3 ms·

"Does not adequately protect people from themselves, what do we do?" What we do as a society founded upon the principles of natural rights and liberties is sto

"Does not adequately protect people from themselves, what do we do?" What we do as a society founded upon the principles of natural rights and liberties is stop trying to protect people from themselves. It always was, and always will be, a slippery and dangerous slope to collectivism and totalitarianism. The government has absolutely no right whatsoever to tell me what I can and can't do with my body, whether that is drinking beer, coke, smoking weed, or cigars, or eating lettuce. For by accepting the encroachment, you open the floodgates for arbitrary decisions on what can and can't be done. It's not even that these thing need to be "legalized". It was never the right of the government either federal or state to determine them one way or the other. All the proper medical care, mentally and physically, and education about substances, would then be free to do its good work without the interference of lawyers attempting to legislate our lives. This silent acquiescence of increasingly overreaching government must stop. It is anathema to everything America was founded upon. "...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason." - Thomas Paine Common Sense

meri_dian 9y ago
I don't accept the slippery slope argument. But, let's entertain your line of thinking. Let's get rid of the speed limit everywhere. We don't need the stinking government telling us how fast to drive! Oh, looks like traffic deaths are going up. Hm, maybe we should institute a speed limit... The point is that people do need to be told what to do - with an enforced penalty - in certain situations.
- arca_vorago 9y ago
  Roads are a public place, subject to constitutional reasonable regulation (by the states, not the federal government) as long as not in violation of our right to travel. So you picked a bad example. Case in point, if I own a vehicle that never leaves my ranch property it doesn't need license plates, insurance, or a drivers license to operate it, and I can go as fast as I damn well please. What I do in the privacy of my own home is none of yours nor the governments fucking business. >"people do need to be told what to do" This is a disgustingly subservient slave mentality. Enjoy your self-forged shackles. The worst part is you would put them on others and tell them it is for their own good!
  - meri_dian 9y ago
    If you think being told that people can't go above a certain speed on the highway to make highways safe enough to drive on makes you a "slave", I would tell you that you're being melodramatic. Civilization is a set of rules, either informal or formal, that we obey. We do this so we can live peaceful and comfortable lives. If you think that's slavery then I feel bad for you.
    - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
      You seem to not understand the difference between private and public property. I have nary a issue to say "You have to follow the speed limit on public roads", or "No guns can be brought into the courthouse". But once we step foot into your own property, I can take my guns anywhere I want. As long as I guarantee the bullets don't leave the property, I can shoot what I want. I can take any sort of vehicle I want at whatever speed I want. I'm the king of my castle and the land that surrounds it. Now, as per drug usage - the bigger public health crisis is people ODing on the streets, urinating/defecating on the streets, needles exposed for people to get jabbed on the streets... Notice a trend here? "On the streets" is in public. Therefore public health crisis. If I want to do drug, one of, in my own property, there should be no good reason for a government to say "You don't know your body well enough, so we have to tell you no". The result is a bunch of nanny-state politicians who want to dictate your body on your private land. And, slippery slope? Well, tell that to NYC who can no longer sell larger than 12 oz sodas. Or other jurisdictions that enforce usage, rather than information. Nanny state at its best. EDIT: So, what gives? Why is this "government knows best" idea so prevalent? The choice of how I treat my own body goes all the way to choosing to commit suicide. Most jurisdictions, even that is "illegal". Harming others directly - whole different story and that should have state "interference".
      - arca_vorago 9y ago
        Maybe more EU people on the board than US people at the moment... otherwise the downvotes (especially without explanation) baffle me.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  >The point is that people do need to be told what to do - with an enforced penalty - in certain situations. What is the criteria for those "certain situations"?

meri_dian 9y ago

I don't accept the slippery slope argument. But, let's entertain your line of thinking. Let's get rid of the speed limit everywhere. We don't need the stinking government telling us how fast to drive! Oh, looks like traffic deaths are going up. Hm, maybe we should institute a speed limit... The point is that people do need to be told what to do - with an enforced penalty - in certain situations.

arca_vorago 9y ago
Roads are a public place, subject to constitutional reasonable regulation (by the states, not the federal government) as long as not in violation of our right to travel. So you picked a bad example. Case in point, if I own a vehicle that never leaves my ranch property it doesn't need license plates, insurance, or a drivers license to operate it, and I can go as fast as I damn well please. What I do in the privacy of my own home is none of yours nor the governments fucking business. >"people do need to be told what to do" This is a disgustingly subservient slave mentality. Enjoy your self-forged shackles. The worst part is you would put them on others and tell them it is for their own good!
- meri_dian 9y ago
  If you think being told that people can't go above a certain speed on the highway to make highways safe enough to drive on makes you a "slave", I would tell you that you're being melodramatic. Civilization is a set of rules, either informal or formal, that we obey. We do this so we can live peaceful and comfortable lives. If you think that's slavery then I feel bad for you.
  - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
    You seem to not understand the difference between private and public property. I have nary a issue to say "You have to follow the speed limit on public roads", or "No guns can be brought into the courthouse". But once we step foot into your own property, I can take my guns anywhere I want. As long as I guarantee the bullets don't leave the property, I can shoot what I want. I can take any sort of vehicle I want at whatever speed I want. I'm the king of my castle and the land that surrounds it. Now, as per drug usage - the bigger public health crisis is people ODing on the streets, urinating/defecating on the streets, needles exposed for people to get jabbed on the streets... Notice a trend here? "On the streets" is in public. Therefore public health crisis. If I want to do drug, one of, in my own property, there should be no good reason for a government to say "You don't know your body well enough, so we have to tell you no". The result is a bunch of nanny-state politicians who want to dictate your body on your private land. And, slippery slope? Well, tell that to NYC who can no longer sell larger than 12 oz sodas. Or other jurisdictions that enforce usage, rather than information. Nanny state at its best. EDIT: So, what gives? Why is this "government knows best" idea so prevalent? The choice of how I treat my own body goes all the way to choosing to commit suicide. Most jurisdictions, even that is "illegal". Harming others directly - whole different story and that should have state "interference".
    - arca_vorago 9y ago
      Maybe more EU people on the board than US people at the moment... otherwise the downvotes (especially without explanation) baffle me.
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
>The point is that people do need to be told what to do - with an enforced penalty - in certain situations. What is the criteria for those "certain situations"?