Are you for or against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency?

[Jon Miller]

Also, any action to be taken WRT climate change is necessarily one of large groups together; very few people talk about prohibiting automobile use beyond X hours a day, or any other restrictions on the individual. That won't do anything but generate political opposition and confuse the issue.

The desired end state, from my point of view, is not one in which people have ceased to make stupid decisons--rather, I should say, that is a desirable state, but I recognize that it is simply not going to happen. Ideally all should be free to make a royal mess of their own lives, and the harm they generate by their poor choices should be quarantined to a zone about themselves. Then they can learn. Or not, if that's their choice.

Tons of people defaulting on their home loans have definitely harmed the lives of tons of others.

It would create a huge system of laws in order to restrict the harm caused by a persons poor choices just to themselves, much greater than that of having society make choices to restrict the harm that individuals may do.

If you want to have a society where people are free to make a mess of their own lives and the harm is just to themselves (and maybe their family), then move to a cabin in Antartica or something.

JM

[Traianvs]

Ideally all should be free to make a royal mess of their own lives, and the harm they generate by their poor choices should be quarantined to a zone about themselves. Then they can learn. Or not, if that's their choice.

You said it: ideally. We don't live in a Utopian world unfortunately. We can't sever our connection with others in society. It's bascially the summary of the libertarian fallacy.

[Elok]

It exists because you can't do everything yourself.

Including being educated enough to make informed decisions in every possible important part of modern life.

JM

The thing is, people are already perfectly well educated about the dangers of smoking. We have a "hey, this stuff will kill you, numbnuts" label on every pack. If anything, we overstate the dangers of tobacco use; here in Peru, for example, they have a big "fumar causo infarto cerebral" label with a picture of a random diseased organ. That flat assertion, "smoking causes strokes," doesn't mention the large numbers of people who smoke for years and don't die of disease. We're already doing more than educating when we don't mention the actual probabilities--because, of course, people are too dumb to crunch the numbers. So we propagandize instead of educating. Smoking always leads to death, kids!

Anyway, people have been educated, and they still smoke. They have made their informed decision. It's a stupid decision, but they made it, so don't say they haven't. And it's their right to screw up their own lives. If you want to make policies on behalf of the people who can be hurt by their actions, as in your mortgage example, that's fine by me. I just don't want to hear any of this stupid-people-have-to-have-us-decide-for-them rubbish.

EDIT: Trainvs, I don't want to get sucked into a broader argument about blind libertarianism vs. heavy-handed government paternalism. Let me just say that I believe both extremes are wrong and leave it at that.

[Jon Miller]

Umm, they aren't 'perfectly well educated'.

They take what the government says on faith. It is the government that is putting those labels on, that is a government action.

They are not perfectly well educated. I am not even perfectly educated, and I am a scientist.

Similar to saying 'hey, you aren't going to get a job to pay back a huge loan so we aren't going to give you a huge loan' that the US could do for art history majors...

JM

[Elok]

Are you suggesting that there are a significant number of people above the age of ten in the US (or any western country) who are not aware that smoking is addictive and carries tremendous health risks? I'm actually not sure what you're arguing here. I'm fine with the gummint telling them what the risks are (even if they overstate the case sometimes). I'm not fine with taking away their right to self-determination on the grounds that they'd just make a dumb decision.

[Jon Miller]

Are you suggesting that there are a significant number of people above the age of ten in the US (or any western country) who are not aware that smoking is addictive and carries tremendous health risks? I'm actually not sure what you're arguing here. I'm fine with the gummint telling them what the risks are (even if they overstate the case sometimes). I'm not fine with taking away their right to self-determination on the grounds that they'd just make a dumb decision.

Are these people actually making a decision? They aren't, it is just 'do they believe what the government says/does/etc' or not. It isn't based on any personal rational informed decision about the data/etc at all.

And I know a number of people, despite all the science/etc/propaganda, who maintain that smoking isn't addictive and I think even (one) that it doesn't cause cancer.

JM

[Elok]

Okay, then put a little label on the cigarettes that says, "Research indicates smoking is dangerous and addictive. For more information including links to abstracts from pertinent studies, go to www.informativeURL.gov." Of course, 99% of people won't bother to look, but that, too, is a decision. They've been given the chance to learn, but they have the right to be ignorant too. You can't force people to make the right decision.

Also, on a somewhat related note, we don't need yet another enemy for our quixotic War on Drugs.

[giblets]

They are making a decision, it's "accept a shorter life expectancy and health problems down the road or abstain from smoking". Their choice.

[DinoDoc]

I am not aware of any theory of government which says it exists to protect us from ourselves.

No democratic one at least.

[Kidlicious]

Elok, you say you aren't a libertarian, but is it fair to ask what your opinion is on letting people use heroin with dirty needles? Is that good? If not why is it good to let them smoke, and say, "well you're gonna die but it's good that you are free?"

Freedom is a good thing when it comes to thought, but at the extremes it's idiocy.

[Kidlicious]

Elok, you say you aren't a libertarian, but is it fair to ask what your opinion is on letting people use heroin with dirty needles? Is that good? If not why is it good to let them smoke, and say, "well you're gonna die but it's good that you are free?"

Freedom is a good thing when it comes to thought, but at the extremes it's idiocy.

[Elok]

Elok, you say you aren't a libertarian, but is it fair to ask what your opinion is on letting people use heroin with dirty needles? Is that good? If not why is it good to let them smoke, and say, "well you're gonna die but it's good that you are free?"

Heroin with dirty needles is more of a problem because it leads to the spread of disease--and that disease can be spread by means other than heroin use. Infected heroin user gives disease to formerly-clean heroin user, who sleeps with his girlfriend...voila, dirty needles have hurt an innocent bystander. There are other ways in which needle-exchange programs differ from banning smoking, but it's not "smoking is good" or "drinking is good" or "whacking your nuts with a sledgehammer is good" so much as "the freedom to make one's own mistakes without third parties trying to control your life is good." For me it's partially a theological concern; we were given the freedom to shape our own destiny, and that freedom shouldn't be taken away except when it threatens the safety or liberty of others against their will. And really, does free will mean that "going to hell is good"?

Freedom is a good thing when it comes to thought, but at the extremes it's idiocy.

Pretty much EVERYTHING, at extremes, is idiocy. Drinking too much water, for example (it's hard, but it can be done), will cause your brain to swell up and jam your medulla down into your vertebrae, killing you.

[Elok]

Come to think of it, I seem to recall that you believe in predestination. If you do, obviously, you can scratch that argument about free will.

[Kidlicious]

So it's ok to let people use heroin with dirty needles as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. What if they just wanted to get right to killing themselves and blow their head off with a shotgun? Should anyone try to stop them, or figure out if they will hurt a third party first?

I don't think the freedom to smoke ciggies is a theological issue. Saying that it is cheapens everything. It's just not important to have the freedom to smoke.

Freewill vs predetermination: I do tend towards predestination because God won't let harm come to the elect. That said, we have the power to choose to believe in God.

[Kidlicious]

So it's ok to let people use heroin with dirty needles as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. What if they just wanted to get right to killing themselves and blow their head off with a shotgun? Should anyone try to stop them, or figure out if they will hurt a third party first?

I don't think the freedom to smoke ciggies is a theological issue. Saying that it is cheapens everything. It's just not important to have the freedom to smoke.

Freewill vs predetermination: I do tend towards predestination because God won't let harm come to the elect. That said, we have the power to choose to believe in God.