LogFAQs > #950329646

The problem is where you draw the line for "endangering" yourself.

Spending too much time online is detrimental to your health - do you want the government regulating the amount of time you can game and force you to take mandatory breaks? Lack of exercise is bad for your health - should the government require every citizen to spend a mandatory amount of time each week at a local gym (and assess tax penalties to anyone who doesn't)? Eating poorly is detrimental to your health - should the government go from suggesting a food pyramid/MyPlate recommendations to outright banning foods?

New York City decided that it was unacceptable that people were drinking too much "sugary drink" because it's unhealthy, and wanted to ban the sale of any soda over 16oz - would you consider that an acceptable decision? (It's worth noting that the NY Court of Appeals said the city didn't and shouldn't have the legal right to make that decision, and prevented them from doing so.)

It's arguably detrimental to the physical and mental health of both parents and children to grow up in poor families that have trouble making ends meet - does this mean the government should have the authority to legally prevent poor people from having kids?

Considering the government has a looong history of making moral judgements (and both parties have done this - the anti-music movement in the 1980s was led by Democrats, as was the anti-gaming push in the 1990s), can we trust them not to exceed their authority, and decide that things are "bad" for us even if we disagree, and "protect" us from ourselves regardless of how we feel about it?

The real problem is that I don't trust the government to actually do the things it's supposed to be doing now - which leaves me with very little trust or confidence that they'd do any better at implementing fair and necessary solutions to even more complex and ambiguous socio-cultural problems that start shading into moral, ethical, or personal choice scenarios.

People can say "Well, the government should intervene in common sense situations," but the problem is a) the government doesn't seem to be very good with "common sense" in general, and b) "common sense" is incredibly fucking subjective.



Shadowbird_RH posted...

I'd say the right place to draw the line is when it goes from endangering yourself to endangering yourself and others.

It's one thing to be free to make your own decisions, but if you can't be responsible enough to make the right decisions when other people are involved, then it falls to a higher power to make the right decision for you.

The problem there is that the line between hurting yourself and hurting others can be blurry at times.

It's easy in cases like drunk driving (ie, I'm not just endangering myself, but also everyone I might smash into - especially when it seems like a greater percentage of drunk driving fatalities are innocent people who get hit moreso than the drunks themselves), but there are much more complicated interactions.

If I choose to pig out and never exercise, I'm theoretically only hurting myself when I become a fat wheezy bastard, but the toll I place on the health care system and insurance can be passed on to other people, who will wind up paying more because of my choices (and who will thus potentially have their own lives negatively impacted by my choices). When I go to the grocery store and park in the handicap spot and use the motorized cart because I can't walk more than 20 feet without needing to take a nap, I'm using resources that others with more legitimate conditions, injuries, or health issues could be using instead (and the need to provide and maintain services for me will cost others money that could be better spent in other ways).

If I don't get vaccinated, I can justify it by saying "Well, if I get sick, it's only my problem", but technically if I get sick I'm placing a toll on the health care system in general, and remaining an infection vector that can potentially infect others or serve as a petri dish for diseases to mutate into worse forms. On top of which, being sick for days/weeks at a time can easily put economic stress on my employer (since I won't be at work doing my job) and my family (if I'm not getting paid for my sick leave). My actions can easily hurt others, even if I can't see those negative impacts directly.

If I don't want to shovel my porch/sidewalk after it snows, should I be allowed to do so, because that's my personal choice, and if I have to wade through snow or risk slipping on ice that's on me? Or should the fact that other people may come onto my property (even if they're uninvited and I don't want them there in the first place) and slip on unattended ice mean I should be legally required to clear every major pathway or paved surface within a certain amount of time or face legal penalties?

Again, the problem is that we'd need a rational, responsible, and receptive government to determine what is acceptable and what isn't, but since we don't have one of those (and trying to have a referendum vote on every human behavior would be dubious at best), it's extremely hard to say at what point you're crossing from "acceptable mandated behavior" to "mind your own fucking business".
---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family