What are your views on Paternalistic Legislation

[Remiel]

But I know what you mean, I have the same problem with car exhaust. Far worse and a million times more of it.

Car exhaust is, at least, the result of something we could not as a civilization do without though: modern transportation. There is no such mitigating benefit from tobacco.

[CitizenX]

Taking a leak outdoors has different consequences depending on your location right? Well, if you are in a situation where you can operate under the condition of "less laws" and get away with it, would you? It seems to me that where there are more people, there is more chance of laws being applied. Is there a corollary there you think?

if you are in a situation where you can operate under the condition of "less laws" and get away with it, would you?

I depends on the law, and if consider it to be just. You know my definition of Law. If I was outside and had to take a piss, as long as I wasn't hurting anyone or damaging property I would. If I was some where in the bush camping and I knew I could kill the person I was with and get away with it I wouldn't do it.

It seems to me that where there are more people, there is more chance of laws being applied. Is there a corollary there you think?

Yes I think so. The smaller the town you live in the more interaction between people that know each other therefore more social pressure to conform to the social norms. there would probably be less crime against one another because of the chance of social scorn.

Yes but, protect it from whom?

from one another. I believe this is how law began. to be impartial judge of disputes between individuals within society, and to ensure justice happens.

No man is an island. There isn't a single thing on your list that doesn't involve other people in one way or another, including taxpayers.

I guess I see where you are coming from. This is because so much is in the public domain. Health Insurance, Public Auto Insurance premiums,....right? Well all I can say to that is People within this society have no choice in the matter. I live in BC so I can't buy private insurance, does that mean I have to give up my personal liberty as far as whether I wear a seat belt or helmet? I eat junk food sometimes, should I be Taxed excessively on these products like cigarettes? If I want to play a physical sport like rugby or hockey should there be a law that requires me to report this so that I can pay a risk tax? This is the problem with socialism. I believe if you look back through history law after law has been added over time to deal with this. More and more red tape. People are slowly losing there liberty.

I believe in the concept of helping one another in society but I don't believe in authoritarian socialism which this country is moving towards in such a slow speed that few people notice.

I tend to agree and on your poll I chose option #3.

I think that is probably the choice of most canadians

My view, other than #3, is that where it will save the public money and/or improve efficiencies, why not regulate? So, for example, why should I have to pay for someone else's stupidity (medical bills)when they crash their bike without a helmet?

I'm for private insurance which would solve that problem.

As far as Canada Health Should people pay for your heart attack because you don't eat right, ect, ect,ect.

I'm sorry but If your going to have Public Health Insurance (Which I'm for) you can't start dictating how people live there life. I don't play rugby why should I pay for someones broken leg?

Good discussion...your up

[Wild Bill]

Bullshit.

The abuse of tobacco, in other words. burning it, infringes on the rightsof other people. I followed an smoking asshole (with his kids) in a mall and asked him to put it out as it was bothering my breathing. He wouldn't but he also was greatly chagrined when I let go a super fart next to him & his idiot progeny. Go figure

I won't argue with your example. It is a non sequitur to my point. If a club posted a sign clearly indicating that it allowed smoking, so that no one who was bothered by smoke need enter, how would a non-smoker be injured? In other words, why are venues for smokers totally verboten?

This policy goes beyond protecting non-smokers. It is obvious that there must be a further agenda.

BTW, I don't smoke. I just care about the rights of citizens besides myself.

[Shwa]

I depends on the law, and if consider it to be just. You know my definition of Law. If I was outside and had to take a piss, as long as I wasn't hurting anyone or damaging property I would.

But who determines whether you are hurting anyone or damaging property or not? Are you also judge and jury? You may think a law is unjust and go ahead and break it at your leisure. But no man is an island, so the rest of your society will determine whether the law is just or not and they'll do that through their institutions.

One of the big problems is the sheer power of the justice institution. It seems the less people are directly involved in justice, the larger and more powerful the justice institution becomes.

Yes I think so. The smaller the town you live in the more interaction between people that know each other therefore more social pressure to conform to the social norms. there would probably be less crime against one another because of the chance of social scorn.

But there is (or can be) a difference between the social norms of a small town and a large urban centre. And the smaller the town, the smaller the compromise of what you consider to be "just laws" right? In theory, helmet laws should apply equally to urban and rural folk. But the application of those laws is dependent on being caught and there is likely less of a chance of that the more rural you go.

from one another. I believe this is how law began. to be impartial judge of disputes between individuals within society, and to ensure justice happens.

But if laws are being broken with impunity in, say, rural settings, how is justice happening? It doesn't have to be rural either. Laws could be broken within close knit cultural urban communities. Keeping quiet about domestic abuse for example, because a particular culture tolerates domestic abuse. How is "one another" being protected here? How is justice being served in this situation?

For an advocate of less government, are you now going to advocate for more police who, arguably, are agents of the government?

I guess I see where you are coming from. This is because so much is in the public domain. Health Insurance, Public Auto Insurance premiums,....right? Well all I can say to that is People within this society have no choice in the matter. I live in BC so I can't buy private insurance, does that mean I have to give up my personal liberty as far as whether I wear a seat belt or helmet? I eat junk food sometimes, should I be Taxed excessively on these products like cigarettes? If I want to play a physical sport like rugby or hockey should there be a law that requires me to report this so that I can pay a risk tax? This is the problem with socialism. I believe if you look back through history law after law has been added over time to deal with this. More and more red tape. People are slowly losing there liberty.

One could argue that people are slowly giving up their liberty by choice through the refusal or reluctance to become involved in justice or health or whatever other institutions we happen to be complaining about at the time. They are taking over because we are giving up.

Is this an aspect of socialism? I don't know. Certainly the old refrain "power to the people" comes to mind and that is a fairly socialist sentiment. I don't necessarily equate socialism with large, monolithic institutional government. I think there are other ways to socially manage justice or health, etc. Much more granular and community based ways.

I believe in the concept of helping one another in society but I don't believe in authoritarian socialism which this country is moving towards in such a slow speed that few people notice.

Authoritarian socialism depends on what? It depends on people accepting the centralization of authority and services into large monolithic institutions that rule all. If people are reluctant to getting involved, in "helping one another" then we have a problem don't we?

Have you ever read 'Future Shock' by Alvin Tofler? (just askin')

I'm for private insurance which would solve that problem.

I'm not so convinced that private insurance would do that. But, I suppose, fines ought to.

As far as Canada Health Should people pay for your heart attack because you don't eat right, ect, ect,ect.

I'm sorry but If your going to have Public Health Insurance (Which I'm for) you can't start dictating how people live there life. I don't play rugby why should I pay for someones broken leg?

Why should I pay for roads and bridges that I will never use, or only use once or twice? One way or another, we are going to pay for it - for stuff we won't use, etc. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the sheer weight of apathy towards the quickening institutionalism that is creeping into our lives.

But then again, we have WalMart and McDonald's now, so why should I worry. Cheap goods and cheap food.

[eyeball]

I won't argue with your example. It is a non sequitur to my point. If a club posted a sign clearly indicating that it allowed smoking, so that no one who was bothered by smoke need enter, how would a non-smoker be injured? In other words, why are venues for smokers totally verboten?

This policy goes beyond protecting non-smokers. It is obvious that there must be a further agenda.

BTW, I don't smoke. I just care about the rights of citizens besides myself.

So what? You keep voting for the paternalists anyway.

[Oleg Bach]

I don't go for woman with huge boobs because I had a mother and don't need another mother - The only time when you need parental power over you is when you are very young - or very old - and when I am old I might just re-embrace the big boobed nurse from my infancey - in the mean time and in the middle of life - YOU don't need a parent...especially an orgainized oppressive government...that walks into your life and attempts to control you. Like a kid with a divorced mother and a new fake dad...I will cry out in defiance ----------------to the fake dad "You are not my dad and I don't have to listen to you"...lol

[CitizenX]

But who determines whether you are hurting anyone or damaging property or not? Are you also judge and jury? You may think a law is unjust and go ahead and break it at your leisure. But no man is an island, so the rest of your society will determine whether the law is just or not and they'll do that through their institutions.

The normal logically thinking people know right from wrong. You are never judge and jury, this was the basis for society. I break laws all the time, 90% of the time I wear a seat belt but sometimes I don't, some times I Jay walk, once and a while I smoke pot. I think where our difference is the degree of self ownership we have. Don't get me wrong law is very important, and society can't exist without it. But in my opinion law to me has no right to effect my life unless I directly interfere with someone life by either damaging them or there property, stealing, or committing fraud.

One of the big problems is the sheer power of the justice institution. It seems the less people are directly involved in justice, the larger and more powerful the justice institution becomes.

Agreed

But there is (or can be) a difference between the social norms of a small town and a large urban centre. And the smaller the town, the smaller the compromise of what you consider to be "just laws" right? In theory, helmet laws should apply equally to urban and rural folk. But the application of those laws is dependent on being caught and there is likely less of a chance of that the more rural you go.

But if laws are being broken with impunity in, say, rural settings, how is justice happening? It doesn't have to be rural either. Laws could be broken within close knit cultural urban communities. Keeping quiet about domestic abuse for example, because a particular culture tolerates domestic abuse. How is "one another" being protected here? How is justice being served in this situation?

I think there is a confusion between us as to what is current law and what I am advocating. Once again I believe (just my opinion) Law should only deal with protecting rights of the citizens in the community. Hurting or destroying them or there property, stealing, or committing fraud That's It. These are basic universal laws, they have applied all through time in probably every culture. Yes I suppose particular culture could tolerate domestic abuse but it still breaks a basic universal law, and infringes on basic personal human rights.

For an advocate of less government, are you now going to advocate for more police who, arguably, are agents of the government?

Less government = less things to control

Less Paternalistic Legislation = either mean less police or better protection of the citizens. More time could be committed to combating theft, murders,ect.

One could argue that people are slowly giving up their liberty by choice through the refusal or reluctance to become involved in justice or health or whatever other institutions we happen to be complaining about at the time. They are taking over because we are giving up.

I think you could find these video's very interesting, maybe something to think about.

Dave Meslin: The antidote to apathy

Alan Siegel: Let's simplify legal jargon!

Authoritarian socialism depends on what? It depends on people accepting the centralization of authority and services into large monolithic institutions that rule all. If people are reluctant to getting involved, in "helping one another" then we have a problem don't we?

Have you ever read 'Future Shock' by Alvin Tofler? (just askin')

Yeas I agree , and no I haven't but I'll put it on my list thanks

I'm not so convinced that private insurance would do that. But, I suppose, fines ought to.

I'm not a big fan of fines, what may be effective on a poor person won't be effective on someone with money to burn. Plus If I could put on my tin foil hat for a moment, I see things like speeding tickets as a tax revenue and perhaps a problem that would hurt the government if solved.If you wanted to solve the problem, instead of fines you take away a person's license for period enough violation no more license.

Note: I'm referring to the current system, not the system I advocate.

Why should I pay for roads and bridges that I will never use, or only use once or twice? One way or another, we are going to pay for it - for stuff we won't use, etc. I have no problem with that.

Because this is what civilizations do. You pay for roads that you may not use because 1) you might use them at some point 2) because someone from somewhere else that pays for your roads might use them 3) You receive the benefits from other people using them (your groceries), and wood that builds your house 4) National defence.

Edited August 9, 2011 by CitizenX

[Wild Bill]

So what? You keep voting for the paternalists anyway.

So who led the charge to take rights away from smokers, eyeball? The Liberals and the NDP, that's who!

Whatever, ALL politicians have done this, because it's popular. In fact there is nothing as popular as telling your neighbour how to live his life, except for maybe taxing him to pay for YOUR pet idea!

It's just human nature and so politicians of all stripes cater to it. Thus, it cancels out as a voting choice factor, since they all do it.

The Tories may be "paternalistic" in your eyes, Eyeball. They are a bit in my eyes as well. Still, the other two parties are a HUGE reek in my nose! Harper's not much of a choice but at least he doesn't make me gag like a skunk that's been dead a week on the road...

[CitizenX]

Yes I think so. The smaller the town you live in the more interaction between people that know each other therefore more social pressure to conform to the social norms. there would probably be less crime against one another because of the chance of social scorn.

I don't know if it's wrong to quote yourself.

Anyway I was doing a little mental masturbation last night about what I said, and started thinking about road rage. I wonder if lack of social scorn from a community that knows you contributes? Do people act and do things during a road road rage incident because there is little no chance that they will ever see the other person again? Is there less road rage in a smaller city? I would think so.I realize that there is less traffic in a smaller city but if there is less road rage is this the reason? any hoo I realize it's off topic but I just thought I would jot it down here instead of starting another topic.

Edited August 9, 2011 by CitizenX

[Shwa]

The normal logically thinking people know right from wrong.

Do you have a sound definition of one of those?

You are never judge and jury, this was the basis for society. I break laws all the time, 90% of the time I wear a seat belt but sometimes I don't, some times I Jay walk, once and a while I smoke pot. I think where our difference is the degree of self ownership we have. Don't get me wrong law is very important, and society can't exist without it. But in my opinion law to me has no right to effect my life unless I directly interfere with someone life by either damaging them or there property, stealing, or committing fraud.

I would add a word to you definition of what a law should be and the word is 'harm' and that applies to a person, group of persons, or society as a whole. So your not wearing a seatbelt, increasing the risk to yourself and therefore increasing the costs of the health system through this risk, to me, is harm to the whole. Jaywalking is the same since, if you get hit, you are bringing harm to the driver of the car that hit you, possibly damaging their property. No man is an island.

I think there is a confusion between us as to what is current law and what I am advocating. Once again I believe (just my opinion) Law should only deal with protecting rights of the citizens in the community. Hurting or destroying them or there property, stealing, or committing fraud That's It. These are basic universal laws, they have applied all through time in probably every culture. Yes I suppose particular culture could tolerate domestic abuse but it still breaks a basic universal law, and infringes on basic personal human rights.

It would be incumbent on you then, to show a law in which no one - no other person, group of persons or society as a whole, comes to any harm because of your actions. I think other posters have expressed this same sentiment earlier in the thread. So now, I ask you, can you show which laws pertain only to you and involve no others?

Less government = less things to control

To a degree, yes. When more people get involved in helping to control those things.

Less Paternalistic Legislation = either mean less police or better protection of the citizens. More time could be committed to combating theft, murders,ect.

You still need to show where you are an island with regard to a law or laws. You haven't done that yet, so your premise is false.

I'm not a big fan of fines, what may be effective on a poor person won't be effective on someone with money to burn. Plus If I could put on my tin foil hat for a moment, I see things like speeding tickets as a tax revenue and perhaps a problem that would hurt the government if solved.If you wanted to solve the problem, instead of fines you take away a person's license for period enough violation no more license.

You remove that person from several other revenue streams by taking away their license. Gas tax, car repairs, etc.

Because this is what civilizations do. You pay for roads that you may not use because 1) you might use them at some point 2) because someone from somewhere else that pays for your roads might use them 3) You receive the benefits from other people using them (your groceries), and wood that builds your house 4) National defence.

To use your own logic:

Less government = Less things to control

Less roads = Less things to control

[Oleg Bach]

Small government - less taxes...It takes billions to support the bean counters and experts - and a lot to keep consultants rich.

[CitizenX]

Do you have a sound definition of one of those?

???? "a normal logically thinking people know right from wrong" is a person that knows it's wrong to hurt someones person or property, it's wrong to steal, and it's wrong to commit fraud.

I would add a word to you definition of what a law should be and the word is 'harm' and that applies to a person, group of persons, or society as a whole. So your not wearing a seatbelt, increasing the risk to yourself and therefore increasing the costs of the health system through this risk, to me, is harm to the whole. Jaywalking is the same since, if you get hit, you are bringing harm to the driver of the car that hit you, possibly damaging their property. No man is an island.

It would be incumbent on you then, to show a law in which no one - no other person, group of persons or society as a whole, comes to any harm because of your actions. I think other posters have expressed this same sentiment earlier in the thread. So now, I ask you, can you show which laws pertain only to you and involve no others?

You see this is where I think we are having a problem understanding one another. It is the degree of societal intrusion into our personal liberty and rights that is acceptable.

I think that you know where I stand. I believe in Self-Ownership, and personal liberty. I believe that as long as I don't tread on other people's property rights no one should tread on mine. I think that government and law has gotten so big and intrusive that they affect every aspect of our lives. I believe as John Locke believed that there certain fundamental rights that no government, not even a representative and or democratic one can over ride. These being Life, Liberty, and property. The right to property is not just a creation of government, or of law. The right to property is a natural right that is pre-political.

I think you believe that because every thing that we do in a society effects someone else so we need laws to control and restrict our actions. But by this logic things soon get out of control.

Do you have the right to tell how to eat because I might increase health insurance costs?

Do you have a right to tell me I can't protest because it will cost society to provide security?

Do you have a right to tell me how to raise my children because this will effect society.

You still need to show where you are an island with regard to a law or laws. You haven't done that yet, so your premise is false.

I don't understand this statement.

You remove that person from several other revenue streams by taking away their license. Gas tax, car repairs, etc.

So do you see people as wage slaves to be used for the benefit of society? I think people should be seen as a end not as a means to an end.

To use your own logic:

Less government = Less things to control

Less roads = Less things to control

This is not my logic, I didn't state what less government meant to me.

Edited August 9, 2011 by CitizenX