4 ms·

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/09/the_nanny_state_didnt_show_up.html http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/09/the_nanny_state_didnt... The vast majority of

by base698 12y ago

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/09/the_nanny_state_didnt_show_up.html http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/09/the_nanny_state_didnt... The vast majority of the people complaining about the Big Soda ban don't buy big sodas, and those most enraged about the Buckyballs ban either already have them or would never want them. So the reaction has nothing to do with the products themselves, the rage is on a theoretical level, "I don't want government intruding in my private choices." But they already do this in a gazillion different ways, bigger, more important intrusions. The difference is that those are invisible. You know you can't value the risks in airplane safety or radiation leaks so you trust them to do it, but you think you can value the risks of a soda and hate that they try to do it for you. I know you are thinking, "but I can resist soda; I understand the risks"-- never mind you don't even know the ingredients of soda, the point here is you are starting from you and multiplying by 6 billion. When you say, "personal responsibility!" you are really saying "this is safe enough for it to be a question of personal responsibility." But you must ask yourself the question: how do you know Buckyballs and soda are safe enough for them to be about personal responsibility? Because "some other omnipotent entity" allowed them to exist. How do you know that Entity can be trusted? Because it even tries to ban silly things like Buckyballs and soda. The system is sound.

crusso 12y ago
vast majority of the people complaining about the Big Soda ban don't buy big sodas Isn't that a bit like saying that only African Americans are allowed to stand up to racism? the rage is on a theoretical level If individual liberty and personal responsibilities are only theories. I don't happen to agree. But they already do this in a gazillion different ways So because they get away with it in harder-to-grasp and harder-to-politically-oppose ways, we should just submit to all of it? I know you are thinking, "but I can resist soda; I understand the risks" You obviously have no idea what I'm thinking. I think about the bigger picture of a society of sheep that elects wolves to make all their decisions for them because the sheep are too busy watching the NFL and Miley Cyrus to be bothered to make decisions for themselves and take responsibility for those decisions. I ponder the paradox of a populace too stupid to decide whether or not to drink a soda but smart enough to elect angels who will protect them from themselves. Because "some other omnipotent entity" allowed them to exist You're totally and completely wrong yet again. I'm an atheist. How does that affect your rationalization of letting others use force to make the smallest decisions in life for you?
- base698 12y ago
  That is kind of the entire point of the article. This quote summarizes the argument which you paraphrased after pointing out "You have no idea what you are thinking". The argument to spell it out in a clearer way than the author is a reductio ad absurdum: 1) The system protects us from unsafe airline and car practices. 2) The system tries to ban toys and sodas. 3) Therefore, the system can protect us from anything that is bad. The conclusion is clearly false, because lots of bad things still happen and you can't engineer a perfectly safe system. The omnipotent entity he refers is the the government, market, or whatever entity makes decisions you don't have to. In the full article there are lots of examples, from banking to whatever where the train of thought jumps from one type of savior to another, without ever pinning it down on the individual.

by base698 12y ago

crusso 12y ago

vast majority of the people complaining about the Big Soda ban don't buy big sodas Isn't that a bit like saying that only African Americans are allowed to stand up to racism? the rage is on a theoretical level If individual liberty and personal responsibilities are only theories. I don't happen to agree. But they already do this in a gazillion different ways So because they get away with it in harder-to-grasp and harder-to-politically-oppose ways, we should just submit to all of it? I know you are thinking, "but I can resist soda; I understand the risks" You obviously have no idea what I'm thinking. I think about the bigger picture of a society of sheep that elects wolves to make all their decisions for them because the sheep are too busy watching the NFL and Miley Cyrus to be bothered to make decisions for themselves and take responsibility for those decisions. I ponder the paradox of a populace too stupid to decide whether or not to drink a soda but smart enough to elect angels who will protect them from themselves. Because "some other omnipotent entity" allowed them to exist You're totally and completely wrong yet again. I'm an atheist. How does that affect your rationalization of letting others use force to make the smallest decisions in life for you?

base698 12y ago
That is kind of the entire point of the article. This quote summarizes the argument which you paraphrased after pointing out "You have no idea what you are thinking". The argument to spell it out in a clearer way than the author is a reductio ad absurdum: 1) The system protects us from unsafe airline and car practices. 2) The system tries to ban toys and sodas. 3) Therefore, the system can protect us from anything that is bad. The conclusion is clearly false, because lots of bad things still happen and you can't engineer a perfectly safe system. The omnipotent entity he refers is the the government, market, or whatever entity makes decisions you don't have to. In the full article there are lots of examples, from banking to whatever where the train of thought jumps from one type of savior to another, without ever pinning it down on the individual.