4 ms·

At what point do we say that we've just given up on the concept of freedom? For what behaviors will we say: "That's a really bad idea, but go ahead and suffer

At what point do we say that we've just given up on the concept of freedom? For what behaviors will we say: "That's a really bad idea, but go ahead and suffer the consequences if you want to do it"? It seems we are moving in the direction of zero consequences first. By the time you have medical bills from smoking too much, you're on medicare, so it's not coming out of your children's inheritance. And then after the consequences are pushed onto other people, we say that you can't have the freedom any more. Seems like a good way to just eliminate freedom completely.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dawnerd 6y ago
Freedoms are fine until companies are doing whatever they can to make something so addictive it's near impossible for someone to quit without suffering or spending lots of money. It's not just a someone choses to smoke. It's they got hooked, usually by deceptive advertising or peer pressure. Are you also against seatbelts? The police? Building codes?
- BitwiseFool 6y ago
  >"Are you also against seatbelts? The police? Building codes?" Obviously not, but those are different arguments about the concept of "freedom" and government regulation. A more relevant comparison would be about outlawing trans-fats, regulating the size of soda, portion sizes, flavored e-cigs, etc.
  - dawnerd 6y ago
    They're not really though. We should regulate those as well as companies are also using those to cause addition. I'm even saying that as a fat dude.
BitwiseFool 6y ago
Oddly enough smoking actually saves the State money in the long run. Smoking citizens don't live as long and thus save money on medical care and entitlement payments.
- drak0n1c 6y ago
  Financially, isn't the even bigger factor the large amount of sin taxes smokers pay into the system over their lifetime? I read that it is usually more than the added healthcare cost.
ajkjk 6y ago
Seems like a really oversimplified idea of what freedom is. It's not a binary where you're free or you aren't. You're never _completely_ free, or you wouldn't be able to pulled over by cops, forced to file taxes, or whatever, anyway. Like, yeah, you could stick to the "absolute freedom all the time" principle and do nothing to make people healthier, but if you had just done it anyway life would be better for everyone involved. And you're stuck with your rigid adherence to principles saying "well at least we were free" while the world is crappy compared to what it could be. Give me the slightly paternalistic government that makes its people healthier and happier every time.
- int_19h 6y ago
  The problem is that your definition of "slightly" might not agree with that of the majority - and then you end up being targeted for your lifestyle choices. As far as freedom not being a binary... true, but insofar as it's a function of social arrangements, it's possible to find (or at least strive to find) a global maximum where everybody is as free as possible.
  - ajkjk 5y ago
    That response comes up a lot: that a particular choice of what the government does won't be agreeable to everyone. But like, so what? That's abstractly the point of democracy. It is kind of fine if governments do things their citizens don't like. There are correction mechanisms also but it's just approximate, it's not supposed to appease everyone completely.
    - int_19h 5y ago
      > It is kind of fine if governments do things their citizens don't like. Quite a few people would disagree. There's that whole consent of the governed thing, for example - and 50%+1 is certainly not it.
      - ajkjk 5y ago
        High-level you would like the government to mostly do things that the citizens mostly like. Then the citizens will mostly consent to have a government that mostly leaves them free. But it's all approximate. It doesn't extrapolate to always doing things that all citizens like. That doesn't work at all, for obvious reasons like the government being licensed to tax or imprison people.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dawnerd 6y ago

Freedoms are fine until companies are doing whatever they can to make something so addictive it's near impossible for someone to quit without suffering or spending lots of money. It's not just a someone choses to smoke. It's they got hooked, usually by deceptive advertising or peer pressure. Are you also against seatbelts? The police? Building codes?

BitwiseFool 6y ago
>"Are you also against seatbelts? The police? Building codes?" Obviously not, but those are different arguments about the concept of "freedom" and government regulation. A more relevant comparison would be about outlawing trans-fats, regulating the size of soda, portion sizes, flavored e-cigs, etc.
- dawnerd 6y ago
  They're not really though. We should regulate those as well as companies are also using those to cause addition. I'm even saying that as a fat dude.

BitwiseFool 6y ago

Oddly enough smoking actually saves the State money in the long run. Smoking citizens don't live as long and thus save money on medical care and entitlement payments.

drak0n1c 6y ago
Financially, isn't the even bigger factor the large amount of sin taxes smokers pay into the system over their lifetime? I read that it is usually more than the added healthcare cost.

ajkjk 6y ago

Seems like a really oversimplified idea of what freedom is. It's not a binary where you're free or you aren't. You're never _completely_ free, or you wouldn't be able to pulled over by cops, forced to file taxes, or whatever, anyway. Like, yeah, you could stick to the "absolute freedom all the time" principle and do nothing to make people healthier, but if you had just done it anyway life would be better for everyone involved. And you're stuck with your rigid adherence to principles saying "well at least we were free" while the world is crappy compared to what it could be. Give me the slightly paternalistic government that makes its people healthier and happier every time.

int_19h 6y ago
The problem is that your definition of "slightly" might not agree with that of the majority - and then you end up being targeted for your lifestyle choices. As far as freedom not being a binary... true, but insofar as it's a function of social arrangements, it's possible to find (or at least strive to find) a global maximum where everybody is as free as possible.
- ajkjk 5y ago
  That response comes up a lot: that a particular choice of what the government does won't be agreeable to everyone. But like, so what? That's abstractly the point of democracy. It is kind of fine if governments do things their citizens don't like. There are correction mechanisms also but it's just approximate, it's not supposed to appease everyone completely.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    > It is kind of fine if governments do things their citizens don't like. Quite a few people would disagree. There's that whole consent of the governed thing, for example - and 50%+1 is certainly not it.
    - ajkjk 5y ago
      High-level you would like the government to mostly do things that the citizens mostly like. Then the citizens will mostly consent to have a government that mostly leaves them free. But it's all approximate. It doesn't extrapolate to always doing things that all citizens like. That doesn't work at all, for obvious reasons like the government being licensed to tax or imprison people.