The Cellar - View Single Post

modernhamlet · 01-18-2002, 09:09 AM

Nic Name,

At what point do you draw the line in the government's power to protect me from myself? Can you not see the Big Brother argument here? Time was that the government stayed out of people's private lives, and to be honest, I don't think things are so much better now that we're all "protected".

I used to be a radical liberal. I'd say I still have those leanings, but with a healthy dose of libertarianism thrown in. The perspective helps. Try it sometime.

But to address your point...

<b>my point is that the so-called "my right" to smoke which is so often alleged by the smoker is not entrenched in the constitution, so as to be free from abridgement by the will of the people as expressed by the elected representative legislators, in the interests of all the people, including the children of the nation.</b>

This is why we don't have a pure and direct democracy. To protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If what was best for the nation was always what was best for the majority, here are just a few things you'd see:

Slavery (African-Americans make up only a small percentage of the population. The cheap labor source would surely benefit the majority wouldn't it?)

Eugenics (Mentally and physically handicapped persons contribute less to the overall well being of the nation. Make sure they don't reproduce and drag the average down.)

Enforced Christianity (We are predominantly a Christian country. Why not repeal that pesky First Amendment (as the majority could do if they wanted to) and demand all heathens convert?

Yes, these are exaggerations. But there is a point where a human being should be left to make their own choices. You and I clearly choose a different point. Smoking probably does harm to children who grow up in a smoking house. But so does parental neglect, a FAR more serious and widespread problem in this country.

I grew up in a house with a smoker. Yet I was an star athelete and got into a prestigious college. I picked up smoking there. Neither of my brothers smokes. Both are healthy and decent human beings. Do you really think that being taken from our loving home and forced to live in a series of foster homes with strangers would have been beneficial to our well-being?

The fact is... you have to have a license to drive a car, but you don't need one to have a child. Parenting well is incredibly difficult and most parents are frankly not fit for the job. But they do it anyway, the best that they can. And some of them smoke.

But arguing that the solution to any social problem is for the government to intervene on behalf of those who are being harmed is to invite us to live an Orwellian existance without free will. I, for one, will tolerate a little inconvenience or pain to make sure that never happens.

peace,

tom

01-18-2002, 09:09 AM	#86
modernhamlet Regulator of Squalor Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Columbus, OH Posts: 37	"right" to smoke... Nic Name, At what point do you draw the line in the government's power to protect me from myself? Can you not see the Big Brother argument here? Time was that the government stayed out of people's private lives, and to be honest, I don't think things are so much better now that we're all "protected". I used to be a radical liberal. I'd say I still have those leanings, but with a healthy dose of libertarianism thrown in. The perspective helps. Try it sometime. But to address your point... <b>my point is that the so-called "my right" to smoke which is so often alleged by the smoker is not entrenched in the constitution, so as to be free from abridgement by the will of the people as expressed by the elected representative legislators, in the interests of all the people, including the children of the nation.</b> This is why we don't have a pure and direct democracy. To protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If what was best for the nation was always what was best for the majority, here are just a few things you'd see: Slavery (African-Americans make up only a small percentage of the population. The cheap labor source would surely benefit the majority wouldn't it?) Eugenics (Mentally and physically handicapped persons contribute less to the overall well being of the nation. Make sure they don't reproduce and drag the average down.) Enforced Christianity (We are predominantly a Christian country. Why not repeal that pesky First Amendment (as the majority could do if they wanted to) and demand all heathens convert? Yes, these are exaggerations. But there is a point where a human being should be left to make their own choices. You and I clearly choose a different point. Smoking probably does harm to children who grow up in a smoking house. But so does parental neglect, a FAR more serious and widespread problem in this country. I grew up in a house with a smoker. Yet I was an star athelete and got into a prestigious college. I picked up smoking there. Neither of my brothers smokes. Both are healthy and decent human beings. Do you really think that being taken from our loving home and forced to live in a series of foster homes with strangers would have been beneficial to our well-being? The fact is... you have to have a license to drive a car, but you don't need one to have a child. Parenting well is incredibly difficult and most parents are frankly not fit for the job. But they do it anyway, the best that they can. And some of them smoke. But arguing that the solution to any social problem is for the government to intervene on behalf of those who are being harmed is to invite us to live an Orwellian existance without free will. I, for one, will tolerate a little inconvenience or pain to make sure that never happens. peace, tom