The difference between a “vice” and a “crime” is that the former affects the actor while the latter affects unconsenting third parties. So, no, forcible curtailments of vices are not acceptable at all.
Vices have become crimes and crimes have become vices. Being gay used to be a crime, now it’s not, and slowly laws are coming around. And of course a monopoly used to be simply how business worked, but now anti-trust laws have rendered that illegal. My point is that you can’t simply say crimes are bad and vices aren’t bad enough to make illegal and leave it at that. Things change, people change, and I have no problem with a flexible system of justice that allows for mistakes but the avenue to correct them
I’ll give you credit; you at least maintained a pretense of respect for our intelligence by inserting lots of padding between these mutually exclusive assertions.
Are there any studies that show eating unhealthy food or drinking soda increases long term medical costs?
It isn’t intuitively obvious. Taking a deadly poison would drastically decrease long term medical costs, as well as saving potential social security payouts.
Maybe we should be forcing the working class to drink coke so they die right after their most productive working years.
The justification for smoking bans has nothing to do with it being unhealthy for the smoker, it is about it being unhealthy for innocent bystanders. There is no justification I can think of for unhealthy food bans.
Why hasn’t the ability to reproduce been banned or taxed? Want to have those 7 kids while you are currently on welfare, PAY!!
Taxing things has gotten to be the answer for everything. Banning things (like smoking in a privately run restaurant is pathetic). I don’t smoke, nor would I want to be around those who do but I don’t need the government to make it so I have a place I want to go.
Winston Churchil said it best I think.
“We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle” – Winston Churchill "
Obviously, you are using a different (and much less rigorous) definition. Let’s see if we can make any sense out of the results…
OK, the first result is a gaping hole in your own “trust the majority” argument. If that’s where your definitions lead, I’m willing to entertain them for the moment… 
Er, that is not at all what I said. I gave objective definitions for “vice” and “crime”, not this sort of soppy subjectivism.
Surely it is better to avoid the mistakes in the first place by denying people with a long history of untrustworthiness (aka the political establisment) the power to commit them.
Indeed. I am remined of this conversation:
I dont see why something can be a net good, but still harmful. When I pay money for food, the money I lose is harming me, so to speak. But if I don’t eat, I die, so the food is a net benefit to me. I don’t see how that’s too hard to understand, unless one were stupid. Only stupid people would see those propositions as mutually exclusive
You are comparing impossibilities with the desire to eat something. Come on now. :dubious: The comparison isn’t relevant.
But in the case of these recent bans, these substances are harmful and dangerous only to those that consume them. Do you believe that adults should not be able to engage in any behavior that is self-destructive?
And ultimately, this is where we differ. Because in my ideal world, people can choose to act self-destructively or not; those that do have to suffer the consequences. In your world it seems no choice would exist: no alcohol, no unprotected sex, no rare burgers, no unpasteurized milk, no contact sports, no sushi, and on and on. Mine is a much more dangerous but much more appealing and interesting place to live.
Shit! I want to go to that party!
Regulation of or a ban on behavior that injures another party - or minors - are completely acceptable to me. Those that ban or regulate honest behavior between consenting adults is not. We don’t have to choose between either hellhole - one with too many or too few laws. There is a medium that exists, albeit one we are too far on the over-regulation side of. So we certainly don’t need any more regulations outlawing behavior that is self-destructive or between consenting adults.
Lucky for me you’ve such a keen eye, able to spot the gaping holes in my otherwise flawless logic, eh? Maybe I should color my words red and bold them when I say that the whole point of what I have been debating is that freedom is not truly lost if you can easily get it back in the next election. The majority has done wrong in criminalizing gay behavior but that has since been slowly reversed. As long as that possibility exists, I see no long term harm in banning things people right now consider offenses
Your vices used to be crimes and some crimes are now reduced to vices. That’s fact. Our whole system of law is based on subjectivism anyway, we can make murder ok tomorrow if everyone wanted to. Your definitions are invalid to the discussion if the things they describe could fit either category
Then you have done a poor job in convincing me that it was a mistake to ban child labor in the first place. Hey, maybe in a hundred years things will come full circle and you’ll be correct.
By the way, your populist hate on the “political establishment” is tired and cliched
garbage. Politics isn’t always bad, I’m happy that many things now are available because of politics. Don’t try to score points by making vague rants about politicians and expect me to pat you on the back :rolleyes:
Me too. 
The degree of severity is not, but I believe the type of comparison is valid. You think that its ok you’re not allowed to murder by not counting that against your freedom. Fine, we agree on that point. Then you say that giving up power is anathema to freedom, and why can’t I understand that. I pointed out that you are already not free, by your own definition, and you seem to be ok with that. I used flying as an even more extreme example in which you believe you’re free but obviously constrained somehow.
So as I see it, you’re perfectly free and you’re ok with that, both by giving up some of your freedoms to have murder laws, and by not being able to fly. Your problem seem to be simply that you don’t want anymore. Maybe you think things are perfect the way it is, but I and many other people don’t. We feel we are just as free as you think you are even with bans on smoking or trans fat. The only difference between us is that you draw the line in one place and we place it one more ban further, or two more.
To be honest, and this may surprise you, I do want adults to be able to engage in self-destructive behavior. I support assisted, or any suicide. I support drug legalization. I think Dr. Kevorkian should be given a medal and his practice franchised out like a McDonalds.
However, and here’s the kicker, I also want my ability to stop them if I choose to. If I had a depressed kid who one day decided he would partake of drugs or use the services of Dr. K’s Mobile Death Van, then I want to be able to vote to put a stop to those things. I do not consider myself more free for having supported these things in the past, nor less free for voting to ban them now. My circumstances would have changed and different things that used to matter to me were replaced.
Right now, I think it would be unfair of me to pay for fat people getting heart attacks. So I would vote to stop it. Someday I’ll be one of them, and I’ll change my vote. I am not for some kind of ultimate objective moral code, I want it flexible. And right now I think that its too much to ask for me to pay for their heart bypasses
But the three things you just described are very different, not on different levels of severity, but categorically. Personal flight - flapping my arms and moving through the air - is impossible. Murder infringes on another’s freedom, their freedom to live. Eating unhealthy does not infringe on anyone’s freedom. Your first example in no way infringes upon my freedom; the second of murder, only does so to protect someone else’s most important freedom, their life; the third example does infringe on my freedom to act, for no reason whatsoever other than it is a vice, or unhealthy.
The difference is, I want to draw the line objectively, between agreed upon and logical categories of behavior. You seem to have no clear idea of where to draw the line, and instead rest upon a faith in democracy and political machinations, disregarding the very real shortcomings of both in the past.
Every single law ever signed into existence infringes on someone’s right (in a socialistic environment)
UHC: Fatty foods, trans fats, sodas, beer, aspirin etc will ALL eventually be banned because they will affect the outcome of someone’s lifestyle and ultimately their life.
Where do you draw the line? The slippery slope has already been established, all that is left for you to do is tread softly on it.
Question: Those of you who would like the legalization of marijuana, are the American people expected to pick up the tab for your failing lung capacity?
The idealistic society that infringes someone’s ability to think and choose for themselves is a very real possibility if we continue down the road of letting the ‘populace’ (or government) decide what is right or wrong with your INDIVIDUAL rights.
What if it could be proven that smoking marijuana reduced some people’s stress enough to lower their chances of a heart attack? Would that offset any decreased lung capacity? How about people on chemo, for whom smoking increases their appetiite?
Every single person does something that could be seen as increasing their cost to society. Playing football, climbing a mountain, jogging at the side of the road, sitting at home instead of playing football/climbing/jogging. Living in a cold climate, living in a hot climate. Sitting outside watching the sunset increases my chances of being bitten by a mosquito carrying the West Nile virus.
We have become WAY to willing to let, and expect, government oversight to replace personal responsibility.
Interesting. So as long as it doesn’t benefit you personally, you are against it. You don’t want flexibility, you want maximum benefit for you at minimum cost. Let me guess, Social Security payment age should increase, but always to just younger then you. Thank you for being that honest.
Think of how much money a whopper (of course this post refers to a lie, not the trademarked sandwich) would sell for if they were illegal. Not to mention all the money that could be accumulated by law enforcement (including prisons and the judiciary branches), whopper dealers, and people who sing and make movies about whopper dealing.
It’d be like illegal drugs. Take something that costs 30 cents to make, sell it for 60 bucks. Arrest the low level whopper dealers, occasionally a semi-large mac (mid level whopper dealer), seize their assets.
Great for law enforcement and high level whopper dealers (the large mac daddies). Both sides (law and crime) make lots of money using fear and misinformation, capitalizing upon laws that make the pursuit of happiness illegal, instead of setting up a (less profitable to law enforcement and whopper distributors) system of regulated distribution to ensure the healthy enjoyment of whoppers on a regular basis, requiring health checkups to keep one’s whopper consumption license (making reasonable exceptions for those with disorders that cause overwhopperitus without excessive whopper consumption).
Remember, whopper consumption, along with drug consumption, should be a privilege, not a right.
By this “logic”, I see no harm in stealing your stuff whenever I feel like it, as long as I give it back when I’m done with it.
It is not like every issue is brought to a national vote where each citizen gets a say in how the country is run. We have to vote for a person to represent us. That person is not going to represent us perfectly in every domain of life, so one is put into the position to decide what matters most to them when voting for a candidate. So, for example, I might vote for a politician who is anti-war and pro-smoking ban. That does not mean that I am pro-smoking ban. Life is to complicated to let a single man speak for you on every single issue. The easiest way for everyone to get what they want is to allow for people to make their own decisions. Let some restaurants serve trans fats if they choose and some will choose not to serve trans fats. Then you can choose which one you want to go to.
Also, in the case of smoking and trans fat bans, you are banning things that are consumed the most by poor people. Because poor people have no money, they are not well represented in government. A ban on these things is like saying to poor people, “you have no political power, and you don’t know how to take care of yourself, so we are going to make your decisions for you.” That is pretty insulting.
Finally, there are lobbyists, and shady back door political dealings, that get in the way of actually making laws that are backed by a majority of people.
In short, there are to many ways for the will of the people to get lost in the bureaucracy of government. The best way to ensure that a majority of people get what they want is to allow people to decide for them selves. If they are truly a majority it shouldn’t take the government to enact the change they want to see.
Eating unhealthy does impinge on my freedom to spend my money on what I want, albeit the hit on my wallet is very very tiny. You cannot say that it has absolutely nothing to do with me when I would be paying for it.
Flying is in there not as a comparison specifically to how it impacts other people, but how it impacts yourself. Your exact words from post #57 states:
In here, you were not comparing freedom to how others hinder your choices, you simply stated that any lessening of the power to choose is inherently unfree. While my flying doesn’t impede your freedom, your lack of flying does impede yourself, using your logic from the quote. That’s why I said you are already unfree by your own definition and why I see nothing inherently wrong about simply moving the line a bit. I think our disagreements differ by only small degrees, frankly
Isn’t politics and democracy subjectively used to denote what is a logical line and what isn’t? You’ll have a hard time convincing me or anyone else if you make the claim that your idea of a line is objective while mine is not :dubious:
Doesn’t everyone vote according to their personal preferences? I don’t see how that’s any different from you voting to prevent others from taking away things you enjoy. You want what you think is best just as I do.
But trans fat is cheaper with no discernible taste. Why would for-profit restaurants switch to something more expensive, possibly worse tasting, just to help people in general? Its like saying a monopoly is the best thing for an industry because without competition, a company can charge people less since they don’t have to share the customer base with anyone.
People are greedy, they’re out for themselves. No way would allowing this laissez faire style lead to a decrease in fatty and unhealthy foods. We’ve already been through this throughout history: without laws and regulation the free market will simply choose the easiest and cheapest way to do things while maximizing profits. By allowing trans fat, you are effectively eliminating choices as well because people will not be able to choose restaurants that don’t use it
Poor people can still choose to vote. There’s a lot more of them than there are rich people, and while representatives themselves may not be poor, there are plenty of people who would fight on their behalf. Not all politicians are evil you know.
And yes, I realize the paternalistic nature of what I’m suggesting is insulting, but I am not insulted when the FDA decides what drugs should be legal for me to consume, or the FCC deciding what I can or cannot watch, or just lawmakers in general telling me what I can and cannot do. I may disagree with their decisions but I would never object to their right to make them.
Would the poor be the only group we cannot make laws targeting? That gives them quite a bit of power if we concede that there are no poor people in government, so we cannot legislate them. Such logic would be horrible. Every group would scramble to take their representatives out of government for this kind of immunity. Of course, I’m being hyperbolic, but the scenario isn’t too far of an extension of your belief. So I accord the poor no special powers to avoid the law: if it targets them unfairly, it at least also targets others who would peruse fatty foods despite their income
That could apply to any group, with any law. Food is no different
The majority of people were not landowning white males, yet the Country was founded by them and laws debated, created, and enforced by that small group. Don’t underestimate the power of connected oligarchs pushing against the popular tide. Superior numbers don’t always win wars.
By extension, I could flip your logic to my side. If there weren’t already a majority of people who wanted unhealthy foods regulated, then this would never have passed committee
You would only be paying for it because the government made you pay for it, turning an internal cost into a negative externality. We didn’t make it your problem, you did, by supporting government interference.