3 ms·

You could, but then you would be limiting personal freedoms for those that aren't part of the problem. In my opinion that flies in the face of everything this c

by willurd 13y ago

You could, but then you would be limiting personal freedoms for those that aren't part of the problem. In my opinion that flies in the face of everything this country and its constitution stand for. One of these days it will be your favorite thing (large sodas, salt, what's next, NYC?) that is outlawed because someone else might be causing a problem with it.

Nursie 13y ago
Well, I don't live in the US anyway, but I think there has to be a trade off in a civilised society because we have a huge volume of history telling us that without these sorts of restrictions people get screwed over at every turn. Some of my favourite things are illegal and I will lobby to get the laws in those areas changed where I don't think that the potential negative impact on society is too great. Outcomes are important, not just principles.
- willurd 13y ago
  I get where you're coming from. And I get the logic of your argument. But history has also shown us, time and again, that when you give one or more people power they will abuse it, even if intentions were originally good (you need only to look at your nearest government to find abuse of power). Also one person's definition of negative is often not the same as another's (and when you have 350 million people with different opinions, you are certain to have disagreement). The big question is, who gets to make the decision about who's definition of "bad" is right? Who has the authority to tell me I can't have salt, or drink more than 16oz of soda, or own pistol magazines with a capacity of more than 7 rounds with which to defend my life, or profit from property I own? When I have committed no crime, who has the right to compel me to do these things? In my opinion, it's a massive overreach, plain and simple. Another question you should be asking yourself is: who stands to profit financially from this decision? That will almost invariably lead you to the reason why the decision was made.

by willurd 13y ago

Nursie 13y ago

Well, I don't live in the US anyway, but I think there has to be a trade off in a civilised society because we have a huge volume of history telling us that without these sorts of restrictions people get screwed over at every turn. Some of my favourite things are illegal and I will lobby to get the laws in those areas changed where I don't think that the potential negative impact on society is too great. Outcomes are important, not just principles.

willurd 13y ago
I get where you're coming from. And I get the logic of your argument. But history has also shown us, time and again, that when you give one or more people power they will abuse it, even if intentions were originally good (you need only to look at your nearest government to find abuse of power). Also one person's definition of negative is often not the same as another's (and when you have 350 million people with different opinions, you are certain to have disagreement). The big question is, who gets to make the decision about who's definition of "bad" is right? Who has the authority to tell me I can't have salt, or drink more than 16oz of soda, or own pistol magazines with a capacity of more than 7 rounds with which to defend my life, or profit from property I own? When I have committed no crime, who has the right to compel me to do these things? In my opinion, it's a massive overreach, plain and simple. Another question you should be asking yourself is: who stands to profit financially from this decision? That will almost invariably lead you to the reason why the decision was made.