4 ms·

If you break your leg then you're going to consume public services and lose productivity. Does that mean every decision where there is a possibility of you inju

by jjk166 4y ago

If you break your leg then you're going to consume public services and lose productivity. Does that mean every decision where there is a possibility of you injuring yourself is not a personal decision? People are under no obligation to give up their freedoms to minimize their potential tax burden.

scoofy 4y ago
I think people actually are? Something as simple as a seat-belt law is exactly this.
- jjk166 4y ago
  You don't have a fundamental right to operate or utilize a motor vehicle improperly. You are free to not wear a seat belt, just don't ride in a car.
  - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
    >You don't have a fundamental right to operate or utilize a motor vehicle improperly. You don't have a fundamental right to get shoot up and then send me the bill.
    - xboxnolifes 4y ago
      Lets compromise. No more vehicles and no more drugs.
      - feet 4y ago
        But guns are okay?
- SauciestGNU 4y ago
  I think risk assessment plays into this too, seat belts prevent fatalities and extreme injuries, so it may make sense to require them as a minimally intrusive measure that drastically reduces bad outcomes.
- heinternets 4y ago
  What freedom are you losing by wearing a seatbelt?
  - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
    The freedom to not wear a seatbelt
Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
If I was to purposely break my leg because it felt good I should should be sent to a mental institution - not set free to break my leg everyday at your cost. >People are under no obligation to give up their freedoms to minimize their potential tax burden. They are.
- jjk166 4y ago
  Playing sports causes sports injuries, but we still do it because it feels good, and not only do we accept other people being allowed to do it, we encourage them. Hell one of the most popular activities is to just lay out in the sun and increase your risk of skin cancer, rolling over occasionally to ensure no part of you is safe. The leading cause of death in the US is heart disease, but you are free to sit on a couch eating pizza whenever you want for as long as you want. There isn't a red blooded american alive who hasn't done something that was potentially detrimental to their health and in no way productive for fun.
  - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
    These comparisons relly on some conflations imo (fun = drug abuse?) but I'll try to address each point as it is. >Playing sports causes sports injuries, but we still do it because it feels good There are many major differences here. playing sports is natural. Many mammals play some sort of physical game[0]. There is an intrinsic evolutionary drive at play here. Doing drugs is not an intrinsic evolutionary drive. Sports have an upside of increasing social and physical health. Hard drugs have no upside. Playing sports is not adictive. Playing sports does not preclude you from being a functioning memeber of society. Playing sports is much safer than doing drugs. >we encourage them I don't, but I get your point. The encouragement is itself an evolutionary force at play. >Hell one of the most popular activities is to just lay out in the sun and increase your risk of skin cancer Another intrinsic evolutionary activity. Be sure to wear sunscreen. >The leading cause of death in the US is heart disease, but you are free to sit on a couch eating pizza whenever you want for as long as you want. We banned trans fats and for a good reason. Although some research shows that omega 6 polyunsaturated fats may be worse. We may have been too quick on trans fats but the general idea was good. In any case, consumption of food is the most basic activity of the animal kingdom. Heroin is a chemical that flips evolution on it's head. People adicted to heroin lose their humanity - just ask former addicts what their life was like. We can ban heroin and cocaine because they have no upside while having drastic downsides. (Hopefuly opioids next). The alternative is to allow it but reomve the users from the saftey net (a big no-no). [0]https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/games_animals_play https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/games_animals_...

by jjk166 4y ago

scoofy 4y ago

I think people actually are? Something as simple as a seat-belt law is exactly this.

jjk166 4y ago
You don't have a fundamental right to operate or utilize a motor vehicle improperly. You are free to not wear a seat belt, just don't ride in a car.
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  >You don't have a fundamental right to operate or utilize a motor vehicle improperly. You don't have a fundamental right to get shoot up and then send me the bill.
  - xboxnolifes 4y ago
    Lets compromise. No more vehicles and no more drugs.
    - feet 4y ago
      But guns are okay?
SauciestGNU 4y ago
I think risk assessment plays into this too, seat belts prevent fatalities and extreme injuries, so it may make sense to require them as a minimally intrusive measure that drastically reduces bad outcomes.
heinternets 4y ago
What freedom are you losing by wearing a seatbelt?
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  The freedom to not wear a seatbelt

Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago

If I was to purposely break my leg because it felt good I should should be sent to a mental institution - not set free to break my leg everyday at your cost. >People are under no obligation to give up their freedoms to minimize their potential tax burden. They are.

jjk166 4y ago
Playing sports causes sports injuries, but we still do it because it feels good, and not only do we accept other people being allowed to do it, we encourage them. Hell one of the most popular activities is to just lay out in the sun and increase your risk of skin cancer, rolling over occasionally to ensure no part of you is safe. The leading cause of death in the US is heart disease, but you are free to sit on a couch eating pizza whenever you want for as long as you want. There isn't a red blooded american alive who hasn't done something that was potentially detrimental to their health and in no way productive for fun.
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  These comparisons relly on some conflations imo (fun = drug abuse?) but I'll try to address each point as it is. >Playing sports causes sports injuries, but we still do it because it feels good There are many major differences here. playing sports is natural. Many mammals play some sort of physical game[0]. There is an intrinsic evolutionary drive at play here. Doing drugs is not an intrinsic evolutionary drive. Sports have an upside of increasing social and physical health. Hard drugs have no upside. Playing sports is not adictive. Playing sports does not preclude you from being a functioning memeber of society. Playing sports is much safer than doing drugs. >we encourage them I don't, but I get your point. The encouragement is itself an evolutionary force at play. >Hell one of the most popular activities is to just lay out in the sun and increase your risk of skin cancer Another intrinsic evolutionary activity. Be sure to wear sunscreen. >The leading cause of death in the US is heart disease, but you are free to sit on a couch eating pizza whenever you want for as long as you want. We banned trans fats and for a good reason. Although some research shows that omega 6 polyunsaturated fats may be worse. We may have been too quick on trans fats but the general idea was good. In any case, consumption of food is the most basic activity of the animal kingdom. Heroin is a chemical that flips evolution on it's head. People adicted to heroin lose their humanity - just ask former addicts what their life was like. We can ban heroin and cocaine because they have no upside while having drastic downsides. (Hopefuly opioids next). The alternative is to allow it but reomve the users from the saftey net (a big no-no). [0]https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/games_animals_play https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/games_animals_...