Idea about "click it or ticket" (mandatory seat belt laws)

[DinoDoc]

rah: They'll be singing a different tune when the Hillary comes for thier video games.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by rah
To sum it up, you use the government to take away peoples right to choose. Yes I guess I'm am more of a libertarian.

Yep. And if you think that no gains in other areas are worth ANY POSSIBLE LIMITATION ON CHOICE, you're an insane libertarian and probably crazier than Berz and Floyd. Do you think the FDA should be abolished entirely? If not, YOU WANT TO TAKE AWAY CHOICES ZOMFG!@!!!!!111

No matter what you say, the waitresses choose to work there. The public chooses to drink there.

YOU WOULD TAKE AWAY THAT CHOICE.

Yes I would! And I've stated the reason time and time again, it's because I judge laws by their effects.

Will it be different for you when the government comes to take away something that you like to do?

You can still smoke, just not in bars.

Now, I can't think of anything I do that the government would have good reasons for banning along the lines of the reasons I gave for smoking in bars, so it's a moot point.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
rah: They'll be singing a different tune when the Hillary comes for thier video games.

That's because there's no reason to believe video games cause violence.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


That's because there's no reason to believe video games cause violence.

Myth 1. Violent video game research has yielded very mixed results.
Facts: Some studies have yielded nonsignificant video game effects, just as some smoking studies failed to find a significant link to lung cancer. But when one combines all relevant empirical studies using meta-analytic techniques, five separate effects emerge with considerable consistency. Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior. Average effect sizes for experimental studies (which help establish causality) and correlational studies (which allow examination of serious violent behavior) appear comparable (Anderson & Bushman, 2001).

Myth 6. There are no studies linking violent video game play to serious aggression.
Facts: High levels of violent video game exposure have been linked to delinquency, fighting at school and during free play periods, and violent criminal behavior (e.g., self-reported assault, robbery).

http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

[Velociryx]

Vel

I figured that that is what you would say. You are consistent in your viewpoint that an individual is responsible for their own safety and therefore the state has no business mandating those things.

In the same vein, if you stayed, I assume the state would have no obligation to come get you if you later called on your cell phone seeking rescue... Would it be ok for them to say that you need to seek a remedy from private resources??


Lastly what of the children ??? If we grant a competent adult the right to put themselves into clear danger, how far does that right extend to their offspring?

Excellent questions, Master Flubber!

And you're right...I believe absolutely that the individual can and should have final say in what he/she does to his/her own body, or the risks that one is willing to assume. Those things should almost never be under the jurisdiction of the state (military service being the obvious exception, but that is a very specific and special case).

If I choose to remain after the state has told me to go, I should (and would) expect the state to wash its hands of me in that particular instance. No rescue. No assistance. I stayed when they deemed it unsafe. That's the limits of their responsibility. They told me they thought it was unsafe, and recommended that I not hang around. If I choose to ignore that advice, then that's my call, but by the same token, they then choose to ignore my cries for help later, if they come.

Fair enough.

As to children.

If the state is raising my kids, providing me all necessary money to put them through school, feed them, clothe them, etc....if they are taking the responsibility for my (hypothetical, at this point) children, then they should be able to mandate decisions FOR my children.

If those responsibilities remain with me, then so do decisions about their safety and well being. If I can be trusted to keep my kids fed and clothed, then I can be trusted to keep them safe.

Perhaps not something that everyone here will agree with me on, but entirely consistent with my other stated views.

-=Vel=-

[Kuciwalker]

DD: what does significantly mean in that case?

Remember, there are economic benefits to video games, both in terms of supporting an industry of well-educated people and because it seems that video games actually develop lots of useful problem-solving skills in people, and these benefits may more than pay for whatever police costs are necessary to curb additional gang violence or whatever

[DinoDoc]

Like I said. You'll be singing a different tune when Hillary comes for your video games. Anyway there are economic benefits to the government not economic benefits to local government engaging in over regulation in the economic arena. This seems like a clear case of over reaching on the part of the local government.

[Kuciwalker]

Like I said. You'll be singing a different tune when Hillary comes for your video games.

And I'd be singing a different tune if they tried to ban baseball, too, even though I have no interest in the sport, because I don't think there are good reasons for such a ban.

Anyway there are economic benefits to the government not economic benefits to local government engaging in over regulation in the economic arena.

I'm sorry, I can't parse this sentence.

[DinoDoc]

It says that it is a stupid use of the local government's power to ban smoking in cigar bars when they likely have numerous other issues that would be a better use of thier time.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm not certain that's always true, and either way, it's not like this and more important things are mutually exclusive.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Velociryx

Excellent questions, Master Flubber!



-=Vel=-

I do try

Originally posted by Velociryx



And you're right...I believe absolutely that the individual can and should have final say in what he/she does to his/her own body, or the risks that one is willing to assume. Those things should almost never be under the jurisdiction of the state (military service being the obvious exception, but that is a very specific and special case).

If I choose to remain after the state has told me to go, I should (and would) expect the state to wash its hands of me in that particular instance. No rescue. No assistance. I stayed when they deemed it unsafe. That's the limits of their responsibility. They told me they thought it was unsafe, and recommended that I not hang around. If I choose to ignore that advice, then that's my call, but by the same token, they then choose to ignore my cries for help later, if they come.

-=Vel=-

I admire your consistency

Originally posted by Velociryx

As to children.

If the state is raising my kids, providing me all necessary money to put them through school, feed them, clothe them, etc....if they are taking the responsibility for my (hypothetical, at this point) children, then they should be able to mandate decisions FOR my children.

If those responsibilities remain with me, then so do decisions about their safety and well being. If I can be trusted to keep my kids fed and clothed, then I can be trusted to keep them safe.

Perhaps not something that everyone here will agree with me on, but entirely consistent with my other stated views.

-=Vel=-

This one is tougher because we have laws against child endangerment. It is an exercise in drawing somewhat arbitrary lines though. Even some kids that are fed and clothed may be taken by the state if for example they are left home alone for hours at a time. and I'm sure a crazed social worker could make the case that smoking near a child or feeding them only fast food or having them engage in cliff diving are all examples of endangerment.

Not leaving an "unsafe" situation as deemed by the authorities?? Tough call. There are lots of parents out there who are of borderline intellect and I don't imagine anyone would want to argue that my right to care for my child usurps my childs need for safety. The problem though is the one you outline. If a person is competent to make the thousands of decisions daily that being a parent involves, why aren't they competent to decide where it is safest to stay in a storm? How does the state get to decide to usurp your parental role.

I suspect this rarely comes up as most parents would evacuate on first warning on a voluntary basis but it is an interesting abstract discussion

[rah]

When we started smoking (1969) they were just starting to release how dangerous it was. I'm not going to say I didn't know. It was a bit obvious even then.
But I made that choice.
After that, it's much less of choice due to the additive nature.
I've tried to quit a few times but I guess I don't want to quit enought because i've failed every time. I have a lot of respect for people that can.

SInce then.
They banned it on the job. I could handle that. Relegated to loading docks and specially designed rooms.
Then they banned it there too. I could handle that, as I would go out into the cold and smoke.
Then they raised the taxs on them by 10 fold. And the money was used in the general fund, not a towards my health care specifically. I could handle that, it was still my choice.
Then they banned it at outdoor sporting functions. They made us go inside to smoke. Doh. There is no proof that second hand smoke outside seriously increases anybodies risk. But I could handle that.
Then they banned it in all governement buildings. I could handle that.
Then they created smoking areas in resturants, and I could handle that. I've always been a considerate smoker.
Then they banned it on mass transportation, I could handle that.
Now they've banned in at some outdoor public beaches and parks. I could handle that.
Now some companies aren't letting people smoke outdoors on their grounds. I could handle that. I choose not to work for that company.
Then some companies prohibited smoking and fired employees that were smoking just at home.
I could handle that, I choose not to work for that company.

Now there's non smoking areas every where. But I can handle that.

But a bar is going to far because it's not must my rights, but it the owner of the bar.

They're even trying to ban smoking at cigar shops that sell cigars. Non smokers never even go in there.

And you wonder why we feel like this one activity is being singled out, despite the growing of being subsidized, and the sale of it heavily taxed.

If I'm at work drunk, they can't fire me at first. It's against the law. They have to offer treatment for the addiction.

Buit if I light up a cigarette, I can be fired on the spot.

Wait till they find another vice. The precedent is set.

[Flubber]

Rah

Part of me is going for the poor oppressed smoker

But I see your point and while I consider smoking to be a somewhat vile habit, I don't see any reason why specific smoking locations open publicly to anyone that wants to go to a smoking location should not be permitted.


OH and we had some of that silliness where smoking was disallowed on bar patios or something--

[Kuciwalker]

And you wonder why we feel like this one activity is being singled out, despite the growing of being subsidized, and the sale of it heavily taxed.

It's called strong but opposite lobbies.

[Velociryx]

Rah, forgot to reply to your comment from earlier. I would agree with that assessment (the mental competency thing) provided that it was used on relatively rare occassions. I would begin to doubt its legitimacy if it were used wholesale on large groups of people, or if it exceeded just a few percentage points of the total population. Applicable in specific cases where incompetency had been previously established, but not, I wouldn't think, as a means test.

Flubber, agreed, this is the very spot at which the battle lines would be drawn (the day to day decision making vs. the state's demanding final say).

If I had been in New Orleans with my wife and (hypothetical) children, and a storm of that magnitude had been approaching, I would not have waited until the "official" word came down to leave. We would have left of our own accord, as a family.

If there were some compelling reason that I needed to stay, I still would have evacuated my family to higher ground, and then stayed on.

That seems the best call, under the circumstances. I can envision very few circumstances that would prompt me to willingly leave my family in harm's way.

-=Vel=-