View Poll Results: See underlined question below

Voters
20. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    2 10.00%
  • No

    18 90.00%
  • Maybe if there was an even higher percentage

    0 0%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Nanny State Legislation Poll

  1. #1
    Politically Correct

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:55 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,855
    Blog Entries
    8

    Nanny State Legislation Poll

    Many people argue that the government should regulate/prohibit only those activities that harm other people, not activities that harm solely the people who freely and voluntarily consent to engage in those activities.

    For example, many people would say the government should prohibit murder, but not smoking weed.

    Part of this is based on the idea that it is really difficult and paternalistic to say that an activity "harms" the person if they voluntarily chose to engage in the activity.

    But there are many activities that have no tangible, harmful effect until many months or years down the line, at which point the effect becomes quite serious. If the government has evidence that 10 years down the line, 70% of people who engage in a specific activity regret their decision and wish they hadn't engaged in the activity, does that give the government grounds to prohibit or regulate the activity?
    (avatar by Thomas Nast)

  2. #2
    User
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Last Seen
    06-04-14 @ 02:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    34

    Re: Nanny State Legislation Poll

    Technically, smoking tobacco cigs are also very harmful seventy years down if you smoke. And think about when cigarettes came out- they advertised that they were healthy. Although we now know otherwise, cigarette companies still advertise that cigarettes are 'pleasurable'. Now if a certain activity, like smoking weed, was declared legal by the government, no, people could do it whenever they want. However, like cigarettes, they can regulate these activities to inside your own property, for example, and that would be fine because they are doing it to protect other people around you. Also, if if weed became legal, then the government could still regulate advertising, taxes, a general surgeons label, ect. Basically saying- that specific activity- you can do it. But the government can control everything about that pack of weed, until you smoke it, but where you smoke is regulated. I don't know where this will settle with the Libertarians.
    (HADIT)

  3. #3
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,587

    Re: Nanny State Legislation Poll

    You only have one life to live, and that life is yours to do with as you please. The government's only responsibility in this case is to ensure that the companies selling the drugs are providing what they advertise.

    There can be no crime without a victim. How does locking someone in a prison cell for "endangering themselves" help them?
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  4. #4
    Politically Correct

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:55 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,855
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Nanny State Legislation Poll

    Not necessarily talking about criminal prohibition that would result in imprisonment, and not talking only about weed.
    (avatar by Thomas Nast)

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: Nanny State Legislation Poll

    Nope.

    Anyone see the movie I, Robot? That's what happens when you trust an external entity to determine what is "good" for you and what you should be allowed to do.

  6. #6
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,958
    Blog Entries
    25

    Re: Nanny State Legislation Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    Many people argue that the government should regulate/prohibit only those activities that harm other people, not activities that harm solely the people who freely and voluntarily consent to engage in those activities.

    For example, many people would say the government should prohibit murder, but not smoking weed.

    Part of this is based on the idea that it is really difficult and paternalistic to say that an activity "harms" the person if they voluntarily chose to engage in the activity.

    But there are many activities that have no tangible, harmful effect until many months or years down the line, at which point the effect becomes quite serious. If the government has evidence that 10 years down the line, 70% of people who engage in a specific activity regret their decision and wish they hadn't engaged in the activity, does that give the government grounds to prohibit or regulate the activity?
    No, but they will. Government is all about gaining power and control over peoples lives so it can remain in place forever.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  7. #7
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,356

    Re: Nanny State Legislation Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    No, but they will. Government is all about gaining power and control over peoples lives so it can remain in place forever.
    Good morning, Pero.

    Back in the "old" days, when our Republic was young, legislators would meet at intervals, conduct the business that needed to be done, then they went back home. No career politicians and no pensions for life - they had lives outside of the political arena which kept them occupied. This country got along just fine, too. I don't know when all that changed, but it sure wasn't a change for the better - look at what we have today! Busybodies who want to regulate as much of our lives as they can get away with! WTH!

    When I logged on this morning, I got the shock of my life when I read the thread about Obama considering using the military against the people of this country. Huh? What the Hell is going on, and why??

  8. #8
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

    Re: Nanny State Legislation Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    No, but they will. Government is all about gaining power and control over peoples lives so it can remain in place forever.
    And they're succeeding admirably.

  9. #9
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

    Re: Nanny State Legislation Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    Many people argue that the government should regulate/prohibit only those activities that harm other people, not activities that harm solely the people who freely and voluntarily consent to engage in those activities.

    For example, many people would say the government should prohibit murder, but not smoking weed.

    Part of this is based on the idea that it is really difficult and paternalistic to say that an activity "harms" the person if they voluntarily chose to engage in the activity.

    But there are many activities that have no tangible, harmful effect until many months or years down the line, at which point the effect becomes quite serious. If the government has evidence that 10 years down the line, 70% of people who engage in a specific activity regret their decision and wish they hadn't engaged in the activity, does that give the government grounds to prohibit or regulate the activity?
    Peoples' reasons for regret vary. I have some friends who regret having children for any number of reasons. That is their regret, not mine. Some people regret getting married. That's their regret.

    I have a choice to smoke pot. I don't have a choice not to be murdered if I am innocently cleaning my home and some monster breaks in and intends to do me bodily harm.

    And for me the long and short of it is that the government shouldn't get to decide what I do that involves me and me alone and I'm not infringing on anyone else's life or rights. The government, much as they believe otherwise, isn't the arbiter of what's good for me and what isn't.

    JMO.

  10. #10
    Question authority
    Grand Mal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    on an island off the left coast of Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    16,510
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Nanny State Legislation Poll

    Government should be neither seen nor heard.
    "I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid people. I meant that stupid people are generally Conservatives."
    -John Stuart Mill-

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •