4 ms·
“_I_ have to pay for _you_” is a particularly empty argument when there are no restrictions on calorie consumption, motorcycle usage, sedentary lifestyle, dange
by xref 7y ago
“_I_ have to pay for _you_” is a particularly empty argument when there are no restrictions on calorie consumption, motorcycle usage, sedentary lifestyle, dangerous hobbies, etc. Also it is a similarly entitled argument to telling police “I pay your salary!”
- etrautmann 7y ago...yes. We do pay the police and they should be in service of the public.
- xref 7y agonot sure what you’re arguing for with respect to yelling “I pay your salary!” at govt employees
- ninthcat 7y agoWhat world do you live in? The government's primary function is to control the people. That's a descriptive statement. > calorie consumption Healthy food subsidies and soda/candy taxes. Restrictions on food stamps. > motorcycle usage Licensing, training, and helmet requirements, age minimum. > dangerous hobbies Licensing and training requirements, often with age minimums. It'd be great if the government could reduce sedentary lifestyles, but making people do stuff tends to be harder than making them not do certain things.
- xref 7y agoNone of those things are banned, which was my point. OP was suggesting banning smoking entirely.
- lm28469 7y agoWell you're not wrong, we should clearly thrive to enforce healthy life choices. What's the opposite of your argument? Beer is legal so coke should be because muh freedom?
- xref 7y agoA lot of things would probably be safer if legalized and regulated, seeing as a black market will fill the need otherwise