CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Shall we eradicate age restriction laws on tobacco, alcohol, and firearms?
Kids are interesting group of people in this country. Often times we use to make laws in protection of kids from themselves. the idea was that parenting was insufficient in making sure that kids grew up to be healthy, well-groomed individuals. But now that we have laws protecting adults from their own actions, I find the government to be more about just legislating actions that it doesn't like.
Now, the evidence against smoking cigarettes is pretty clear. Cigarettes are bad for you. Now, the studies point mostly to smokers, because no one smokes moderately (2 or 3 cigs a day), and while it may be possible that 2 or 3 are good for you, it isn't realistic to care about that. If you're a smoker, you're killing yourself.
However, why is this fact grounds for limiting what kids can buy? Kids can buy dougnuts and cheeseburgers, bananas (too much potassium can kill you, even if it's just from eating a shit load of bananas), candy, windex, and all kinds of shit that can kill you from over exposure. We know too much alcohol is dangerous, but hundreds of studies have also shown 2 drinks a day to be much healthier than abstinence. But even if that wasn't the case, why is it illegal to sell a minor alcohol? Why is it illegal for a minor to possess a bottle of alcohol? Just because it's bad for you? Because then you have some inconsistencies in your law making.
And firearms, the scariest fuckin' things that mothers will try to push into their children's heads, are illegal for kids to buy in most states. but what epidemic are we afraid of if we got rid of age restrictions? Are retailers just going to sell guns (which are usually hundreds of dollars) to kids uncaringly? Are children violent beasts craving for legal firearms?
In general, why is it that being a kid means you can't legally do shit with your own body? Is parenting not enough of control for these kids? Is the government all of a sudden some wise entity that knows how to rear children properly? More than the populace's parents?
Holy shit, I'd be so happy if our government was actually that competent.
I'd say that the best type of regulation is natural and voluntary. Kids aren't going to be smoking, drinking, and killing people just because it's legal for them to buy these products. And even if they do get a gun, a bottle of gin, and a cig, what's the big deal? Has the world gone to shit just because some kids like this stuff? hell, we have no idea what the long term effects are, but if we believe that legislation today will guide us toward the CORRECT path, it says something really dark about the nature of human existence.
Certainly, it is naive to think that age restrictions will prevent all youth from using tobacco, alcohol, and firearms. However, I think it is equally naive to think that such restrictions have no moderating effect whatsoever. Arguably, people still kill each other and defraud one another yet we still have laws against it. That a law will be broken by some is neither proof that it is wholly ineffective nor a reason to get rid of the law.
Moreover, prevention is only one aspect of age restriction laws. The other major aspect is that laws like these enable the state to take action in response to abuses of harmful substances or items by youth as well as against industries that market such products to youth.
I would argue that one of the primary functions of government is to control for the negative actions of individuals within society and to ameliorate the harms caused by social ills upon its members. I do not think that this says something "really dark" about human nature; I think it is a mere acknowledgement that we are not perfect and do not live in utopia.
people still kill each other and defraud one another yet we still have laws against it
Because if you commit those crimes you are punished for it. These laws serve to deter and/or punish acts of force against another. The same is not said for age restriction laws.
laws like these enable the state to take action in response to abuses of harmful substances or items by youth as well as against industries that market such products to youth.
Laws like these enable the state to force others to treat their bodies a certain, moral way. It is no right of the state to tell people what they do with their own bodies.
I think it is a mere acknowledgement that we are not perfect and do not live in utopia.
The last thing I'd want to give imperfect people is the ability to control the personal actions of the rest of the people.
Because if you commit those crimes you are punished for it. These laws serve to deter and/or punish acts of force against another. The same is not said for age restriction laws.
How so? It is illegal and I know a number of people who have gotten into trouble for it. I also know people who were deterred from using tobacco and alcohol or acquiring firearms because of age restrictions. It may not be perfect punishment or deterrence, but no law has that.
Laws like these enable the state to force others to treat their bodies a certain, moral way. It is no right of the state to tell people what they do with their own bodies.
For me, it is not a moral issue or judgement. It is a public health issue and a safety issue. People are more likely to become addicted to substances like tobacco and alcohol if they start in their youth, and those who are addicted to those substances become a social liability (e.g. lung cancer, alcoholism, etc.) if not an outright danger to other members of society (e.g. DUIs, gun violence, etc.). When the actions taken by an individual begin to negatively affect others, those actions can be regulated by the state. This is the same principle we apply in restrictions of other rights, such as the right to free speech.
The last thing I'd want to give imperfect people is the ability to control the personal actions of the rest of the people.
What are you suggesting then, anarchy? Just because we are imperfect this does not make us incapable of evaluating facts and making informed decisions. And again, it is not a wholly personal decision because it has clear and direct, documented effects upon society at large.
It is illegal and I know a number of people who have gotten into trouble for it.
Beyond the point. The point i was making is that laws against murder have to do with physical coercion of one individual over another. The same is not for age restriction laws.
People are more likely to become addicted to substances like tobacco and alcohol if they start in their youth
Their choice. Some are happier living lives that aren't the same as yours, you know. Eating cheese is unhealthy, so is pumping your own gas.
We make choices and face the consequences. It is up to us, however, not the government, to make an alternate choice.
if not an outright danger to other members of society (e.g. DUIs, gun violence, etc.
Deal with the actual crimes of violence, not try to blame other factors. This same reasoning has constantly tried to ban pornography, violent video games, etc. Shifting blame from personal responsibility to random objects that us, as individuals, enjoy.
What are you suggesting then, anarchy?
Nein. I am merely saying that forcing others to your own will is immoral and should not be the rule of law. Protecting the people from murderers and thieves is not the same as protecting people from personal behavior you disapprove of.
Beyond the point. The point i was making is that laws against murder have to do with physical coercion of one individual over another. The same is not for age restriction laws.
Apologies, that was my misunderstanding. We do however have other laws which restrict individual behavior which is not coercive against or harmful towards another. For example, seat-belt laws, speeding laws, DUI laws...
Their choice. Some are happier living lives that aren't the same as yours, you know. Eating cheese is unhealthy, so is pumping your own gas. We make choices and face the consequences. It is up to us, however, not the government, to make an alternate choice.
You have missed my overarching point, which is that in becoming addicted to a substance which is harmful to ones personal health (and in the case of tobacco and second hand smoke, to others) one imposes a high cost upon society in the form of unpaid medical expenses that are regularly picked up by the state and passed on to other members of society who then effectively pay for the choices of others. I agree that is a fine line because where do we stop restricting bad choices, but at this point I'm sort of playing devils advocate. I think what could be said is that the dangers of tobacco and alcohol on health are much more clearly proven to have negative health effects than other behaviors. And maybe the medical expenses are the cost of having more freedoms, at which point it is a question of which you prefer over the other.
Deal with the actual crimes of violence, not try to blame other factors. This same reasoning has constantly tried to ban pornography, violent video games, etc. Shifting blame from personal responsibility to random objects that us, as individuals, enjoy.
I do not think that age restrictions shift the blame away from personal responsibility. You are still responsible for your actions, whether they are legal or not. Restricting access to the items that enable bad actions to occur, particularly when the link between the item and crime is clearly established, is simply a reasonable precaution to protect innocent people.
Nein. I am merely saying that forcing others to your own will is immoral and should not be the rule of law. Protecting the people from murderers and thieves is not the same as protecting people from personal behavior you disapprove of.
You seem to be under the impression that I disapprove of people who smoke, drink, and own firearms. Quite to the contrary, I drink and I am a member of a gun education group that goes to shoot on ranges. It is not a matter of my disapproving, it is a matter of practicality and weighing the value of personal freedoms against their costs upon individuals and society at large. In the case of guns, tobacco, and alcohol for youth I just do not see that the freedoms necessarily warrant their costs.
We do however have other laws which restrict individual behavior which is not coercive against or harmful towards another. For example, seat-belt laws, speeding laws, DUI laws...
Just because these laws exist doesn't mean I support the reasoning behind them or any laws like them.
one imposes a high cost upon society in the form of unpaid medical expenses that are regularly picked up by the state and passed on to other members of society who then effectively pay for the choices of others.
You're going by the assumption that I support having taxpayers pay for others' medical expenses.
I think what could be said is that the dangers of tobacco and alcohol on health are much more clearly proven to have negative health effects than other behaviors.
Nein. The anti tobacco lobby has pumped millions of dollars into research saying that tobacco is bad for you. It's all about money, not independent research. not to say that tobacco isn't bad for you, but the evidence for it is only abundant because people are focused much more on banning tobacco than anything else. If you put millions of dollars into the harms of gummy worms, you'd probably find the health costs of them too.
My point still stands. The people have a right to choose and government has no right to restrict that right.
Restricting access to the items that enable bad actions to occur, particularly when the link between the item and crime is clearly established, is simply a reasonable precaution to protect innocent people.
Think about all the armed robberies we could prevent if all masks were banned.
In the case of guns, tobacco, and alcohol for youth I just do not see that the freedoms necessarily warrant their costs.
What costs? Have you ever actually seen evidence showing that any costs will come if age restrictions are removed? It seems more like assumptions based on fear than actual analysis.
Just because these laws exist doesn't mean I support the reasoning behind them or any laws like them.
You will excuse me if I do not take your asserted dislike as an actual reason to reject having those laws.
You're going by the assumption that I support having taxpayers pay for others' medical expenses.
Not really, I am going on the observation that this is what realistically happens. Particularly if someone has a medical emergency where treatment and care are provided prior to knowing if someone can pay for it, the cost has to get passed on somewhere. If it is not to the taxpayer is it often currently is then it is to the hospital. In the latter case, those costs will be passed onto others seeking care. Either way, other people will experience extra financial burden as a consequence of the choices of others.
Nein. The anti tobacco lobby has pumped millions of dollars into research saying that tobacco is bad for you. It's all about money, not independent research. not to say that tobacco isn't bad for you, but the evidence for it is only abundant because people are focused much more on banning tobacco than anything else.
And the tobacco lobby has pumped even more money into its counter campaign, yet in a court of law with evidentiary proceedings it was the research proving causation that won. The science is there to prove that there are negative health effects, and some of that research comes from the tobacco industry itself in the form of subpenaed internal documents.
If you put millions of dollars into the harms of gummy worms, you'd probably find the health costs of them too.
Perhaps, but if the causation is not yet demonstrated there is no evidence to go upon to warrant regulation. Furthermore, it is unlikely that you could document any second hand effects of gummy worms on other people which is not the case for tobacco and alcohol. Nor is it the case that gummy worms have addictive substances as do tobacco and alcohol.
My point still stands. The people have a right to choose and government has no right to restrict that right.
I respectfully disagree for the reasons I have given above.
Think about all the armed robberies we could prevent if all masks were banned.
The difference, of course, is that we know for a fact that tobacco and alcohol will always have negative health consequences (though in varying degrees dependent upon levels of consumption). However, not all masks lead to armed robberies. Moreover, masks are not a direct cause of armed robberies - people do not commit the latter because they have the former (if that were the case, all people with masks would commit armed robberies).
What costs? Have you ever actually seen evidence showing that any costs will come if age restrictions are removed? It seems more like assumptions based on fear than actual analysis.
As I have already observed and you have not actually countered, those who are introduced to addictive substances at a younger age are more likely to be addicts during adulthood. This is not unsubstantiated. For instance, see the review of the research by Mathers et. al. (2006) which finds that "adolescent tobacco smoking increases the likelihood of early adult tobacco use and the initiation of alcohol use or the development of alcohol-related problems" (Consequences of youth tobacco use: a review of prospective behavioural studies).
In the latter case, those costs will be passed onto others seeking care. Either way, other people will experience extra financial burden as a consequence of the choices of others.
slipper slope fallacy. Might as well say that swatting a fly will lead to the eventual extinction of a fly dependent ecosystem.
And the tobacco lobby has pumped even more money into its counter campaign
For public relations they have also pumped money into anti-tobacco initiatives. Really, the only advertising they've done toward the youth has been in anti-tobacco.
Nor is it the case that gummy worms have addictive substances as do tobacco and alcohol.
According to the anti-fast food lobby (who hate the anti-tobacco lobby because they want more legislation and money on their side), sugar and salts are actually very addictive in the quantity found in junk food.
is that we know for a fact that tobacco and alcohol will always have negative health consequences (though in varying degrees dependent upon levels of consumption).
You gave your own rebuttal. Two drinks a day is recommended for good health. smoking can also have health benefits.
not all masks lead to armed robberies
Yet they provide no benefit. Why make the risk? If you're willing to restrict access to products that can actually be beneficial, why not restrict access to items that have no real benefit? C'mon, you HAVE to now debate this since you believe it is the right of the government to restrict access just because something COULD prevent crime or health problems.
those who are introduced to addictive substances at a younger age are more likely to be addicts during adulthood.
I didn't ask about the effects of nicotine and alcohol themselves. I asked about the costs of removing the laws themselves.
Slipper slope fallacy. Might as well say that swatting a fly will lead to the eventual extinction of a fly dependent ecosystem.
Not at all. Hospitals are at there heart still businesses and consequentially they run as businesses do, needing to maintain a certain profit margin. If the people they treat cannot pay for their treatment and the government is not picking up the bill, then that directly reduces the profit margin. The hospitals will have to make it up for it somehow, and the most likely way that it will be passed on is as raised costs of care. The only other places that it could be passed on would be salary cuts to the workers, which employees would have a limited tolerance for. If you think this is illogical then, please, tell me why. Just throwing out a convenient "slippery slope" is in and of itself lazy if not a fallacy itself.
For public relations they have also pumped money into anti-tobacco initiatives. Really, the only advertising they've done toward the youth has been in anti-tobacco.
The tobacco industry has pumped money into anti-tobacco initiatives? I think you are at best confused and at worst misguided. The only changes in tobacco industry practice have come about because they were forced into doing so on account of existing age restriction laws - in order to protect themselves from lawsuits for encouraging youth to break the law they had to put on a front of discouraging youth from consuming their products. But they fought having to do so tooth and nail.
According to the anti-fast food lobby (who hate the anti-tobacco lobby because they want more legislation and money on their side), sugar and salts are actually very addictive in the quantity found in junk food.
You will also note that the anti-fast food lobby has lost their case because they cannot definitively prove that the industry alone is directly to blame. The facts of the cases are different and the lobbying has by and large not been successful for that very reason.
You gave your own rebuttal. Two drinks a day is recommended for good health. smoking can also have health benefits.
Regarding the two drinks a day recommendation, underage drinking is markedly not connected with responsible drinking but as I have already demonstrated and you still have not disprove or even directly refuted drinking in youth is causally connected to poor drinking habits later on.
Regarding the smoking benefits, you really are going to have to do more than a wiki link. If you follow the references cited in that article they link to articles which show association and correlation at best, and generally have very small study samples that yield inconclusive results. Take the recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS) study that is cited - it states that there is only a negative association rather than a causal link, and included only 34 patients. Smoking was also not the controlled variable in the study, which is likely one of many reasons that it is not causally linked. By comparison, the connection between smoking and cancer has been causally demonstrated.
Hospitals are at there heart still businesses and consequentially they run as businesses do, needing to maintain a certain profit margin.
Only if they are concerned with large profits. Profit margins are often reduced by state regulations and taxes.
If the people they treat cannot pay for their treatment and the government is not picking up the bill, then that directly reduces the profit margin.
Many church funded operations operate at a negative profit margin. They are controlled like businesses, yet only funded through charity.
As well, many physicians try to treat those who can not afford it. The only real thing hurting them is government regulations and taxes. as much as it seems nice to have government around, busy, and funded, it seems to only be hurting the people you are trying to help.
The hospitals will have to make it up for it somehow, and the most likely way that it will be passed on is as raised costs of care.
Or through reduction of its own profit margins. Or through finding more efficient, cost-effective ways to treat their patients. This is common with businesses that are not subsidized or regulated. When businesses do not have unlimited funds, they try to find ways to produce more resources at lower costs. This eventually makes the entire system less expensive, as we've seen with software development and computer companies (Apple, Microsoft, Sony, etc.)
The only thing that makes resources MORE expensive is government intervention in the market. Regulations and taxation directly make items more expensive and limit the capability of businesses being innovative with their resources.
The tobacco industry has pumped money into anti-tobacco initiatives? I think you are at best confused and at worst misguided.
Your own sentences following refuted this. Despite the reasoning for funding anti-tobacco campaigns, the results are the same.
Even more so, advertising is an act of "free speech" which shall not be legally condemned just because of your moral qualms. Use your own ability of free speech if you disagree with something morally. To do otherwise is Fascism.
The facts of the cases are different and the lobbying has by and large not been successful for that very reason.
Better to note is that food, in the end, is essential and common. Regulating fast food is not only Fascist, it's promoting Famine. regulating tobacco does not bring about famine (directly, at least) but it is Fascist none-the-less.
Keep in mind, I use tyranny in accordance with Fascist. Fascism doesn't, necessarily, have to be THAT tyrannical. Only as tyrannical as the Obama administration. Tyranny, at its worse, would not reflect the acts of our recent presidents. So the level of tyranny is at a Fascist level (not Nazi, though.)
underage drinking is markedly not connected with responsible drinking
We can thank fascist laws against underage drinking for that lack of experimentation. regulations, of course, also reduce scientific innovation. We can not learn about the health benefits of MANY young people thanks to the abundance of regulations on human beings. We are basically prisoners asking for permission, and often denied.
I have already demonstrated and you still have not disprove or even directly refuted drinking in youth is causally connected to poor drinking habits later on.
I do not need to refute this. This does not promote your idea of legislation barring people from making decisions for themselves. It only promotes that we spread awareness, and IMO through non-violent, non-coercive means.
Regarding the smoking benefits, you really are going to have to do more than a wiki link. If you follow the references cited in that article they link to articles which show association and correlation at best
you really are missing the point, aren't you?
it is sort of my fault, i should have never tried to argue that point entirely, i should have avoided it.
But let me try to rectify this:
It doesn't matter. The healthiness or non-healthiness of a product does not constitute the legal regulation of it. Humans, without violence and coercion, can and do regulate their own behavior. And even when they don't, it is better than to allow a group of people from making laws against our actions just because you have some concerns on the POTENTIAL dangers of a product. This is why such wonderful products are already illegal or heavily regulated against our obtainment. Conformity and legislation is what eliminates the POTENTIAL for innovation. and all this SPECULATION on POTENTIAL is what, in the end, harms us. Next thing you know drinking two drinks a day will become MANDATORY just because of its POTENTIAL health benefits.
Only if they are concerned with large profits. Profit margins are often reduced by state regulations and taxes. & Many church funded operations operate at a negative profit margin. They are controlled like businesses, yet only funded through charity.
Actually, most hospitals barely break even and very few make any significant profits. Furthermore, most hospitals are declared as 501(c)3 non-profits and are therefor tax exempt. My point in indicating that they run as a business is that they necessitate a certain profit margin to continue operating. They cannot run in the negative, and certainly not in perpetuity.
Regarding the reduction of the profit margin by state regulations, would you care to elaborate and be more specific? There may be some extraneous and unnecessary regulations, but I am willing to wager that most of them concern health standards and codes which are crucial to securing patient and employee safety.
Or through reduction of its own profit margins. Or through finding more efficient, cost-effective ways to treat their patients.
As I have observed, there is rarely much of a profit margin to begin with. Regarding efficiency and cost-effectiveness in treatment I would argue that with a narrow profit margin to begin with many hospitals have already largely stream-lined their process as much as they can, and that further cutbacks would likely reduce the quality of treatment provided.
Furthermore, what is ideal and what would really happen are likely and unfortunately divergent. It is easier to cut costs by cutting employees and wages (corporations in financial difficulty do this very frequently, rather than streamlining or reducing CEO wages and such) or to reduce the quality of care than to invest time, money, and effort into tweaking an existing system of operations.
Regulations and taxation directly make items more expensive and limit the capability of businesses being innovative with their resources.
You keep saying this but I fail to see where you have provided any analysis or evidence as to why this would be the case.
Your own sentences following refuted this. Despite the reasoning for funding anti-tobacco campaigns, the results are the same.
Not at all. My point was that the tobacco industry did initially invest quite heavily in pro-tobacco campaigns that targeted youth and that only after they were pressured and compelled to revise their advertisements did they do so. Absent intervention they would have persisted in targeting youth.
Even more so, advertising is an act of "free speech" which shall not be legally condemned just because of your moral qualms. Use your own ability of free speech if you disagree with something morally. To do otherwise is Fascism.
The Supreme Court has consistently held for quite some time that the freedom of speech is not absolute, and that is subject to restrictions where it infringes upon the rights and well-being of others or of society generally. Regarding my "moral fascism" I have not once advanced an argument based upon morality; I place no stock in morality and my arguments are purely based on a rational examination of the consequences of allowing youth access to tobacco, alcohol, and guns.
Better to note is that food, in the end, is essential and common. Regulating fast food is not only Fascist, it's promoting Famine. regulating tobacco does not bring about famine (directly, at least) but it is Fascist none-the-less.
That does not address my point at all, which was that the two lobbies are distinct from each other on a technical level. Food is essential, yes, but fast food is actually harmful and it is in the interest of individuals and society that nutritional options be encouraged (which the free market does not do itself).
Keep in mind, I use tyranny in accordance with Fascist. Fascism doesn't, necessarily, have to be THAT tyrannical. Only as tyrannical as the Obama administration. Tyranny, at its worse, would not reflect the acts of our recent presidents. So the level of tyranny is at a Fascist level (not Nazi, though.)
You throw around fascism and tyranny far too liberally, and it invalidates your points considerably. We currently have regulations on fast food and tobacco, and yet I think one would be hard pressed to argue that we live in a fascist or tyrannical state (indeed, try telling that to someone who actually lives a truly fascist state). Tyranny and fascism reflect arbitrary, oppressive, cruel conditions imposed by an absolute single regime; you cannot use it to describe any level of regulation or restriction.
We can thank fascist laws against underage drinking for that lack of experimentation. regulations, of course, also reduce scientific innovation.
Upon what rational or evidence do you make that assertion? There are countries with lower drinking ages that still have problems with youth alcohol abuse, and starting young is still correlated with developing drinking problems later on.
We are basically prisoners asking for permission, and often denied.
Only an American (or someone as equally privileged) could say something like that. Are you seriously comparing the U.S. to somewhere like North Korea or Myanmar? Somewhere were people are actually imprisoned and have no rights? You take your liberties far too lightly.
I do not need to refute this. This does not promote your idea of legislation barring people from making decisions for themselves. It only promotes that we spread awareness, and IMO through non-violent, non-coercive means.
Perhaps a valid point, however there is no guarantee that an educational campaign would accompany eradication of age restrictions, nor that it would be effective whereas we do know that youth drinking has negative consequences.
all this SPECULATION on POTENTIAL is what, in the end, harms us.
It is not speculated it is definitively proven, and it is not a potential harm it is a guaranteed harm (e.g. if you smoke over an extended period of time you will get sick from it; if you abuse alcohol you will get sick from it).
Next thing you know drinking two drinks a day will become MANDATORY just because of its POTENTIAL health benefits.
An alarmist sentiment and slippery-slope fallacy. There is a difference between mediating harms (restricting behavior) and forcing beneficial behavior.
but I am willing to wager that most of them concern health standards and codes which are crucial to securing patient and employee safety.
Assumption that the state is necessary to encourage safe conditions.
or to reduce the quality of care than to invest time, money, and effort into tweaking an existing system of operations.
More assumption.
Absent intervention they would have persisted in targeting youth.
And this shouldn't be allowed even if the case? I suppose the First Amendment was just a guide for tyranny. The Constitution should have been clearly defined as "Machiavellian."
I place no stock in morality and my arguments are purely based on a rational examination of the consequences of allowing youth access to tobacco, alcohol, and guns.
Once again, no evidence of said "consequences." You only give me studies on the ABILITY for youth to be impressionable. Shucks, mister.
No evidence, however, saying that removal of liberty restricting laws would result in worse off people. You are, once again, making arguments based on morality. That because alcohol and tobacco can be detrimental to one's health if abused, the government MUST make it their role to ruin the lives of those who sell to minors, or ruin the lives of minors whom attempt to buy these products.
but fast food is actually harmful and it is in the interest of individuals and society that nutritional options be encouraged (which the free market does not do itself).
The Free Market is the act of the people without a gun to their head. Believe it or not, plenty of people encourage good eating habits without a gun to their head.
and yet I think one would be hard pressed to argue that we live in a fascist or tyrannical state (indeed, try telling that to someone who actually lives a truly fascist state)
You mean a MORE Fascist state.
Reminds me of old people saying "you think Patriarchy is tough these days, back in my day women couldn't vote." All as an excuse to suggest that Patriarchy is nothing to sweat about, cause hey, women can vote now.
Are you seriously comparing the U.S. to somewhere like North Korea or Myanmar? Somewhere were people are actually imprisoned and have no rights? You take your liberties far too lightly.
Another good example:
One man gets his hand smashed with a hammer once a week. Another man gets both hands AND his feet smashed with a hammer every week. The first man complains, but the other man says "but hey, look at me," which makes the man grateful to only get one hand smashed every week.
Perhaps a valid point, however there is no guarantee that an educational campaign would accompany eradication of age restrictions
Doesn't excuse tyranny.
I'm objecting to the act of rape while humoring what a man could do BESIDES rape once rape is abolished. I don't HAVE to provide any alternatives, just point out that the act of rape is bad anyway. So what if you can't get laid? Rape is force; not getting laid is just a consequence of cooperative freedom.
nor that it would be effective whereas we do know that youth drinking has negative consequences.
Youth drinking has consequences that some believe are negative. HOWEVER, legalizing youth drinking doesn't have what you could objectively claim is negative. But now I just feel like a Punk. To think, bringing about Punk arguments, but I guess this is what we've come to.
It is not speculated it is definitively proven, and it is not a potential harm it is a guaranteed harm
Not via elimination of regulations, and no, not a guaranteed harm. That is up to the individual.
There is a difference between mediating harms (restricting behavior) and forcing beneficial behavior.
I think "don't work very well at all" may be going a little far. I did all these things when I was young, but it was not "easy". These restrictions and decent parenting do cut down on kids using these things.
Sure, but not all of them will. It takes a really bad seed to steal alcohol or a gun. It takes a relatively normal kid for them to go, 'eh, why not?' when all those things could be legally obtained at their age.
There are always some people willing to break the law, but what about the vast numbers of people who would have incentive to do stupid, dangerous, or immoral things if the laws weren't in place?
At a certain point the age restrictions are arguably quite valid. I think that there is a legitimate public concern in limiting or moderating youth access to addictive substances like tobacco and alcohol, particularly so long as those industries continue to have a vested interest in targeting youth for sales. The case for firearms is considerably more clear for me in my opinion as there really is no practical reason that a child should need to own a firearm.
I absolutely understand your point regarding firearms. However, alcohol and tobacco? Kids will still find ways to drink and smoke regardless of age restrictions.
I agree that some youth will still find ways to acquire substances, and some may even be drawn to alcohol and tobacco due to the restrictions in the name of rebellion. However, it is also true that adults will find ways around laws that control various substances yet we still have and arguably value those laws. I think that prevention is only one facet of placing restrictions upon tobacco and alcohol, and that other benefits can result. For instance, it facilitates restrictions upon the tobacco and alcohol industries' marketing to youth. It also could be used to open up avenues of treatment for youth who develop dependencies or addictions to harmful substances (although I do not think that this has been effectively done). It is also a social statement, and while the impact of that is rather ambiguous I think it has to be considered.
All or nothing positions are still silly no matter how you intelligently articulate them.
People should be free enough to give themselves incentive to do responsible things without fear of the law, but law should be strong enough that people who don't give themselves incentive will have further incentive from outside their own judgement.
When it comes down to age restrictions for the things you listed, it makes plenty of valid sense to have age requirements, because children, teenagers, and even young adults are still developing a sense of reality and understanding of their environments and existences. Allowing them to possess certain things may cause them to grow up with less incentive to be responsible and safe with themselves.
Smoking and drinking alcohol is eons worse then simply eating candy or fast food. Cancer and liver disease are eons worse then mild obesity. And one of the biggest reasons we don't see people dying from liver disease and tobacco-related cancers as often as we see people die from heart disease is because tobacco products and alcohol are so incredibly fucking dangerous that natural education of their dangers combined with legislative inhibitors give people a fairly good amount of incentive to not irresponsibly deal in those products.
Children already spend a huge amount of time learning about what to and to not incentivize when they're growing up then is safe. Letting them suddenly be a legally targeted audience by tobacco companies would be disastrous to their health. The same is true with alcohol. Children are already legally allowed to drink alcohol as long as they have consent from their guardian. If they could drink alcohol without any limitation, it would easily be disastrous to their health, especially considering that alcoholic beverages can be made to taste good to suit a sweet tooth, or a weakling who can't handle bitter pure-alcohol taste, like me.
So, to answer your ultimate questions, yes, parenting is not enough to guarantee children will incentivize being responsible with alcohol and cigarettes. Hell, man, these things are illegal for children and they already still deal in them, illegally. Obviously, the incentive from parenting AND the government even NOW isn't enough to prevent them from harming themselves.
And you think things wouldn't be even worse if all this shit suddenly wasn't legally limited? Are you nuts?
but law should be strong enough that people who don't give themselves incentive will have further incentive from outside their own judgement.
What makes you believe incentive to make "healthy choices" outside of voluntarism is necessary?
A law making it illegal for you to buy something isn't incentive. It's coercion.
because children, teenagers, and even young adults are still developing a sense of reality and understanding of their environments and existences.
We're always developing a sense of reality and understanding of environments and existences. Reality development doesn't stop till you die. Now, if you mean actual neural development, yes. That development doesn't stop until you're about 25.
Allowing them to possess certain things may cause them to grow up with less incentive to be responsible and safe with themselves.
All of these things could actually be better for them if used liberally than if used conservatively. You certainly can't be the judge of this and neither should government.
Smoking and drinking alcohol is eons worse then simply eating candy or fast food.
2-4 alcoholic beverages a day (beer, wine, or liquor) is correlated with better health, lower cancer rates, lower dementia rates, lower diabetes rates, etc.
Cigarettes are known to help with many digestive issues. And now with electronic cigarettes, we've found ways to keep nicotine but eliminate tobacco all together. Maybe the age restrictions will adapt, but I doubt it. Government, and you, still feel that you know more about our individual best interests than themselves. the band Suicidal Tendencies made a song for people like you.
Letting them suddenly be a legally targeted audience by tobacco companies would be disastrous to their health.
Prove it.
Better yet. No need. You are saying that choice is dangerous. You aren't saying that tobacco is dangerous. You are saying that giving someone the ability to choose FOR THEMSELVES is dangerous. Statist logic.
but still, would be nice if you proved that our children are in danger if we eliminate laws barring them from buying things...
Children are already legally allowed to drink alcohol as long as they have consent from their guardian.
Not in my state.
If they could drink alcohol without any limitation
There are always limitations. Many stores simply don't sell things without age verification, even if they don't need any. Parents ARE a factor.
And what makes this right is because it is not coercive and violent like government legislation. People's lives aren't ruined and we are still allowed to enjoy ourselves without the fear of government saying "FOR YOUR PROTECTION, NOW BEND OVER"
Hell, man, these things are illegal for children and they already still deal in them, illegally.
Ah, so your answer is MOAR LAWS AND MONEY SPENT ON ENFORCING THEM. got it.
And you think things wouldn't be even worse if all this shit suddenly wasn't legally limited? Are you nuts?
You are in fear, I get it. You fear that human beings can't make decisions for themselves. They need a mast-ah to make the decisions for them. and yeah, a Shepard may break the leg of a lamb, but it's only so he wouldn't wander.
What makes you believe incentive to make "healthy choices" outside of voluntarism is necessary?
Because prosperity and freedom makes our civilians inherently vulnerable to unwise choices. Why do you find it unnecessary? We don't want people to make a single choice that ruins their lives, do you?
A law making it illegal for you to buy something isn't incentive. It's coercion.
As long as you aren't psychologically abusing a child, there's nothing wrong with coercing a child into not doing stupid shit as a last resort. And considering children are ignorant of their environments and greatly depend upon their parents for context, the law is a last resort.
Now, if you mean actual neural development, yes.
That's what I meant. Good to see you're not intentionally complicating this.
All of these things could actually be better for them if used liberally than if used conservatively.
I am going to assume you mean 'used responsibly rather then if used irresponsibly', because I don't otherwise understand the context of your use of liberal and conservative in this.
With that said, there is nothing healthy about tobacco products. I'd like to see evidence that there's any such thing as a tobacco product being healthy in any amount for any significant group of people.
Though I could agree with you on the use of alcohol, as it could strengthen your body if consumed very sparingly, but the only way to ensure this is what would happen with children without damaging them would be if there was a regulation on it, which you could construe as a restriction, which means it's not an all-or-nothing solution.
As for guns, I'm not certain over whether or not there should be a restriction on whether or not children can purchase firearms, mostly because children don't usually have any money... so how is them not being allowed to buy them an issue anyway when they don't have money? Perhaps such a restriction doesn't necessarily do anything, but whether it's there or not is a non-issue. So the way I see it, there's no reason to get rid of such a restriction because it's just local governments playing it safe, and it's not harming anything by being in place since children don't go out of their way to buy guns in the first place.
2-4 alcoholic beverages a day (beer, wine, or liquor) is correlated with better health, lower cancer rates, lower dementia rates, lower diabetes rates, etc.
In some people, and not necessarily children. Their smaller bodies would handle the alcohol differently. And, since the chances of it being an unethical study are probably high, I doubt there are many legitimate studies upon the long-term effects of alcohol on children. I could be wrong, however. I would not mind a link if you have the desire to look one up, but I won't ask for you to find something on my behalf.
Though really, this whole thing about moderation you're spewing is a contradiction to your idea of there being absolute freedom. If all the restrictions are lifted, what makes you automatically assume that the majority of children will drink alcohol responsibly? Because their parents will moderate all their consumption? What about gullible parents, mischievous children, or negligent parents? What about accidents due to being uneducated?
There are so many dangerous holes in the idea of absolute freedom that it just further reinforces the ridiculousness of all-or-nothing positions like this.
Cigarettes are known to help with many digestive issues.
There are plenty of things to help with digestion that don't near-perfectly guarantee addiction and severe long-term health issues.
You know... like Raisin Bran cereal. Or... any food with fiber that isn't a cigarette...
And now with electronic cigarettes, we've found ways to keep nicotine but eliminate tobacco all together. Maybe the age restrictions will adapt, but I doubt it.
If electronic cigarettes end up dominating the market, I suspect the age restrictions will be changed so that they do not apply to electric cigs. The only slowness in change I suspect would be dependent upon the process involved with acquiring scientific results on the long-term effects up pure nicotine on children. Nicotine by itself in very small doses isn't largely dangerous, to my knowledge, but you never know what will happen to a child when they are exposed to a drug. For all the fuck we know (or I know, I haven't seen a child study with nicotine, if they exist), pure nicotine is one of the worst things you could possibly give to a child. But maybe it's not. Either way, we should make sure.
Government, and you, still feel that you know more about our individual best interests than themselves.
And instead of working with the government, you resist them, when it's in their best interest to keep you healthy and safe? What? Instead of screaming that you're being damaged and that the government is evil, why don't you try and assist the government in helping more people, more efficiently?
That would be a much larger contribution then taking these all-or-nothing bullshit stances.
All state and no freedom is stupid. All freedom and no state is just as stupid. This is my stance which I keep reiterating to you, as well as others, and yet you, as well as others, keep assuming I believe in totalitarianism or some retarded thing. At least, that's the impression I get. I'm sort of a potato.
Prove it.
If there are absolutely no laws and restrictions involving them, it would be disastrous. I can't see into the future, but I can see it now on basis of logical presumption. Companies would target children in adds, create subsets of product to attract children, and significantly lie and cheat all they could to make sure that children start drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes.
Parents would need to adapt very quickly, possibly at the sacrifice to their sanity, to prevent their children from being significantly damaged. How many innocent people are you willing to risk just to have valueless freedoms that allow children to damage themselves and require parents to work harder then how monumentally hard they already work?
You are saying that choice is dangerous. You aren't saying that tobacco is dangerous. You are saying that giving someone the ability to choose FOR THEMSELVES is dangerous. Statist logic.
Now now, you are mixing terms as you go through these sentences that aren't the same thing.
Yes, some choices are dangerous.
No, the ability to choose is not dangerous.
See the difference? Just because I think people shouldn't be allowed to hurt themselves or each other doesn't mean I suddenly want them to be unable to have the ability to choose anything. Those are two separate intentions which are not necessarily connected.
And since you seem to believe so devoutly in individualism, surely you can trust me when I say that? I mean really, come on now. I trust people, but not to the point I will assume they always know to not harm themselves. You trust people, but not the point of them telling you they think structure and control and law is a good idea for preventing people from hurting themselves and each other?
Waaait... huh?
but still, would be nice if you proved that our children are in danger if we eliminate laws barring them from buying things...
Well, just as I spoke about what you said about guns, I suppose that could be the same truth with alcohol and cigarettes. They may not have the money to buy such things, so eliminating the laws may mean absolutely nothing.
But, as I also pointed out with what I said about guns, if it's a non-issue due to children not carrying around any personal funds, what's so wrong with the restriction? If it's not harming anything by existing or not existing, then why not just keep to as to be better safe than sorry?
Furthermore, since you spoke of ALL age restrictions, and not just restrictions from children under 15, well, that's a whole 'nother story. Teenagers can get jobs and make money. Teenagers have more independence then younger children, so an elimination of restrictions that effect teenagers is far more complex then eliminating restrictions that only effect children. But I won't get into that unless you have a direct point addressing it.
Not in my state.
I hope your state acquires such a law. Or, uh, lightens the current law so it's more akin to that one.
There are always limitations
I know. Allow me to clarify what I meant: Limitations outside of personal and locally social incentive.
And what makes this right is because it is not coercive and violent like government legislation
If you need to be intimidated or forced into being told to not harm yourself, others, and/or the future of you and others, then there is something wrong with you and you deserve to be intimidated and forced.
This isn't to say it should be done if it's an assumption that you intend to harm yourself, others, and/or the future of you and others, but when it comes down to helping people and being moral, I, personally, would only work with it based upon facts. Government isn't perfect, because people are not perfect, but the general intention inevitably is to help people, because their power is dependent upon our well being.
People's lives aren't ruined and we are still allowed to enjoy ourselves without the fear of government saying "FOR YOUR PROTECTION, NOW BEND OVER"
People's lives are largely ruined due to their own mistakes. Creating an environment where our mistakes do not obliterate our lives, but still teach us a lesson about living, is quintessential to having a healthy, happy civilian population.
And while government has made mistakes trying to reach such a system for time and time again doesn't mean they should suddenly neglect trying to get to that perfect point, as you are suggesting. The mathematically best amount of order mixed with mathematically the best amount of freedom. That's about the closest we could possibly get to a utopia while we are still homo sapiens.
Absolute statism and anarchism are completely contrary to achieving this, because while what I describe is a hybrid compromise taking the best of both worlds into one system, absolute statism and what you suggest are all-or-nothing, which have all the benefits and all the faults of that one system and doesn't try and eliminate the faults of that system... which is so incredibly stupid I practically take offense to it.
Ah, so your answer is MOAR LAWS AND MONEY SPENT ON ENFORCING THEM. got it.
Not at all. My answer is better laws, not more thoughtlessly shitty laws.
You are in fear, I get it. You fear that human beings can't make decisions for themselves.
No, I fear humans beings making mistakes they cannot learn from before said mistake destroys their entire livelihood, which is what addiction to cigarettes and alcoholism does to people. And for it to happen to children? Pah!
The idea of it happening to a single child is unacceptable.
You can tell me I'm evil and want power and hate others all you want, but ultimately, I believe everything I do and will because I care about others.
They need a mast-ah to make the decisions for them. and yeah, a Shepard may break the leg of a lamb, but it's only so he wouldn't wander.
People don't need masters to control everything they do and will do. They need a guardian. A protector.
Why be so nasty as to insinuate I'm evil? Is it just because you are as narrow-minded as a Nazi and cannot associate people disagreeing with you with being at all good?
How could you possibly become such a hateful person? I think you're misguided at this point, but hardly evil. Why place that assumption onto me?
Also, your analogy has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, unless you're completely stupid. Taking away from you the freedom to damage yourself is like taking nothing away from you at all, because why the fuck would you want to damage yourself unless you are misinformed or insane? There is no reason, that's why. But people do it all the time anyways because they are misinformed, or like you, principled in exactly the wrong way and would harm yourself just to prove a meaningless point.
You say I break the leg of the lamb. You suggest that, instead of torturing the lamb, I should let it wander off and get killed by wild beasts. What makes your suggestion most invalid isn't the fact that it allows the lamb to come to harm, but that you fail you realize that I never broke the leg of the lamb in the first place.
Because prosperity and freedom makes our civilians inherently vulnerable to unwise choices.
And your answer is "coercion to the rescue?"
We don't want people to make a single choice that ruins their lives, do you?
All talk. Smoking at a young age isn't "a single choice that ruins their lives."
Smoking addiction doesn't even become a problem unless you're smoking past the age of 30.
Hardly the point, though. My point is the ability to choose for yourself, regardless of the danger. Your Statist logic put Jack Kevorkian in prison.
As long as you aren't psychologically abusing a child, there's nothing wrong with coercing a child into not doing stupid shit as a last resort.
Hegemony is psychologically abusive. And it is a problem when your subjective "stupid shit" gives you due cause to tell Americans what they can and can't do with their own bodies. Anal sex is dangerous, I suppose you support the sodomy laws that include anal sex? Or why not make it illegal for minors to have sex without a contraceptives. or better yet, just have sex in general.
Good ol' statist logic.
With that said, there is nothing healthy about tobacco products. I'd like to see evidence that there's any such thing as a tobacco product being healthy in any amount for any significant group of people
Once again, hardly the point. the point that legislation aimed at protecting us from ourselves is already retarded. The government is not smarter than the individual. The government is separate from the individual and does not know what makes the individual happy or healthy. it only knows what ever random bullshit a lobbyist presents to them. To pass legislation on special interest is not only sick, it's unconstitutional. (of course, technically states are constitutionally allowed to create age restrictions, so that amount of legality, not that i agree with it.)
Though I could agree with you on the use of alcohol, as it could strengthen your body if consumed very sparingly, but the only way to ensure this is what would happen with children without damaging them would be if there was a regulation on it, which you could construe as a restriction, which means it's not an all-or-nothing solution.
No, leave it up to the individual. Some people enjoy drinking heavily, and if they suffer from the consequences that is their life. You're acting like we should all either live the same lives or we should be threatened with the removal of property or even freedom (like going to prison for drug use) just for OUR PROTECTION (V for Vendetta had something about that). I suppose kids being forced to major only in subjects that will get them a job isn't evil or tyrannical since you know what's best for the students and not them. After all, choosing a major that doesn't get you a job HAS THE NUMBERS to show that I may be ruining my life by picking a Liberal Arts degree (not that I am, but my major still has low job turnout).
so how is them not being allowed to buy them an issue anyway when they don't have money?
Because if they DO wish to purchase a gun and the merchant is willing, the voluntary, non-coercive exchange should occur. you do not know what's best for them.
Though really, this whole thing about moderation you're spewing is a contradiction to your idea of there being absolute freedom.
Self-regulation, and once again, if they wish to drink excessively it's their choice.
Once again, anal sex is dangerous, gay sex without a condom is dangerous, gay sex with a black man without a condom is EXTREMELY dangerous, yet we do not pass laws against these things because we know how "ridiculous" it is to regulate self behavior. not everyone wants to live your mainstream, family valued filled life. some people wish to enjoy whatever they have. Some, like me, are fuckin' poor and don't have the luxury of belief in some kind of deity or spiritual meaning. some people are hopeless emotionally, and the last thing they need is government telling them what to do.
Luckily, I'm legal enough to do whatever I want. But really, you're acting, once again, like removing coercive laws is somehow bad for these people... yet have provided no evidence for this 8l
this we will get more into, because it's basically your entire argument. That removal of laws will create some epidemic of children making "bad choices." What kind of arrogance is this? That YOU know what is and isn't a good or bad choice.
If electronic cigarettes end up dominating the market, I suspect the age restrictions will be changed so that they do not apply to electric cigs.
So you're just hoping for tyranny to let up a bit in hopes that e-cigs will dominate the market?
Why not ask for tyranny to end now? What are you afraid of?
when it's in their best interest to keep you healthy and safe?
Assumption. I have seen little to no legislation written in favor of my or any of my peers' interests.
And instead of working with the government, you resist them
I resist unjust and immoral laws, like Dr. Martin Luther King and Gandhi. One who submits to a tyrant is a slave.
But even so, I'd gladly work with government to remove any laws limiting personal freedoms.
If there are absolutely no laws and restrictions involving them, it would be disastrous.
Prove it.
I can't see into the future, but I can see it now on basis of logical presumption.
Please explain how.
Companies would target children in adds, create subsets of product to attract children,
Freedom of speech. And so? Are you saying that... you know more about what's best for children than the parents? ...
...
arrogance.
significantly lie and cheat all they could to make sure that children start drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes.
Prove it.
Really, if you wish to give government more power, you're going to have to do better than just fear and paranoia.
Parents would need to adapt very quickly, possibly at the sacrifice to their sanity, to prevent their children from being significantly damaged.
Fear and paranoia. No reason to believe that children would become significantly damaged.
How many innocent people are you willing to risk just to have valueless freedoms that allow children to damage themselves and require parents to work harder then how monumentally hard they already work?
What innocent people are being risked?
Did you know, that um, when people aren't aloud to choose for themselves, their innocence is being risked, so ha! it is in fact YOU who is willing to risk innocent people, not me.
Now, please, spin this one with more of your rhetoric instead of providing... evidence, or something in favor of your coercive and violent laws.
Yes, some choices are dangerous.
No, the ability to choose is not dangerous.
Hey, exactly what I believe. so let the people choose. Some will make bad decisions, some won't. As a human society, we live and we learn, and we make personal decisions reflecting the world that we live in, and not the laws that are in place. No coercion, no fear of going to jail or having your property removed. if you have faith in your politicians and lobbyists who write the laws, I'm sure you could have faith instead in the people who these laws are meant to "protect."
Just because I think people shouldn't be allowed to hurt themselves or each other doesn't mean I suddenly want them to be unable to have the ability to choose anything
Just anything you and the lobbyists happen to hate at the moment.
like ANAL ANAL ANAL SEX!
I trust people, but not to the point I will assume they always know to not harm themselves. You trust people, but not the point of them telling you they think structure and control and law is a good idea for preventing people from hurting themselves and each other?
I believe that people shall make decisions for themselves. You support laws that are forcing EVERYONE to live by the same, conforming values. since you equated me to Hitler, I will point out that your belief system is far closer to Hitler than mine... since you support telling people what to do with their own bodies. FOR THEIR PROTECTION.
what's so wrong with the restriction
coercion coercion coercion
violence violence violence
removal of freedom, life, and/or property
that's why.
If it's not harming anything by existing or not existing, then why not just keep to as to be better safe than sorry?
So that people who do wish to engage in activities that you don't approve have won't have to worry that people like you exist. They can still do what they wish, and the people can freely trade among each other without the fear of the government taking away their business, their freedom, or their property.
then there is something wrong with you and you deserve to be intimidated and forced.
how funny. for the longest time they said the same thing about gay sex. As a person who is close with a few gay people, i personally take offense to that statement.
Government isn't perfect, because people are not perfect, but the general intention inevitably is to help people
And that's cute, but that doesn't make what it does right or in anyway productive. People aren't perfect, but as long as they're not attacking or stealing from other people, they're fine. When government passes these types of laws, they are attacking and stealing from people... so that's why i find it wrong.
People's lives are largely ruined due to their own mistakes.
yeah, like choosing to drive on the highway. Still... no laws against driving on the highway.
Or gay anal sex with black men...
Keep in mind, i'm the person who believes that all drugs should be legal. But my stance comes from the very fact that you have no real reason to show that restrictions are beneficial... they are limiting freedom for the sake of limiting freedom. You THINK it's right... hell, your hegemony from your corporate lobbyists will spout it over and over again, but that doesn't make it right. Taking away liberty isn't okay just because you think it is.
but still teach us a lesson about living
I suppose you know all of these teachers who know better than everyone else?
The mathematically best amount of order mixed with mathematically the best amount of freedom. That's about the closest we could possibly get to a utopia while we are still homo sapiens.
What math are you basing this on?
Absolute statism and anarchism are completely contrary to achieving this
We aren't arguing Statism vs. Anarchism. We're arguing the Statist mentality to remove personal freedom. You can achieve personal freedom without eliminating government. Like laws against murder. If you murder someone, you go to jail. simple enough. You are protecting someone from someone else.
Laws against drugs, however... it's government saying "well, you go to jail because drugs are bad for you... and jail is good for you." Or better yet "you go to jail because you allowed for someone to do something to themselves" like Jack Kevorkian. A man that is a victim to Statist logic.
My answer is better laws, not more thoughtlessly shitty laws.
And I'm sure that eventually, after so many have died and have not been allowed to live in this perfect world of perfect laws that you dream of, our government will be able to FINALLY write the laws that provide the perfect amount of guidance. Never will the artist feel that he is missing out on creativity by not being allowed to take drugs, never will the lonely, unattractive men of the world feel they're missing out on getting laid because of prostitution laws. Ah yes, like you, I dream of this future where laws are perfect.
Until then, however, I'd like for no laws to restrict personal freedom. or, at least, as little as possible.
which is what addiction to cigarettes and alcoholism does to people
And I'm sure you know ALL the people suffering from addiction and know HOW ALL OF THEM will never be the same. You know, without a doubt, that no one addicted to cigs or alcohol are living decent lives. You know that it is JUSTIFIED to limit our freedoms just because you fear that human beings are just too stupid and careless to make decisions for themselves. The lobbyists and politicians and YOU know more than me or my family.
I believe everything I do and will because I care about others.
Cute. Still doesn't justify making laws against their personal choice.
Back to the gay thing, my cousin's mother would tell her that she's begging for her to go to those "pray the gay away" camps because she "loves her." And hell, it's true, she does love her and does want what's best for her.
It does not make it right to FORCE her to do something against her own will.
They need a guardian. A protector.*
Who, to you, tells them what they can and can't do, OR ELSE SUFFER THEIR WRATH.
Like God when he sends you to hell to suffer for you sins. It's because he loves you.
(I had to split my reply into two parts. This is the first half of it)
And your answer is "coercion to the rescue?"
Provided that you haven't already coerced yourself, why not?
And your answer is, let them run around with no incentive other then their own?
Hardly the point, though. My point is the ability to choose for yourself, regardless of the danger. Your Statist logic put Jack Kevorkian in prison.
You presume yet again that I take a one-sided position, like you do.
There is a difference between allowing someone to get away with driving drunk and allowing an inscrutably suffering person to end their lives. The first one is obviously a stupid as hell freedom to give someone, while the second is merciful and should be allowed.
So many presumptions, so many! It's almost not fun replying to you because of all these presumptions you make and all the leaps you take.
Hegemony is psychologically abusive.
I never advocated hegemony. You like making stuff up in your head about me, don't you? Do you presume this often when debating with other people?
And it is a problem when your subjective "stupid shit" gives you due cause to tell Americans what they can and can't do with their own bodies.
I'm American. I find it odd that you wrote this sentence in such a way as to imply that you don't think I'm American.
Furthermore you can do whatever you want with you body, there should just be laws that give you incentive to not to things to your body that harms you. Like how there are laws regarding being drunk in public or while driving.
Anal sex is dangerous, I suppose you support the sodomy laws that include anal sex?
Sex strengthens bonds between couples. Education on what consequences and benefits can result from sex acts is the only thing needed to give people incentive to make responsible sexual choices. For the most part, anyway, because I can't really imagine it being helpful to try and regulate sex down to specific terminology.
But then again, if you pass an STD onto someone, you should be fined. How that would be managed... I'm not sure though, because it's a really messy, private thing. So other then it as an idea, it's not really something to pursue by someone like me who doesn't know how they could possibly enforce it.
Good ol' statist logic.
You're the only one that's been using it this whole time as you imagined things that had nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Why am I not surprised you complimented it?
the point that legislation aimed at protecting us from ourselves is already retarded. The government is not smarter than the individual.
Not really. Regulations on alcohol are pretty good, I'd say. People get drunk in bars, and have their drunkenness be dealt with only in bars. Otherwise, ticket/fine/prison. You can freely drink alcohol, as long as you don't wander off somewhere that you could hurt someone.
The government is made of individuals. Why are they not exactly as smart as the individual, on average? Again with this dichotomy between government and civilians... it's getting old. But I've already explained why that's silly, so, moving on.
The government is separate from the individual and does not know what makes the individual happy or healthy.
I agree, which is why they should focus on issues that are extremely generic to the point that legislation focused on them would help more people then it would harm.
Such as, issues that are all about direct harms and dangers which are obvious, like murder, rape, drunk driving, hate crimes, etc.
it only knows what ever random bullshit a lobbyist presents to them.
Then the problem is obviously the lobbyist.
Though, you're also wrong. People in government are human beings like you or I. Therefore, it's not totally bizarre for them to make decisions based upon their own perceptions as human beings, because they aren't special. On the other hand, too many of them are rich white men, which limits their perspectives to that experience as a person, but since this is the case, you can only really get mad when these rich white men make decisions on issues they have absolutely no context over. That's when it stops being basic human flaw and/or disagreement and becomes unacceptable stupidity and/or arrogance.
To pass legislation on special interest is not only sick, it's unconstitutional.
You and I don't decide what's Constitutional or not. Judicial review does.
No, leave it up to the individual. Some people enjoy drinking heavily, and if they suffer from the consequences that is their life.
What if I don't want that person to ruin their life, skipper? What if I don't want them to ruin other people's lives?
Alcohol shouldn't be outright prohibited because people will always enjoy drinking it, and all Prohibition did was cause the creation of the North American mafia. A blanket ban is not a solution, as it's obvious that it harms people. But alcohol regulations that penalize you for doing the wrong things when under it's influence doesn't harm anyone. In fact, it prevents a lot of suffering, which Prohibition utterly failed to do.
You're acting like we should all either live the same lives or we should be threatened with the removal of property or even freedom
If you wander out while drunk, thereby possibly hurting or killing someone, you deserve to be fined (property) and possibly jailed (freedom), the severity of the punishment being based upon how much damage you did, the minimum being a fine for being irresponsible, as well as an escort home somewhere you aren't a risk.
It's not about living the same life. It's about not harming others or causing suffering. If your lifestyle has to deviate from the norm in such a way that it causes you to harm someone, well, tough shit son, you should be punished for harming that someone. And if your actions directly correlated with you harming that person, that action should be regulated, provided it's a common enough action for it to matter and not just be a freak accident.
just for OUR PROTECTION
Yup. Alcohol regulations aren't meant, inevitably, to stop you from getting drunk in a bar, yourself. Alcohol regulations are meant to stop another person from getting drunk, going out to their car, and killing you, plus another dozen people.
I suppose kids being forced to major only in subjects that will get them a job isn't evil or tyrannical since you know what's best for the students and not them.
Your imagination over my opinion is quite charming. Though to a degree, children are already forced by our corporate society to become educated in meager jobs due to the fact that only luck helps you acquire your dreams, thus indicating that they can't really pursue something that makes them happy because the chances of them getting lucky enough to succeed is slim to none.
I didn't do that. Your 'freedom' did that. And I hate nothing more then children and other youths having to suffer on the whims of someone else.
After all, choosing a major that doesn't get you a job HAS THE NUMBERS to show that I may be ruining my life by picking a Liberal Arts degree
If you think doing something you love is worth the possibility that you will become homeless, I think it's within your capability to understand the situation.
However, if you have a child to care for, and you'd rather take the risk of doing something you enjoy at the risk of not having a stable job to support the child... and the child is harmed because of this... then you should be punished by the law.
Which you would be, given the circumstances of how those real-world laws work.
Because if they DO wish to purchase a gun and the merchant is willing, the voluntary, non-coercive exchange should occur. you do not know what's best for them.
Not directly, no. But, I don't really care. I don't know what it's like to be in a murderers shoes, but I will still quickly outlaw murder and never support capital punishment. Using the argument 'you don't know what's best for them' is thus, silly. We are all human. We all experience pain and we can all be damaged or harmed similarly to other humans. Therefore, I can make an educated guess on what harms people and what helps people, and I will never make a decision that risks having the former happen over the latter.
I was a child once; I am not special. Why would a child need to purchase a firearm? Unless their parent is standing right next to them and hands them the money to buy the weapon, thus making it not even technically a voluntary exchange between just the child and just the seller, then what point is there in the child doing that? It seems fishy to me, while unlikely to ever happen.
Are you truly willing to simply be principled to the point of allowing a child this freedom when the entire situation is barely applicable unless something strange is happening? You're willing to bet principle over the risk of lives? Are you?
Considering a child has no need to buy a weapon, when a responsible parent could simply buy the weapon for them, and that children do not usually have any money to buy things on their own, making this restriction almost never applicable and probably never inconvenient for anybody with good intentions, I am not willing to take that risk simply on principle. There's no reason to. My principle is to limit as much suffering as possible, and in this case, having the restriction is inconvenient to nobody with good intent.
What is the problem, other then you are stubborn and seemingly would rather risk horrible incidents happening at the expense of nothing, instead of 'breaking' your principle?
Self-regulation, and once again, if they wish to drink excessively it's their choice.
So then you really don't give two shits about drunkards driving around killing people in semi-trucks? You can talk about self-regulation all you want, but self-regulation is not enough to ensure innocent people die in smaller and smaller numbers.
And yet you have the audacity to seemingly compare me to evil, while you're sitting here thinking there should be no regulations that prevent people from killing each other? I'm not sure whether that's hypocritical or just fucking sick.
yet we do not pass laws against these things because we know how "ridiculous" it is to regulate self behavior.
No, we don't pass laws against them because sexual education, as I said before, that is accurate should give plenty of incentive to be responsible, sexually.
But there should also be regulations that gives incentive to prevent the spread of STDs, but I can't really think of how that could go about, unfortunately.
not everyone wants to live your mainstream, family valued filled life. some people wish to enjoy whatever they have.
You can fuck yourself up as long as it doesn't fuck up other people's lives.
The problem though, is that most of time, you are fucking up other people's lives when doing a lot of things. Which is why, like with alcohol, there should be regulations on things that have a high potential to destroy people's lives, whether outright and brutally, or slowly and subliminally.
Some, like me, are fuckin' poor and don't have the luxury of belief in some kind of deity or spiritual meaning
So, because you're depressed and down on luck, regulations should be abolished so you can do things potentially dangerous to people around you?
Mmmmmhmm. I think I'd rather give you entitlements so you can get up off your bad luck. That's helpful to you and less dangerous to people around you.
But really, you're acting, once again, like removing coercive laws is somehow bad for these people... yet have provided no evidence for this 8l
Keeping them in place isn't bad for people, either.
The difference is that removing them has an inherent risk.
It's a very small risk, but it's still there. And since having the restriction in place doesn't hurt anybody, it's preferable by a teensy tiny margin.
That removal of laws will create some epidemic of children making "bad choices." What kind of arrogance is this? That YOU know what is and isn't a good or bad choice.
Adults know what's better for children then children do. If children knew what is and is not a good or bad choice for them, we wouldn't nurture our children for 16 to 22 years. We would have them, and then leave them to grow up and fend for themselves.
It's not arrogance at all. I am a human being, and so is a child. What's bad for me, I can generally assume, is also bad for a child. If I drink myself into a stupor and get alcohol poisoning, it's just as bad for me then if a child did it. The only difference is that a child does not know better, and thus have as much incentive to not do that, because they are growing and learning as they take each step. It's a good idea to provide an environment for children that doesn't pamper them, but isn't so open-ended that they can stupidly ruin their lives before they even grow up.
And to top it off, to just shorten my point, I think the restrictions should be in place so that there is less risk then if the restriction was removed. Just like with my argument upon guns earlier in this reply. Having them in place hurts nobody. Taking them away may not change anything, but the remote risk of something terrible happening is still there, and I am not willing to risk people unintentionally suffering on basis of a principle, no matter how remote, ESPECIALLY if the restriction doesn't hurt anyone.
So you're just hoping for tyranny to let up a bit in hopes that e-cigs will dominate the market? Why not ask for tyranny to end now? What are you afraid of?
What are you trying to do, bust my brain? I have no idea what this reply even means! I can only assume that when you say 'tyranny' you mean the government, since you hate them. But then your second use of 'tyranny' relates to my view of tyranny? I'm confused as hell... I don't find the government tyrannical, I find corporatism tyrannical. So asking me if I want 'tyranny to end now' does not relate to your earlier use of the word tyranny, for me. Since those two sentences do not correlate, the last question makes no sense.
Waaaagh, my brain. ಠ_ಠ
Tehpgi pls, y u do dis?
Assumption. I have seen little to no legislation written in favor of my or any of my peers' interests.
Then maybe you and your peers are in the minority, on whatever legislative level you're referring to. Also, if your interests are hazardous to other people, I don't blame legislation not being geared for you.
It's not really an assumption, otherwise. It's within the best interest of the state to keep it's citizens docile, and if it's not doing what North Korea does, then it has to do it by means of making us healthy and happy, lest we rise up and create chaos, chaos which renders the power of these politicians valueless.
I resist unjust and immoral laws, like Dr. Martin Luther King and Gandhi. One who submits to a tyrant is a slave
There is nothing immoral or unjust about preventing children and teenagers from buying guns, alcohol, and tobacco.
Try again, before you compare yourself to people like that. You just reverse-Godwin'd your argument. ಠ_ಠ We shall now call this a Niwdog, the act of doing the opposite of a Godwin (comparing yourself on the internet to amazing people instead of accusing someone on the internet of being like Hitler).
Prove it.
How? By creating a micro-universe which I control that is the same as ours, except I test my point by having the United States lift these restrictions for a couple years, and so I measure the results? Huh?
The ultimate point of my entire disputation in this entire debate topic is that age restrictions on guns, tobacco, and alcohol do not hurt anyone. The slights you are speaking of are principle-based and are imagined. The slights you speak of do not inherently harm people, mostly because they only exist in your head.
How does a restriction preventing a child whom has somehow gotten hold of some cash, by himself, being able to walk into a gun store and buy a gun harm the child? Answer me that.
Please explain how.
Remind me what I was talking about, I don't want to open another window to see my previous reply. Unless you don't want to. If so that's fine.
Freedom of speech. And so? Are you saying that... you know more about what's best for children than the parents?
Influence children into wanting things that are dangerous is evil. I don't really care if it's freedom of speech, allowing it alongside a lift of the age restriction is just another thing that has the potential to hurt a lot of people, and having the restriction in place, I will reiterate yet again, does not harm anyone.
No, I don't think I know better then the parents, but parents are voters, and voters vote on politicians which maintain the restrictions. Why? Because almost no parent wants their child smoking cigarettes or being told by advertisements that smoking cigarettes is something they should be doing. So, in hindsight, I'd be doing what people want (since I've seemingly been arbitrarily thrown into the position of a politician in some of these hypothetical arguments).
Really, if you wish to give government more power, you're going to have to do better than just fear and paranoia.
I don't necessarily want the government to have more power. I want the right amount of freedom and the right amount of order that prevents the most amount of suffering when used together. Are you drunk? Because that might explain all your presumptions.
No reason to believe that children would become significantly damaged.
You mean by other then the fact that that shit is unhealthy in bad doses, and children don't know the difference between a bad dose and a dose that's not bad?
Better off safe then sorry.
What innocent people are being risked?
Children. Since they're the premise of the debate.
Did you know, that um, when people aren't aloud to choose for themselves, their innocence is being risked, so ha! it is in fact YOU who is willing to risk innocent people, not me.
I don't know how not being able to choose to harm yourself correlates with loosing your innocence. Unless you mean that legally... as in people risk doing things illegally and thus risk their 'innocence'. But that's not what I meant, and I think you know that.
Now, please, spin this one with more of your rhetoric instead of providing... evidence, or something in favor of your coercive and violent laws.
Yeah, you're drunk.
That's the only way you'd think I support violence. If you intoxicated.
Because I certainly don't think you're necessarily close-minded or an idiot.
Hey, exactly what I believe. so let the people choose. Some will make bad decisions, some won't
You should have the choice to do stupid things, but not without the presence of an environment that would prevent said stupid thing from totally destroying your life. In a totally free society with no restrictions and planned order, such an environment would not exist, and therefore suffering would vastly increase.
I'll respond to this first half now and the second half later.
I was going to just read it and respond later, but you asserted that I was okay with killing other people while you're drunk... that's not true. Murder should be illegal for it is an act against someone else. So, let's break down your "argument."
let them run around with no incentive other then their own?
And the education and support provided by our peers. But if someone wishes to be an alcoholic, it truly is their right.
There is a difference between allowing someone to get away with driving drunk and allowing an inscrutably suffering person to end their lives.
Driving drunk is only a problem if the person is impaired. Drunk driving laws do not look for impairment but a terribly flawed blood-alcohol level.
As well, it would be up to the owner of the roads as to how drunk driving laws should be enforced.
However, that is far beyond the point. If you put YOURSELF at danger, there should be no law barring it. Like being a drug addict or alcoholic, or purchasing products regardless of your age.
It's almost not fun replying to you because of all these presumptions you make and all the leaps you take.
Then don't.
I never advocated hegemony.
One does not simply advocate hegemony. You are simply a promoter of a hegemony granted unto you by the bourgeoisie.
I find it odd that you wrote this sentence in such a way as to imply that you don't think I'm American.
I presumed that you were American.
Furthermore you can do whatever you want with you body, there should just be laws that give you incentive to not to things to your body that harms you.
So what you really mean to say is "you can do whatever you want with your body so long as it doesn't harm your body." These laws, as stated plenty of times, are not "incentives," they are acts of force.
Like how there are laws regarding being drunk in public or while driving.
Once again, up to whomever own the buildings, parks, or roads. Not the government. All fixed if we merely privatized all of which you consider the "public." And what designates "public appropriate for being drunk" if there is one? Do you really mean to say that being "drunk in public" is justifiably illegal?
There's just so much about this specific subject that I find it curious that you're pushing this.
Sex strengthens bonds between couples.
Who cares?
Education on what consequences and benefits can result from sex acts is the only thing needed to give people incentive to make responsible sexual choices.
Same is easily said for drugs, alcohol, guns, tobacco, etc.
if you pass an STD onto someone, you should be fined.
Why? Two consenting adults are making that risk when they have sex.
People get drunk in bars, and have their drunkenness be dealt with only in bars.
What regulations do you propose for those who take acid and go in public? Should there be a "tripping in public" law? Or what if they huffed paint before going into public? What if they snorted an adderol? How many regulations of personal behavior do you feel would be appropriate? Or is it just alcohol and all other substance abuse results in public are fine? What if i get stoned and walk to Taco Bell as I have done a few times (in fact, i've walked drunkenly to Taco Bell, I guess you would have called for my arrest given the chance... maybe I'm just the scum of the earth you wish arrested.)
The government is made of individuals
A very small amount.
Why are they not exactly as smart as the individual, on average?
Smart enough to know what's best for individual interests?
issues that are all about direct harms and dangers which are obvious, like murder, rape, drunk driving, hate crimes, etc.
Throwing around words without even seeing what each of them are. Murder and rape are acts against other individuals. Drunk Driving should depend on whom owns the various roads. Hate crimes should punish the act, not the personal beliefs or word usage of the person committing the act.
Then the problem is obviously the lobbyist.
If only we lived in a magical world where politicians were all honest and only passed laws that they truly felt were justified. A magical world where the people's rights would not be trumpeted upon by special interests.
Or, a world where politicians could never remove an individual's personal liberties regardless of the current "issues" at hand.
What if I don't want that person to ruin their life
Tough shit. Why is it your call? Oh right, you think you know more than the individual.
What if I don't want them to ruin other people's lives?
And still we're dealing with absolute subjectivity. If someone attacks or steals from someone, it is an obvious act of force and coercion and should be dealt with accordingly. Attacks against your morality, however, is not legislatively worthy. Once again... homosexuality, miscegenation, etc.
But alcohol regulations that penalize you for doing the wrong things when under it's influence doesn't harm anyone.
Penalize the act, like spousal abuse or vehicular manslaughter.
Your 'freedom' did that. And I hate nothing more then children and other youths having to suffer on the whims of someone else.
What laws do you propose for this?
If you think doing something you love is worth the possibility that you will become homeless, I think it's within your capability to understand the situation.
but many DON'T understand? Again, what laws then?
you'd rather take the risk of doing something you enjoy at the risk of not having a stable job to support the child... and the child is harmed because of this... then you should be punished by the law.
This is getting over-drawn, but at least I'm truly understanding the level of your belief in Statism and Authority.
will still quickly outlaw murder and never support capital punishment
easy enough. murder is an act against someone else.
It seems fishy to me, while unlikely to ever happen.
... and that justifies laws...
You're willing to bet principle over the risk of lives? Are you?
As opposed to your principal, that throws more power into the hands of the government without even any evidence, let alone a cohesive reasoning.
risk horrible incidents happening at the expense of nothing, instead of 'breaking' your principle?
what horrible incidents? source, please.
So then you really don't give two shits about drunkards driving around killing people in semi-trucks?
More fallacy. I am very much against killing, for it an act against someone else.
you're sitting here thinking there should be no regulations that prevent people from killing each other?
I don't understand why you'd debate me if you don't wish to take this debate seriously. I am against killing people unless in self-defense.
that is accurate should give plenty of incentive to be responsible, sexually.
subjectively the same for alcohol, drugs, firearms, tobacco, etc.
You can fuck yourself up as long as it doesn't fuck up other people's lives.
Hey, that's exactly what I believe in and have been advocating this whole time. Glad you finally agree with me. Truce?
you are fucking up other people's lives when doing a lot of things
subjective.
Keeping them in place isn't bad for people
It is when their lives are ruined by a criminal record or loss of important property or freedom. Prisons are terrible places, ya know.
We would have them, and then leave them to grow up and fend for themselves.
Ah, so in reality your belief is that if government doesn't do something, it won't get done.
Learning more on your thought pattern. I love this, really (Psychology is my thing if you've read my many other posts.)
The only difference is that a child does not know better, and thus have as much incentive to not do that, because they are growing and learning as they take each step.
Not up for tyrants to decide. Leave it to the parents and the peers and, most importantly, the individual.
I find corporatism tyrannical.
Corporatism only exists because of government by definition.
Waaaagh, my brain
typical.
Then maybe you and your peers are in the minority
As are homosexuals, or in my specific case, bisexuals. And blacks. And... well, minorities. NO JUST CAUSE TO allow for the majority to pass laws against the liberty of the minority, whoever they may be.
It's within the best interest of the state to keep it's citizens docile
A statement based on hope.
There is nothing immoral or unjust about preventing children and teenagers from buying guns, alcohol, and tobacco.
Not allowing for the voluntary exchange between consenting parties is very immoral and unjust.
How does a restriction preventing a child whom has somehow gotten hold of some cash, by himself, being able to walk into a gun store and buy a gun harm the child?
Hardly matters. I am not the one promoting laws that force others to live a certain way, you are.
I would hope that you could at least provide a sound argument, backed with evidence, as to why we should submit to our masters on this issue, if any.
Influence children into wanting things that are dangerous is evil.
Wrestling encourages violence among peers. Football is a deadly sport. Having girls buy dolls and boys buy cowboy hats promote patriarchy. but we don't combat these "evils" (such a subjective term) by making it illegal to get kids into football or play with action figures. We educate them, and inform society about the dangers of patriarchy and rape culture.
Because almost no parent wants their child smoking cigarettes or being told by advertisements that smoking cigarettes is something they should be doing.
Good, that means they won't allow their kids to buy cigs. Isn't that what you wanted?
You mean by other then the fact that that shit is unhealthy in bad doses,
Oh, were you talking about icecream? wait, are we talking about age restrictions for icecream?
That's the only way you'd think I support violence
If you don't pay a fine, you are met by a policeman with a gun who will put you in jail. All laws that are enforced are violent, don't call me an idiot just because you can't understand this simple fact.
I suppose I'll respond to your second half because, well, I don't like leaving a debate... ever.
but still, I'd prefer for you to avoid the rhetoric of "there's no way that you believe in this because you can't be stupid." I could do the very same thing to you and that would derail the argument. Now, already, because of the negative attitudes, we are never going to agree with each other or even concede on any point.
This is now just a matter of sport, to help strengthen my own arguments for when I decide to debate on this later (i'm new to being against age restriction laws, i would have agreed with you about a year ago, probably even less.) However, if you continue to use that slanderous and insulting rhetoric, I will merely stoop down to your level and what we'll merely have is a shout fest. I haven't insulted someone in a debate in a while... a long while, and I'm a bit rusty, but I wouldn't mind to oil my gears if you keep pushing it.
No coercion, no fear of going to jail or having your property removed.
You should fear those things, though, so you don't hurt yourself or other people. That's why the law is there. To give you just fear where you make the mistake of having none.
Laws are only have ambiguous morality unless they restrict something that is helpful for people. Getting drunk does not help you, or anyone around you. So making it illegal to do certain things while under the influence of stone cold hard DRUNK protects people, and doesn't harm you.
And if you need to do wild and dangerous things to enjoy life, you should be psychologically treated by a doctor, because you are depressed or suffering from SOMETHING that needs to be rectified... and drinking yourself to death is not an adequate way to rectify your suffering. Because, you know, people care about you and shit.
if you have faith in your politicians and lobbyists who write the laws, I'm sure you could have faith instead in the people who these laws are meant to "protect."
I have NO faith in lobbyists. You must be drunk if you think I have a single care or good opinion about lobbyists, or the rich and greedy in general.
I don't have faith in politicians to be perfect. I trust they will make mistakes that are human mistakes, but will overall have predictable behavior, including trying to craft legislation that they think helps people... because if they craft legislation that hurts people, chaos will ensue and their power will mean nothing. Or they'll be voted out of office.
And I do have faith in people outside the government. I just am not willing to risk their lives and well-being upon the principle you describe. You can argue that I shouldn't determine what is best for them, but that's why they should just tell me what they think is best for them... then I will tell them they are wrong.
As someone empathetic, I am concerned with making certain that people are not suffering, even if it means telling people they don't know how to make themselves not suffer.
Using YOUR kind of logic, people shouldn't try and prevent others from committing suicide when there is PLENTY of hope to recover from past events. Like when a teenager in a middle class home is stricken with such huge depression that they want to choose to kill themselves... you think the parents should just let it happen?
Well... no, you probably don't. I'd be surprised if you did. But it's the same concept. Just because I haven't been in another person's shoes doesn't mean I don't generally know how to help them. This is what we have therapists and other mind-doctors for. To tell people that they are stupid and don't know how to be happy.
Just anything you and the lobbyists happen to hate at the moment.
You're sort of right.
I hate people suffering... so I refuse to let them suffer.
They can choose to, but not before I create an environment that gives them large incentive to choose to not suffer.
Also, grouping me in the lobbyists...? Are you trying to make me cease coherent thought and just be pissed off at you? Waaaaaaaaaagh ಠ_ಠ
I believe that people shall make decisions for themselves. You support laws that are forcing EVERYONE to live by the same, conforming values.
Not really. There should be a 50/50 split between freedom and law. People can be free, just not free to harm each other. People don't need to be able to harm one another to be free. I've reiterated this too many times then I can remember, and you still think I support a complete and total statehood where freedom does not exist?
Are you sure you're not drunk? Because you're debating like a presumptuous drunk... you know, like that guy in the bar who keeps calling you Johnny when he doesn't even know your name, and you try and tell him what your name really is, but he don't listen and just keeps assuming that your name is Johnny. ಠ_ಠ
since you equated me to Hitler, I will point out that your belief system is far closer to Hitler than mine... since you support telling people what to do with their own bodies. FOR THEIR PROTECTION.
I equated you to Hitler? I don't remember... but you're talking drunk, so maybe I didn't and you just think I did. I'm not sure, because even if you're drunk, I'm a vegetable.
Hitler was a totalitarian. I believe in nothing of the sort. Between Hitler, and you, I am in directly in between. And in that regard... yes, I am closer to believing in totalitarianism then you are, but only really because in this case, we are imaging a linear scale of some kind, and on it, you are opposite of Hitler because you are seemingly an anarchist, and Hitler was a totalitarian.
Far unlike Hitler, however, I see law and freedom as a tool to protect people literally, as where he wanted to just rule the world... I don't care about ruling the world. I care about eliminating global suffering. And both your and Hilter's ideals, while opposite of each other, are too extreme to eliminate global suffering.
coercion coercion coercion
violence violence violence
removal of freedom, life, and/or property
that's why.
So you want to go out drunk driving, possibly kill people, and pay no repercussions?
Why is your belief good, again? Because it has some sort of ambiguous tie between absolute freedom and being unharmed, when that makes no sense whatsoever, because too much freedom equates to being able to commit immoral and unjust acts without repercussions?
ಠ_ಠ
Also, I do not support violence. Police officers being the first to violence always upsets me. But if you did something illegal and need to come with them, you attacking them first instead of peacefully working with them is your fault, not theirs.
So that people who do wish to engage in activities that you don't approve have won't have to worry that people like you exist.
If you aren't conducting things immoral that could harm other people, nobody has anything to fear from me. If you intend to ruin peoples lives, or take them away through murder, then I hope you're positively terrified.
They can still do what they wish, and the people can freely trade among each other without the fear of the government taking away their business, their freedom, or their property.
These people and you need to get your heads out of your asses and acknowledge that the government is out to get you about as much as any other person is out to get you.
Or are you this paranoid with everyone?
Is that why you were drunk when writing this? Because you're scared of everyone preventing you from getting drunk so you can cope with being scared of everyone preventing you from getting drunk?
The government doesn't go out of it's way to create laws that blatantly contradict era-appropriate moral belief. If you're terrified of having things taken away from you, most of the time, this is because you are either guilty, or paranoid. This isn't to say the government, which is composed of imperfect people like you and I, is incapable of injustice. Far from it! But most injustices seem to me as simple mistakes and flaws, not intentions to destroy the lives of innocent people for no logical reason.
how funny. for the longest time they said the same thing about gay sex. As a person who is close with a few gay people, i personally take offense to that statement.
And why does that correlate into me hating gays? I don't. Being gay does not automatically equate to being a harmful, self destructive person, so why would I suddenly think that being gay is evil? Because you don't agree with me, and because you say so? Someone you don't agree with needs to be demonized for you to be able to make a point, huh? And somehow this all magically allows you to instantly get offended?
I mean, you do realize, you're just imagining this hate for gays I have, right? It's not real, and you had no way of knowing if it was real or not. So you're getting offended at your imagination. But I thought you said you don't have a deity or spiritual belief... but you believe things your imagination tells you to the point that you can actually feel offended? At your imagination?
I'm not sure at this point if you're drunk, or just a presumptuous douchebag while sober. I really am not sure.
When government passes these types of laws, they are attacking and stealing from people... so that's why i find it wrong.
What exactly are they stealing? I get how the analogy fits, oh yes, but the trouble is the credibility of it's application.
Children not having the freedom to do things that would be bizarre and suspicious for them to do in the first place, which they would probably not even have the capability to do in the first place, but they simply aren't allowed just by virtue of being better safe then sorry... what is that, in this analogy? What could it possibly be?
Because it seems to me like air is being stolen, or something. I dunno, it just doesn't have a lot of credibility, even though the analogy goes with your point.
Keep in mind, i'm the person who believes that all drugs should be legal.
As do I. All major drugs should be legal, as well as taxed and regulated, like alcohol.
So should prostitution. Legal, regulated, taxed.
But my stance comes from the very fact that you have no real reason to show that restrictions are beneficial... they are limiting freedom for the sake of limiting freedom.
No, they limit freedom for the sake of being anal and prissy. While being prissy and nitpicky can have it's benefits, it can be annoying for people who aren't as obsessively concerned with helping people as the person whom is being an anal nitpick.
But the problem with your stance is that you fail to say why the restrictions being lifted would be beneficial. Why does some ambiguous tie to freedom make it a good thing, automatically? The United States was free to join the slave trade, and freely own slaves, but was that a good thing when it was going on? Absolutely not. That's why we fought a war over it. Because it was an unjust freedom.
Saying the quality of freedom is good thing is to say that the freedom to help people and the freedom to murder people are both inherently good, just because they are both freedoms. Um... no, they are not both a good thing. One harms a human being and another helps a human being. Thus one is wrong is one is right, regardless of being freedoms.
Taking away liberty isn't okay just because you think it is.
Giving freedom away isn't okay just because you think it is.
I suppose you know all of these teachers who know better than everyone else?
I'm pretty sure I was referring to the environment teaching us this, not anyone in particular.
And again with this crap 'you don't know better then me'.
If you're harming yourself, harming other people, or are just generally young or ignorant or inexperienced, I know better then you. Egads I'm getting tired of seeing that.
If your ass is in a bar drinking yourself to death instead of trying to fix your life and yourself, you better believe I know better then you.
And I'm going to help you out whether you want me to or not.
What math are you basing this on?
Well, math is the wrong word.
I mean logic.
Math and logic are basically the same thing, except I know logic, and not so much math.
It's makes perfect sense to me that if you take two grand ideas, each having it's own faults and benefits, and then try to tie them together so that they have each others strengths and none of the weaknesses, then you've achieved something better then both of them stand-alone.
And while it's not realistic, it's a good thing to work towards. Perfection isn't obtainable, in my opinion, but trying to become perfect for the sake of others is a great thing to aspire to. Getting better, creating more happiness, less death, less suffering, more love, etc.
Laws against drugs, however... it's government saying "well, you go to jail because drugs are bad for you... and jail is good for you." Or better yet "you go to jail because you allowed for someone to do something to themselves" like Jack Kevorkian. A man that is a victim to Statist logic.
If I gave any impression that I believe in stuff like this, then I apologize. I am a potato. I find the war on drugs (and prostitution) to be quite wrong.
Though, I don't believe in allowing people to harm themselves. Letting your teenage son kill himself because of some principle where you think he should be freely allowed to is completely absurd. If someone is harming themselves, they should be made to stop so they can achieve a happier existence.
That's right skipper. I'm going to force you to be happy, or else. ಠ_ಠ You get no say.
I am not familiar with Jack Kevorkian's case, though all I know is that he allowed suicide, or euthanized people? If I knew the specifics, I'd have a more developed opinion on it. But as it goes... if the people who died because he let them die, died because they were undergoing incurable, unmitigated suffering which was going to eventually result in a long, slow fatality, and if this is how all the euthanized people passed, then I'd agree, this man is being imprisoned unjustly.
However, if these people were euthanized because they just gave up, even if they could have made a comeback, even if they could have had more hope, but instead just didn't want to continue on... then no, I don't think this man is necessarily imprisoned unjustly.
Ah yes, like you, I dream of this future where laws are perfect.
Until then, however, I'd like for no laws to restrict personal freedom. or, at least, as little as possible.
I'm not sure if you were mocking me or being serious. But oh well.
Laws don't have to be perfect. I'm not sure there is such a thing as perfect, in anything. But we should be trying to get as close to it as possible... and suddenly abolishing all restrictions isn't really going to help us get there.
But then again, you implied earlier that you are not necessarily an anarchist, so I'm not sure anymore if you advocate no restrictions and the such...
But if we're talking on terms of the debate subject, then we've both gone off-topic at this point. Oh well.
You know, without a doubt, that no one addicted to cigs or alcohol are living decent lives.
I know that without a doubt, their lives would certainly not get worse, even if they were happy. Unless the process of helping them out of their addictions would cause more struggle then they could handle, or more struggle then what is worth weening them off of, then I have no problem trying to get them out of the habit.
In fact, most smokers I've known (close friends, actually), even if they're living happy lives, don't generally hate the idea of getting weened off their addition. They just cannot accomplish it is all.
You know that it is JUSTIFIED to limit our freedoms just because you fear that human beings are just too stupid and careless to make decisions for themselves.
Not at all. I am not certain of anyone's decision making abilities. I am simply not willing to risk letting people suffer on the hunch that everyone knows how to intelligently care for themselves and not-hurt/care-for others around them.
I can consider people, or I can ignore people. If I were in government, I'd be forced to do either one or the other, not pick and choose whom my laws effect and help. Since that is the case, if I were in such a position, I will always choose to consider people, and make the laws extremely carefully. I would rather take a very long time to create a law that helps as many people as possible, then not make a law and let people try and solve their suffering on their own. It's courteous to give people space and privacy and independence and the such, but I'm not going to NOT help people if I have the power to help people.
Even if it means pissing a small minority off. I would not carelessly make laws, nor abstain from making laws. I would do everything I can to make sure as much suffering as possible is mitigated and that things are better then they used to be.
The lobbyists and politicians and YOU know more than me or my family.
Lobbyists are evil. I don't need to spell that out. Corporatism is the biggest problem in this country, yadda yadda yadda.
Politicians don't, but they still just try to help. You argue they should stop altogether because them trying to help doesn't work. I argue they should reform how they do what they do so that they vastly help more then they harm.
Both are valid positions. Inevitably, I think things should just continue to be worked on and improved, not brought all the way down to an all-or-nothing state of existence. I'd rather us all work things out together then just say 'fuck it' and start from scratch. We are a social organism. Progression on a scale of populations should not involve backtracking. Not if backtracking would cause more suffering then continuing on.
It does not make it right to FORCE her to do something against her own will.
There's a vast difference in logic in between thinking someone has a problem because they have a quality that correlates with a religious belief, and thinking someone has a problem because they are drinking themselves to death, or injecting drugs without any consideration for their or anyone's safety.
Harm is relative to the person whom is being harmed, but only on the basis of what they can perceive. Someone might not feel sick, but still be sick. And to that end, people outside of that singular perspective can be credible in things they perceive as issues, so long as it's a logical association of what's harmful and what's helpful.
So really, it depends on whom is doing the forcing. If it's your buddy who sees you almost kill yourself at the watering hole, it's just for him to force you to get better. If it's a parent who sees their teenager cutting, it's just for them to force their child to stop so they can get them help. And if a governor sees a huge portion of his civilian population suffering over an issue, he's just in trying to get that issue solved somehow. If he makes a mistake, he has that on his conscious, just as a parent who's child successfully committed suicide has that on their conscious, or how your buddy would have on his conscious the scene where he turned the other cheek to you drinking way too much then you should have.
There's just, and there's unjust. But when all is said and done, someone trying to help or protect you is someone that is trying to help or protect you. You can be insulted and tell them to stop, or you can try and help them understand how to help you properly.
Who, to you, tells them what they can and can't do, OR ELSE SUFFER THEIR WRATH.
You think that I think that a government should behave that way?
Absolutely not.
Not unless you're a truly bad person guilty of immoral things.
You should fear those things, though, so you don't hurt yourself or other people.
Murder and rape, totally, for they are acts against another.
Getting kind of repetitive.
Laws that hurt someone to prevent them from hurting themself is counter-productive. If you fine someone for drinking too much that will just depress them enough to get even more drunk the next time. Throw them in jail and you're just creating a monster.
And far beyond the point. Government has no right in regulating a person's personal happiness.
unless they restrict something that is helpful for people.
Some people are only happy via substance abuse. You don't know anything about other people.
drinking yourself to death is not an adequate way to rectify your suffering
If only the world was as simple and easy as you make it seem. I wish I had your life.
And I do have faith in people outside the government. I just am not willing to risk their lives and well-being upon the principle you describe.
So you just have MORE faith in the people who write the laws (politicians and lobbyists) if you're willing to ignore the "faith" you have in people to live freely without "hurting" themselves.
Using YOUR kind of logic, people shouldn't try and prevent others from committing suicide when there is PLENTY of hope to recover from past events
There are preventative measures that are non-coercive. However, in the end, the choice is their own. You are not some mighty God who can dictate who can truly recover and who can't, or what personal decisions are the best.
Like with abortion.
To tell people that they are stupid and don't know how to be happy.
Therapists are not police. For good reason, they don't support coercion, in general (I should know, these are the people I work with.)
I hate people suffering... so I refuse to let them suffer.
So outlaw suffering. However, drinking isn't suffering. I drink everyday if I can for my health. Drinking excessively isn't suffering. You're wanting to arrest people for something as so subjective as personal suffering.
Also, grouping me in the lobbyists...? Are you trying to make me cease coherent thought and just be pissed off at you?
Lobbyists are people hired by special interests to write laws and push them unto politicians. Both anti-tobacco and tobacco advocates have lobbyists.
People can be free, just not free to harm each other.
Hey, that's what I've been advocating the whole time. good thing you finally agree with me.
Are you sure you're not drunk
In order to be civil, I will ignore any arguments where you try pushing this unto here. As I described in the first half, I will avoid insults for now.
I don't care about ruling the world. I care about eliminating global suffering.
Hitler felt that Jews and their Capitalist greed was responsible for global suffering. He enacted legislation barring people from committing voluntary exchange among each other for he felt that on many it led to evils and suffering. Statist logic.
too extreme to eliminate global suffering.
The only global suffering that I find preventable is the legislation enacted by a tyrant against it's people, specifically the united states legislation barring us from voluntary trade and consent.
So you want to go out drunk driving, possibly kill people, and pay no repercussions?
Nope, if I kill someone, I should be arrested and charged accordingly. However, sleep deprivation is possibly the worst cause of car accidents. So really, if you REALLY want to "end suffering" by enacting legislation, you should test people for sleep deprivation. This is possible, dontchaknow.
If you aren't conducting things immoral that could harm other people, nobody has anything to fear from me
An act of force against someone who is not forcing their will upon you is always immoral. What you advocate is a systematic approach to forcing others to comply to your sense of morality. So really, we have conflicting morality.
If you're terrified of having things taken away from you, most of the time, this is because you are either guilty, or paranoid.
Imminent domain victims are just paranoid? Rosa Parks was paranoid? American citizens detained without due process are paranoid? Women being LEGALLY molested by the TSA are paranoid? People unable to properly defend themselves in their own homes are paranoid?
So i guess slaves who submitted to their masters were the only people who weren't "paranoid."
Being gay does not automatically equate to being a harmful, self destructive person, so why would I suddenly think that being gay is evil?
Your school of thought only changes with the time. The point is that your laws based on personal morality directly prevent the voluntary, consensual acts between individuals. You have NO right to tell others what they can do with their own bodies.
While being prissy and nitpicky can have it's benefits
What benefits? you have yet to provide any evidence towards this "benefit" that you keep speaking of.
United States was free to join the slave trade
Slavery is coercion.
If you're harming yourself, harming other people, or are just generally young or ignorant or inexperienced, I know better then you.
Harming myself is NOT the same as harming other people. What I see as "helping myself" you may see as "harming myself." In my world, I can't tell you what to do with your own body, you can't tell me what to do with my body. We can make suggestions, we can provide arguments, but in the end the law is only on the side of personal liberty.
In your world, the one with the most influence in congress wins.
And while it's not realistic
Yeah, just stop right there. The middle-ground isn't the end all winner. And for good reason, as you pointed out, it's not realistic.
It just sounds nice. A lot of things sound nice, like Agnosticism and what not.
If someone is harming themselves, they should be made to stop so they can achieve a happier existence.
So what you're claiming is that your beliefs are superior to others, therefore, laws should be passed preventing others from living a personally free life just because they conflict with your beliefs on how people should live their lives.
Right, like laws against being gay. Thanks.
I'm going to force you to be happy, or else. ಠ_ಠ You get no say.
Neither did gays.
If I were in government, I'd be forced to do either one or the other, not pick and choose whom my laws effect and help.
And if I were in government, I'd abolish any laws that took away someone's right to their own body. Including yourself. although, if you really pushed for laws to be passed, I'd discover what you love to do and just make it illegal. you know, incentive for living a subjectively "happy" life.
I would do everything I can to make sure as much suffering as possible is mitigated and that things are better then they used to be.
How noble. I still don't trust you.
Lobbyists are evil. I don't need to spell that out. Corporatism is the biggest problem in this country
Lobbying supports corporatism, but it also supports what you are advocating. The passing of special interest laws that may or may not restrict personal freedom. Your beliefs open up the ability of corporatism. Corporatism can only be eliminated if laws can not be passed that limit personal freedom or grant favoritism (mostly through regulation) towards any business.
And far beyond the point. Government has no right in regulating a person's personal happiness.
They do if your personal happiness effects other individuals without their consent.
Some people are only happy via substance abuse. You don't know anything about other people.
No, they aren't really happy only via it. It's just their only way to attempt to be comfortable. You think most addled drug addicts are sitting in their own filth, happily injecting heroine? No, they're miserable, and the drugs are the only thing keeping them from offing themselves.
This isn't to say I think drugs should be illegal. But in a way, it's better for a drug addict to be in prison where he gets hot meals then killing himself miserably. One is slavery to freedom, one is slavery to order, the difference is that one has more comforts in this hypothetical case.
But drugs being illegal is truly a crime, indeed. They should be legal and taxed, so that people can use them without sitting in their own filth in fear.
If only the world was as simple and easy as you make it seem. I wish I had your life.
Life is simple. I learned by suffering it. It's only complicated if people let it be.
(politicians and lobbyists)
Politicians, yes. Lobbyists, no. I can support one without supporting the other. Your logic is a fallacy.
So you just have MORE faith in the people who write the laws if you're willing to ignore the "faith" you have in people to live freely without "hurting" themselves.
I don't 'ignore' my faith in others, I'm simply not willing to risk people's well being for faith's sake alone.
However, in the end, the choice is their own.
Why should it be? Unless they are a nameless nobody who dies unheard of at every point in time other then birth, then their choice will effect others.
You are not some mighty God who can dictate who can truly recover and who can't, or what personal decisions are the best.
No, but I can regulate things so that people who CAN dictate such things with accuracy have the power to dictate such things. Like doctors, family, and close friends.
If I cannot be accurate, I can be generic in an efficient way. I will not sacrifice people's well-being for anything less.
Therapists are not police. For good reason, they don't support coercion, in general
Because they understand that you can make someone emotionally damaged and uncomfortable when you force things upon them. This is why laws should give more incentive then punishment... but how that can be done without significant suffering being caused, I'm not sure.
You're wanting to arrest people for something as so subjective as personal suffering.
Personal suffering is not subjective. Unless you are nobody, nowhere, everything that involves you or your choice also effects others.
Also, no, I don't want to arrest people for drinking... they can drink in bars and in their homes. If they walk into public or use a vehicle (depending upon the state), that's when it's a problem.
Drinking excessively isn't suffering.
So I suppose having liver disease isn't suffering either, right?
Not that pointing this out is even pertinent. There's no law against drinking excessively unless you harm/attempt to harm/risk harming others when you drink excessively, which is how it should be.
Lobbyists are people hired by special interests to write laws and push them unto politicians. Both anti-tobacco and tobacco advocates have lobbyists.
And so what?
Just because I support government doesn't mean I support bribery.
Hey, that's what I've been advocating the whole time. good thing you finally agree with me.
Tehpgy pls, y u do dis?
How we get this far and it end up being some sort of misunderstanding? ಠ_ಠ
In order to be civil, I will ignore any arguments where you try pushing this unto here.
I wasn't being joking. I was so baffled by statements where I claim you drunk that I actually wonder if you were drunk. It was not insulting or insinuating, it was literal wonder and consideration in the midst of being stupefied.
Hitler felt that Jews and their Capitalist greed was responsible for global suffering. He enacted legislation barring people from committing voluntary exchange among each other for he felt that on many it led to evils and suffering.
Hitler did not consider Jews as being equal to other people. I do. You're watering down a generic statement into it's worse possible conclusion. So what if it's statist? Statism, as I read it's definition, is the belief that government should exist in at least a minimum size. What you're thinking of is far more extreme then statism.
The only global suffering that I find preventable is the legislation enacted by a tyrant against it's people, specifically the united states legislation barring us from voluntary trade and consent.
It's not tyrannical to prevent children from making adult choices.
And if that's the only suffering you find preventable, then that's a tad depressing. You shouldn't give up on such a thing at a line. You should desire to prevent it at all costs. But alas, not everyone is me.
So really, if you REALLY want to "end suffering" by enacting legislation, you should test people for sleep deprivation. This is possible, dontchaknow.
Then that to should have traffic laws around it, like alcohol does.
What you advocate is a systematic approach to forcing others to comply to your sense of morality.
My sense of morality is obsessively thought over in the fetal position. It has far more credibility then someone who is willing to take risks on people's well-being.
An act of force against someone who is not forcing their will upon you is always immoral.
Whether you intended to hit someone in your car after you got drunk or not is irrelevant. There should be preventive measures to stop that situation from happening in the first place.
Drugs should not be illegal. I agree with this. But they should be regulated like alcohol. Because whether you intend to harm someone while under their influence or not is irrelevant, because when under their influence, you can harm people. Law should give you incentive to be smart and not harm people while under their influence. Whether that incentive is fear or not is not the fault of the law or the lawmaker. If you break it, you pay a price. If you fear the price you'd be paying, that's the incentive you form from it. It doesn't force you to fear.
And if you just behave responsibly, you have no reason to let yourself feel fear either.
...are just paranoid?
All of the things you listed here actually have reason to fear that isn't imagined.
This fear that the government is tyrannical because they don't want children making adult decisions is imagined, illogical, and thus paranoid.
Try again.
So i guess slaves who submitted to their masters were the only people who weren't "paranoid."
We are not slaves if nothing valuable is being taken away.
Your school of thought only changes with the time.
My way of thinking does not change with time because it's not what you are assume it is.
The point is that your laws based on personal morality directly prevent the voluntary, consensual acts between individuals.
If two people conspire and act that results in others getting harmed, I'm going to regulate it. Don't like it? Too bad. My morality is thought out intricately, and ultimately it's very simple. You don't get to do things that harm other people. End of story.
And if the thing you are being prevented from doing isn't quintessential to your personal happiness, then you have no reason to complain. If you complain because your 'freedom' is being threatened, then your plight is imagined for the sake of complaining. It's like when a child sits on a pet, nearly killing it, so the parent puts the pet away from the child, and so the child throws a tantrum. The only difference here from that is you're trying to argue on a basis of a principle that doesn't even relate to reality.
So, you can't drink and drive, so it's tyranny? How about, no, it's not tyranny, it's just practical so you don't hurt or kill some sod or group of sods.
On the subject of having age restrictions, it's the same thing. It's practical to not let children make adult decisions because they don't have the same judgement as adults. Period.
What benefits? you have yet to provide any evidence towards this "benefit" that you keep speaking of.
The benefit is mathematical. You're willing to risk things because you have an impractical principle with no application upon reality. I am not. What does anyone gain for their lives from having no age restrictions? Nothing. What does anyone have to loose from there being are restrictions? Nothing. What does anyone have to loose from having age restrictions? Nothing.
What does anyone have to loose from there being no age restrictions? Possibly their well being.
In your world, the one with the most influence in congress wins.
Not at all.
The middle-ground isn't the end all winner. And for good reason, as you pointed out, it's not realistic.
And does it being an unrealistic utopia mean it's not something to aspire and work towards?
Absolutely not. We should work to better ourselves at no one else's expense, and then work to better others at no expense to ourselves. Not simply stop trying and go with something set in stone. We should be trying to improve.
So what you're claiming is that your beliefs are superior to others, therefore, laws should be passed preventing others from living a personally free life just because they conflict with your beliefs on how people should live their lives.
Loosing a personal freedom not quintessential to being happy is like having never lost a freedom at all. My views are not about taking things from people I don't like. My views are about taking things from people that hurt them, whatever the relevant harm that may be (physical, psychological, emotional, etc).
Right, like laws against being gay. Thanks.
Again, not relevant to anything I believe. Never was, never has been. And yet you wonder why I call you a drunk asshole...
although, if you really pushed for laws to be passed, I'd discover what you love to do and just make it illegal
You seem to think I'd push for laws that regulate things out of spite, which is not what I have been saying. I'd only push for regulations on things that hurt people, by people.
If you'd just try and outlaw something out of spite that I do, the only care I'd have would be over the fact that you are truly spiteful and just don't care about others, which has nothing to do with my view.
How noble. I still don't trust you.
And I don't trust you, considering your entire argument is just a temper tantrum over not getting to do pointless things. Like a child smacking another child with a toy, and having that toy taken away. So you cry and cry and cry. Only right now you're trying to justify it by saying 'freedom' is important, even though what's being taken from you doesn't effect your ability to be happy; you simply are imagining a plight for yourself and making yourself unhappy, childishly.
The passing of special interest laws that may or may not restrict personal freedom
Lobbyists are unneeded to pass special interest laws.
Just because you think they're required for what I'm saying doesn't mean I like them or think they are required for what I'm saying.
It's taken me awhile to get to this mainly because at this point it's taking awhile to refute everything you said.
I've read your argument, and I've decided that it's filled with insults and, in the end, saying that legislation is "okay" because... well, it's "okay."
Now, I won't say that you're wrong and I've decided to ignore you. Instead, I'll humor you and say this:
You've made some interesting points, and clearly we've been at it for a while. You've equated me to a child throwing a temper tantrum, and that is interesting, and you seem to TRULY believe that I debate when I am incredibly drunk, which may seem to contribute to your frustration animated by your many rebuttals to just be insults... and allusions to my issues with alcohol.
if you so, it was the same of you support the young generation to keep their habbits for being junkies, alcoholism, and more of worst doing in this world. you also agreed with the early life and the bad world by supporting them.