4 ms·

At some point, free adults must not be prevented from taking actions that could potentially harm them (either in the short or long term). How far down that slop

by LocalH 4y ago

At some point, free adults must not be prevented from taking actions that could potentially harm them (either in the short or long term). How far down that slope do we go? We worry about tobacco, when we allow megaconglomerates to fill the market full of heavily processed food? How far are we going to allow governments to tell us "you can't do this because it might/will hurt you, so we are making that decision for you". This is also basically enshrined age discrimination, at least during the long transition period where everyone born before the threshold date is dying off.

seanw444 4y ago
Welcome to the age of legislating and enforcing everything. This is why I think congress / parliament, in its current form, is a flawed model. It incentivizes members to be constantly legislating. We don't need legislation day in and day out. Otherwise we end up with too many unnecessarily bloated laws, just for the sake of supposedly "making society more safe and efficient." The strive by most today is to remove personal choice to ensure "peace and safety." Coincidentally, that's also the phrase used by many dictators. Unfortunately there's nowhere else for people like me to run. Seems most people want safety at the cost of liberty. I lean the other way. And that used to be a popular opinion.
- LocalH 4y ago
  The same flaw that afflicts much of the rest of society. Nobody can ever be content with maintaining, there always has to be "growth" or "improvement". There is a misguided perception that doing "nothing" is not a good thing, even if "nothing" needs to be done. Capitalism, as practiced worldwide, is infested with this. Annual profits must increase, and not plateau.
- MWil 4y ago
  Less of a flaw in how Congress / Parliament is formed, more of a flaw in how laws don't require a sunset provision, or absent one operate on a default 15-20 year maximum We know murder should always be illegal - it should be noncontroversial to modify a 15-20 yr default sunset to "500 years" and call it a day Some form of cryptocurrency legislation should probably be treated more like a "well this is new territory" so move the date up and punt it to a future Congress to renew based on how good of a result was able to be achieved
  - mwint 4y ago
    I’d argue that it’s a fine use of time to make murder illegal again every 15-20 years. That would help avoid the ridiculous “20 years in prison and a $1500 fine”-type laws that exist everywhere (made back when $1500 was a fortune). In my state, detonating a “weapon of mass destruction” is punishable by life in prison, and/or a $50,000 fine.
mattpallissard 4y ago
> How far are we going to allow governments to tell us "you can't do this because it might/will hurt you, so we are making that decision for you". I'm not a fan of laws that make something illegal without an injured party. I'm also puzzled my social circle who want to outlaw cigarettes but legalize all manner of recreational drugs. I've had neighbors who smoke cigarettes and neighbors who are tweakers. It was quite obvious which group was worse for the wear and worse for the neighborhood.
- EdwardDiego 4y ago
  > without an injured party. I'd argue that premature death leaves your whānau/family an injured party. (I would say "and the health system", but then I read an paper which concluded that smokers and their propensity to die younger is actually saving the health system a lot of money, as the longer you live, the more healthcare you need.)
  - mattpallissard 4y ago
    Yeah, I'm on the fence on that constituting that as an injured party. Healthy choices are just one of those things where it's not straightforward to draw a line without taking rights away from people.
lern_too_spel 4y ago
At some point, civics education is going to have to improve to the point where people stop thinking that personal freedom is the axiom on which societies should be built. Otherwise, we'll live with tragedy of the commons and related market failures until somebody exercises their personal freedom to kill all of humanity.
EdwardDiego 4y ago
Smoking has significant health impacts at a societal level, in NZ, especially in the poorest. Even at the basic level, dying prematurely will cause suffering to your family. And you'll still be allowed to grow your own tobacco, if you're dedicated.

by LocalH 4y ago

seanw444 4y ago

Welcome to the age of legislating and enforcing everything. This is why I think congress / parliament, in its current form, is a flawed model. It incentivizes members to be constantly legislating. We don't need legislation day in and day out. Otherwise we end up with too many unnecessarily bloated laws, just for the sake of supposedly "making society more safe and efficient." The strive by most today is to remove personal choice to ensure "peace and safety." Coincidentally, that's also the phrase used by many dictators. Unfortunately there's nowhere else for people like me to run. Seems most people want safety at the cost of liberty. I lean the other way. And that used to be a popular opinion.

LocalH 4y ago
The same flaw that afflicts much of the rest of society. Nobody can ever be content with maintaining, there always has to be "growth" or "improvement". There is a misguided perception that doing "nothing" is not a good thing, even if "nothing" needs to be done. Capitalism, as practiced worldwide, is infested with this. Annual profits must increase, and not plateau.
MWil 4y ago
Less of a flaw in how Congress / Parliament is formed, more of a flaw in how laws don't require a sunset provision, or absent one operate on a default 15-20 year maximum We know murder should always be illegal - it should be noncontroversial to modify a 15-20 yr default sunset to "500 years" and call it a day Some form of cryptocurrency legislation should probably be treated more like a "well this is new territory" so move the date up and punt it to a future Congress to renew based on how good of a result was able to be achieved
- mwint 4y ago
  I’d argue that it’s a fine use of time to make murder illegal again every 15-20 years. That would help avoid the ridiculous “20 years in prison and a $1500 fine”-type laws that exist everywhere (made back when $1500 was a fortune). In my state, detonating a “weapon of mass destruction” is punishable by life in prison, and/or a $50,000 fine.

mattpallissard 4y ago

> How far are we going to allow governments to tell us "you can't do this because it might/will hurt you, so we are making that decision for you". I'm not a fan of laws that make something illegal without an injured party. I'm also puzzled my social circle who want to outlaw cigarettes but legalize all manner of recreational drugs. I've had neighbors who smoke cigarettes and neighbors who are tweakers. It was quite obvious which group was worse for the wear and worse for the neighborhood.

EdwardDiego 4y ago
> without an injured party. I'd argue that premature death leaves your whānau/family an injured party. (I would say "and the health system", but then I read an paper which concluded that smokers and their propensity to die younger is actually saving the health system a lot of money, as the longer you live, the more healthcare you need.)
- mattpallissard 4y ago
  Yeah, I'm on the fence on that constituting that as an injured party. Healthy choices are just one of those things where it's not straightforward to draw a line without taking rights away from people.

lern_too_spel 4y ago

At some point, civics education is going to have to improve to the point where people stop thinking that personal freedom is the axiom on which societies should be built. Otherwise, we'll live with tragedy of the commons and related market failures until somebody exercises their personal freedom to kill all of humanity.

EdwardDiego 4y ago

Smoking has significant health impacts at a societal level, in NZ, especially in the poorest. Even at the basic level, dying prematurely will cause suffering to your family. And you'll still be allowed to grow your own tobacco, if you're dedicated.