3 ms·

It's not about the largest risk, it's about personal freedoms and choice. I should have the choice to decide whether or not I am unhealthy, it doesn't affect a

by dm2 12y ago

It's not about the largest risk, it's about personal freedoms and choice. I should have the choice to decide whether or not I am unhealthy, it doesn't affect anyone but myself (and my family if they are dependent on me). The government should not have the choice on whether or not to protect citizens, that's their job, citizens are depending on them to perform that action. While I know people would be healthier and "better off" by eating healthy, I have no right to force people to eat a certain way. If I want to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, or smoke marijuana, that should be my choice, not yours to make for me, as long as it doesn't affect you. If I want to ask the government or a company to delete all information they have about me, I should have the right to do that, just my opinion of course.

DanBC 12y ago
You can not say both this: > The government should not have the choice on whether or not to protect citizens, that's their job, citizens are depending on them to perform that action. And this: > If I want to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, or smoke marijuana, that should be my choice, not yours to make for me, as long as it doesn't affect you.
- dm2 12y ago
  Sorry, let me clarify, the government has the responsibility to protect me from things that I have no control over, like a foreign invasion, terrorist attacks, and other citizens (and government agencies) obstructing my rights. Makes perfect sense to me, do you still think that they are mutually exclusive statements?
  - swombat 12y ago
    If it's about decreasing the chances of dying because of the actions of someone else at all costs (economic, personal, etc) - then the first thing the government should do is ban cars for the vast swathes of the population that don't strictly require a car (i.e. live next to a big city). That's 40'000 easily avoidable deaths each year - all they take is some inconvenience from everyone and a bit of investment in public transport infrastructure, in exchange for a dozen 9/11's worth of terrorism avoided every single year. As a bonus, the US's oil consumption would plummet and it would almost instantly achieve any environmental targets it can dream of. What's that - you still want the freedom to drive? Even though it involves a fairly significant (0.01%) risk of dying because of things not under your control? Well, some people want the freedom to not be monitored all the time, even though it involves a much smaller than 0.01% risk of dying because of a terrorist attack. And all people should, and would, if terrorism didn't capture the imagination so vividly.
    - dm2 12y ago
      If we can get the US government to divert 75% of the money spent towards terrorism prevention towards autonomous vehicle research and electric vehicle subsidizing, then let's do it. Maybe you're right, maybe we're both partially correct, it's a complicated issue and I do appreciate the discussion.
  - gknoy 12y ago
    It's a cost/benefit analysis, though. The benefits are miniscule: you protect fewer people than die every year due to drunk driving or many other causes, and at a cost that harms us all.
  - sp332 12y ago
    What if I want the freedom to communicate privately? Ok, we'll only spy on the terrorists. But how do we know you're not a terrorist? We'll have to read your email before determining whether we can read your email or not...
PavlovsCat 12y ago
> While I know people would be healthier and "better off" by eating healthy, I have no right to force people to eat a certain way. You also have no right to go through their private communications unless you have a direct probable cause. (IANAL, the exact terms are probably different, but you get the idea)

by dm2 12y ago

DanBC 12y ago

You can not say both this: > The government should not have the choice on whether or not to protect citizens, that's their job, citizens are depending on them to perform that action. And this: > If I want to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, or smoke marijuana, that should be my choice, not yours to make for me, as long as it doesn't affect you.

dm2 12y ago
Sorry, let me clarify, the government has the responsibility to protect me from things that I have no control over, like a foreign invasion, terrorist attacks, and other citizens (and government agencies) obstructing my rights. Makes perfect sense to me, do you still think that they are mutually exclusive statements?
- swombat 12y ago
  If it's about decreasing the chances of dying because of the actions of someone else at all costs (economic, personal, etc) - then the first thing the government should do is ban cars for the vast swathes of the population that don't strictly require a car (i.e. live next to a big city). That's 40'000 easily avoidable deaths each year - all they take is some inconvenience from everyone and a bit of investment in public transport infrastructure, in exchange for a dozen 9/11's worth of terrorism avoided every single year. As a bonus, the US's oil consumption would plummet and it would almost instantly achieve any environmental targets it can dream of. What's that - you still want the freedom to drive? Even though it involves a fairly significant (0.01%) risk of dying because of things not under your control? Well, some people want the freedom to not be monitored all the time, even though it involves a much smaller than 0.01% risk of dying because of a terrorist attack. And all people should, and would, if terrorism didn't capture the imagination so vividly.
  - dm2 12y ago
    If we can get the US government to divert 75% of the money spent towards terrorism prevention towards autonomous vehicle research and electric vehicle subsidizing, then let's do it. Maybe you're right, maybe we're both partially correct, it's a complicated issue and I do appreciate the discussion.
- gknoy 12y ago
  It's a cost/benefit analysis, though. The benefits are miniscule: you protect fewer people than die every year due to drunk driving or many other causes, and at a cost that harms us all.
- sp332 12y ago
  What if I want the freedom to communicate privately? Ok, we'll only spy on the terrorists. But how do we know you're not a terrorist? We'll have to read your email before determining whether we can read your email or not...

PavlovsCat 12y ago

> While I know people would be healthier and "better off" by eating healthy, I have no right to force people to eat a certain way. You also have no right to go through their private communications unless you have a direct probable cause. (IANAL, the exact terms are probably different, but you get the idea)