you prefer to be poisoned by a company that you have no control over?

What company is shoving food down your throat without your consent?

Why don’t you prefer to be protected by a government that you do have control over?

I’d rather have choices and be able to make them myself, rather than have a bunch of bureaucrat do my thinking for me.

Wouldn’t you?

You DO vote, don’t you?

Are you being serious? Would you really like a government to legislate away all the poison and danger and risk in your life?

Let’s mandate 90km/h speed limiter on all vehicles to reduce speeding.

Let’s ban motorcycles, snowmobiles and seadoos; the risks are too great.

Cigarettes and alcohol, those are out too. Zero benefits.

You’ll need to fill out a report on what you’re eating during the week. Government dietetist will be reviewing and adjusting your daily meals. Non compliance will result in fines.

Your cellular time will also be monitored. Studies aren’t yet conclusive, but the government is taking no chances that evil companies are frying your brain.

Handles are now mandatory in all showers and bathtubs. Cameras will be installed to insure you use them when you take a bath or shower.

You need to carry a helmet with you at all times. If you’ll be using stairs, you must put it on. Non compliance will result in a fine.

Swimming pools must not exceed 24 inches in depth. No one under 8 years old is allowed near them.

Lawnmower, power tools and other dangerous mechanical devices are now forbidden. If you have need for these tools, a specially trained government representative will be sent to your home to do the required work. You can watch if you wear safety goggles and a kevlar vest.

Do you really want the government to look after you constantly as if you were a retarded child?
[/quote]

Yes, he does. And don’t insult retarded children like that, for they are much smarter.

62

[quote]orion wrote:
I think in this one instance I am for government control.

If there is one legitimate reason for the existence of a government it is to protect us from being hurt by others.

In theory I agree with Mikeyali that it should be enough to have them put a label on everything (may the allmighty customer decide!), but in reality life has become too complicated.

WE know what transfats are, most people do not. I can`t help but wonder how many substances there are that might cost me years of my life, that I have never heard about.

So what makes more sense: A government institution which continuously looks out for dangerous substances or everybody has to be informed about all potentially dangerous substances all the time?[/quote]

Yes, but where does this stop?! Prime rib is full of fat. Pork is full of fat. Not exactly healthy. I don’t want the gov’t coming in and telling me that I can’t have prime rib or pork roasts anymore because of the negative health implications! Some people can injure themselves while lifting. Do we want a ban on that?

63

[quote]orion wrote:
I think in this one instance I am for government control.

If there is one legitimate reason for the existence of a government it is to protect us from being hurt by others.

In theory I agree with Mikeyali that it should be enough to have them put a label on everything (may the allmighty customer decide!), but in reality life has become too complicated.

WE know what transfats are, most people do not. I can`t help but wonder how many substances there are that might cost me years of my life, that I have never heard about.

So what makes more sense: A government institution which continuously looks out for dangerous substances or everybody has to be informed about all potentially dangerous substances all the time?[/quote]

Yes, but where does this stop?! Prime rib is full of fat. Pork is full of fat. Not exactly healthy. I don’t want the gov’t coming in and telling me that I can’t have prime rib or pork roasts anymore because of the negative health implications! Some people can injure themselves while lifting. Do we want a ban on that?

64

[quote]Ogree wrote:
Yes, but where does this stop?! Prime rib is full of fat. Pork is full of fat. Not exactly healthy. I don’t want the gov’t coming in and telling me that I can’t have prime rib or pork roasts anymore because of the negative health implications! Some people can injure themselves while lifting. Do we want a ban on that?[/quote]

Exactly.

At some point an individual has to be responsible for his own actions and decisions and learn to deal with the consequences. It’s called personal responsibility. It’s also why parents are held responsible for their children’s well-being until some arbitrary age. Kids aren’t expected to be able to make the right choices; adults are.

If someone is to stupid to be able to feed himself properly, or can’t resist drinking, smoking and eating until he croaks at 31 years old, I don’t care. It’s called Natural Selection. Hopefully they were too fat and drunk to have reproduced before kicking the bucket.

I don’t want the government nannying me through life just because some chumps are unable to fathom that eating Big Macs all the time is bad.

It’s depressing that there’s even debate about this.

Simple rule: Less government = good; more government = bad.

65

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Where did I write anything about his specific policies

That’s the whole problem. Just what policies are you talking about?

I’m not sure what the problem is. The above quote is taken out of context: you made the point that FDR’s specific policies are no longer in effect today, and I was simply pointing out that I never said they were. I made very general statements about FDR’s policies failing to mitigate the effects of the Depression and their lasting influence in terms of precedent: he expanded the role and scope of the federal gov’t in general, and the executive branch specifically, beyond their Constitutional purview.

I understand that many think the above is completely wrong, and I’m fine with that; I was really only taking issue with your explanation for the position held by “Ayn Rand types”–as if we are all misanthropes, or something to that effect. I don’t really want to get into a debate over the specifics of FDR’s record, it’s complicated, as I’m sure you know, and I don’t have the energy for the debate that would ensue. But if you’re interested, check out Powell’s “FDR’s Folly.” That will give you a basic run down of my position; though, admittedly, he doesn’t do a very good job a laying out a positive case for what should have been done instead–a rather difficult, and all together different, animal, IMO.
[/quote]
Thanks. Now I understand where you’re coming from. I don’t think that the greatness of FDR’s leadership in those terrible times can be dismissed as a myth, despite any of the above.

As for the precedents, I guess it would be nice from a small government perspective if the Great Depression had never happened. But it did, and the ideologically more ideal former system fell apart.

There’s all kinds of horrible precedents in American History. The saving grace is that the stuff that doesn’t work generally gets tossed. For example, I think we’ve about had it with deregulation, in some respects.

If progress looks like a return to the former model of small government, these precedents of FDR would be nothing standing in the way. When innovations are functional, though, you’re stuck with them. SSA, for example.

Why carry on as if FDR had committed some kind of irretrievable original sin, without which we would still all be living in a state of blissful purity? There never was such a thing in the first place.

66

[quote]pookie wrote:
Simple rule: Less government = good; more government = bad.
[/quote]

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.