Poll of the Day > Agree/Disagree: the government should protect people from themselves

(+) Yeah! (+)

The government should take away people's "right" to do something of it is in the people's self-interest, or for their health, etc. this includes stuff like making vaccinations mandatory, and K12 schooling, and seatbelts

In general, should people be able to do things that are hurting them (whether intentionally or not) without reprimand, or should the government try to stop people with fines, jail time, taxes, yadayada

---

I'd say the right place to draw the line is when it goes from endangering yourself to endangering yourself and others.. It can be annoying to have to wear a seatbelt, but if you're a parent and there are children depending on you and your refusal to wear one leaves your kid(s) without a parent, is that fair to them? Would it be fairer for the government to step in and force you to do something you don't like for the children's sake?

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.

---

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 can be annoying to have to wear a seatbelt, but if you're a parent and there are children depending on you and your refusal to wear one leaves your kid(s) without a parent, is that fair to them? Would it be fairer for the government to step in and force you to do something you don't like for the children's sake?

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.

I pretty much agree with this, if you wanna smoke crack or buy a prostitute you should be able to, it's not hurting anyone else (assuming the prostitution is consensual)

---

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 can be annoying to have to wear a seatbelt, but if you're a parent and there are children depending on you and your refusal to wear one leaves your kid(s) without a parent, is that fair to them? Would it be fairer for the government to step in and force you to do something you don't like for the children's sake?

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.

Leaving your children without a parent isn't really "endangering", them though.

would you support different laws (regarding seatbelts) for parents vs. childless people? What about single parents vs. those with a partner? What about pet owners?

---

Disagree.

---

MrMelodramatic posted...

Leaving your children without a parent isn't really "endangering", them though.

would you support different laws (regarding seatbelts) for parents vs. childless people? What about single parents vs. those with a partner? What about pet owners?

Well you have to consider the fact that it will be more dangerous for the people in the other car as well since a body flying out of the other car is pretty dangerous, just wear a seat belt

---

"Leaving your children without a parent isn't really "endangering", them though." - Disagree. It may not endanger their lives, but it can certainly endanger their development.
"would you support different laws (regarding seatbelts) for parents vs. childless people?" - I could get behind that, thought it'd probably be opening a can of worms. Ahaha, I can already imagine having the "zero dependents" status encouraged by people hoping for a timely organ donation!
"What about single parents vs. those with a partner?" - No, losing a supporting pillar is devastating for a family in either case.
"What about pet owners?" - Less important only because pets don't have the potential to become contributing members of society, or be a drain on society living off welfare, or end up pushed to the edge and carry out an active shooter event. That said, pet owners should have their pets registered so that should an accident happen, they can be cared for and find new homes.

---

MrMelodramatic posted...

The government should take away people's "right" to do something of it is in the people's self-interest, or for their health, etc. this includes stuff like making vaccinations mandatory, and K12 schooling, and seatbelts

In general, should people be able to do things that are hurting them (whether intentionally or not) without reprimand, or should the government try to stop people with fines, jail time, taxes, yadayada

While I don't think we should protect people from themselves, a lot of these cases end being examples where broader society pays the price for someone's stupidity, and I think it's important to prevent that.

Seat belts? Keeps the driver from flying out of the vehicle and colliding with or causing additional distraction towards other drivers.

Vaccinations? It's necessary for most to be vaccinated to eliminate the spread of the illness, and to protect those who are unable to receive the vaccine like infants or immuno-compromised.

Eating garbage food? Raises health care costs for everyone to cover your ass.

Smoking? see previous entry, but also exposes people to 2nd hand smoke and even 3rd hand smoke (residue remains on surfaces for years afterwards).

K-12 education? An uneducated populace is how we get people like Donald Trump as president.

Nearly every stupid fucking thing someone can do to themselves, can ultimately harm broader society in some way. I was a firm supporter of that "challenge" a few years ago involving fast-acting packages of a certain brand's laundry detergent, though (I'm guessing I'd get modded for even saying it by name). Stuff like that's fine, just removes dumb people from the gene pool w/ no collateral damage to others.

Both agree and disagree - it's not that the government should, it's that people should vote on IF the government should and even then only tentatively

---

Since some people are too dumb to live, then at times yes.

---

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

Since some people are too dumb to live, then at times yes.

---

Depends, seatbelt requirements and DUI/FUI being illegal are just common sense same for K-12, however with K-12, homeschooling should probably be encouraged more. Things like regulating junk food or fiction is something the government should stay out.
---

Hop103 posted...

Depends, seatbelt requirements and DUI/FUI being illegal are just common sense same for K-12, however with K-12, homeschooling should probably be encouraged more. Things like regulating junk food or fiction is something the government should stay out.

Hop103 posted...

Depends, seatbelt requirements and DUI/FUI being illegal are just common sense same for K-12, however with K-12, homeschooling should probably be encouraged more. Things like regulating junk food or fiction is something the government should stay out.

"common sense" isn't a very good line to draw, imo. It's common sense not to smoke a pack a day or to go out to a restaurant during a pandemic, too. Not much is done about that by the federal government.

---

Disagree.

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".
---

the mob are largely idiotic worker bees. politicians will abuse this as much as possible. neither alone should have control of things. Liechtenstein is the best setup with its executive constitutional monarchy.

1. direct democracy determines what elected officials are obligated to try to enact.
2. the prince is bound by the constitution but holds veto powers over referendum results.

the average income is high there, and it's fairly culturally homogenous, and that can't be discounted, as it means everyone is better-educated, more well-fed, and more like-minded on many things. there's also no racial tensions or other historical systemic woes to sort out because of its size.

Strongly, strongly disagree.

---

Strongly disagree.