is this a serious question Harry? Or do you just want jokes?
Both.
Fire away!
I draw the line at plagiarising The Office. That is simply not funny, Chester.
"What obviously benefitial thing could the government not make mandatory without offending your libertarian ideal?"
Well, I'm glad you asked: enforce correct spelling and outlaw double negatives. That wouldn't be unbenefitial.
I don't know about the other states, but in NSW we have 40kmh zones during certain times during school days - 8:00-9:30am and 2:30-4:00pm.
These zones extend a few hundred metres from the school, which sort of begs the question: at 250metres from a school do school kids magically become less prone to throwing themselves onto the Pacific Highway to be run over by rush hour traffic.
Of course it's a farce. And a way for the govt to collect money at the instigation of parents who are simply stupid and irrational.
However, since NSW is the second greatest litigating state in the world after California, I don't expect this bizarre push against personal responsibility to end any time soon. I can't but conclude that the push is coming sole from those without a notion of personal responsibility.
Perhaps an all incompassing 'Breeding License' would neatly take care of pool fencing, smoke detectors, seatbelts and reversing in school carparks.
The plaintive cry of 'why doesn't the government do something' should be met by sticking those people in the head with a pool cue and then saying, in a reasoned voice, 'It was such a pity that the government didn't prevent me sticking this pool cue in your head.'
I don't see why renters simply don't buy the $40 battery operated smoke detectors if they want to.
Because it's my right to die in a blaze if I want to, dammit. If the landlord wants to keep their property then they should put in fire alarms.
Seriously, it is true that smoke alarms save lives so in the same way that landlords are supposed to provide housing that is structurally sound the houses should also have smoke alarms. Tennants should check to make sure that they are working and shell out $4 for a new battery if needed.
On the serious side of things.. the government seems to think it has a duty to protect us... even from ourselves. I'm in favour of laws that let you do whatever you like to yourself, but stops you hurting others.. ie: I can drink till I pass out everynight if I so choose, but I can't drink and drive.
I'm fine with smoke detectors being mandatory... in rental properties I see it as (like Mindy says) just a part of providing a safe, livable property. For private homes... well I can see how you could argue that it's your right to burn down your own house... but I see it as a way to protect others in your house (guests, children etc) from your actions. And to maybe save a firefighter from harm.
I'm all for firemen.
Yeah, firemen are pretty cool. Smokey the Bear was pretty cool as far as cartoon public servants go.
"I'm in favour of laws that let you do whatever you like to yourself, but stops you hurting others"
That's my position too.
For those who don't know, every so often the firemen practice rescues and such like right near Meg's work. During such times, she and her female workmates get no work done.
Also, the fire alarm in their building goes off more often than is statistically likely.
Question.
When I was talking Libertarian vs Government with friends the other day, the question was asked... "should we stop people committing suicide?"
Basically, emergency services etc have a duty (are legally obliged??) to stop someone 'jumping' etc. Should we stop people doing something they want to do? Is it controlling to tell people that they HAVE to live? Or is it a duty of a responsible and caring community?
And is it any different to euthanasia? Is it possible to be pro-euthanasia, but anti-suicide?
I think the thinking behind saving people trying to commit suicide is that if they are trying to do it in a public place in a public manner, then they aren't really trying to kill themselves, it's more a cry for help thing, so you should stop them from accidentally killing themselves. If that makes sense. As far as I know if someone is really determined to kill themselves they do it and then you find them afterwards.
what obviously beneficial thing would I not endorse on libertarian grounds? The eradication of cigarettes, and the lifelong surveillance of repeat sex offenders, no more eating of meat, and perhaps also no more wearing of low-rise jeans.
The thing is, I don't think I have all that many libertarian impulses. It's not a matter of disagreeing that people should be left in peace to do what they like as long as that doesn't involve doing harm to other people. I fully go along with that, as far as it goes. But overriding that principle is my belief that what we choose to call 'free will' is hardly ever free. I don't think anyone would ever freely choose to eat themselves into obesity or to become so depressed that suicide seemed the only way out, or to smoke till they were killed by cancer or heart disease. We don't pretend that children or animals are totally in control of their own lives and choices, and I think it's more or less the same story with so-called responsible mature adults, only it's economics that is pushing us around, and it's doing it so cunningly and "naturally" that we don't even notice.
You took the red pill today, didn't you, Laura?
Leaving aside whether people have "free will" or not, if you argue that they do not, who is the best person to make decisions for them?
I think most people are better off being free to fuck up their own lives. If you know what's best for other people, feel free to tell them so, but don't expect them to thank you.
Well I think we should be able to light a fag without that irritating bit on the lighter that only kiddies can work.
Zoe, I think that 'childproof' lighters were invented to stop drunk people smoking.
Very effective, not.
And crackers! We should all have firecrackers!
Suicide is an interesting one.
You talk them down because they are, almost by definition, not in their right minds ie not a functioning person.
It is almost as if 'society' has a hypocratic oath of sorts.
'The eradication of cigarettes' is a good one.
The smoke-free venue is an interesting situation. Yes, I agree that filthy dirty smokers don't have a 'right' to blow smoke on me, but by the same token I don't see how I can argue against a smoker-specific venue.
Is banning smoking at all venues discriminatory? I think it, strictly speaking, is. I think that some venues could get a 'smoking' license, if you will. This license means that you can smoke in them.
It would be a self regulating system in much the same way gay clubs are. Sure, they aren't actually non-gay unfriendly, but they effectively are.
Is this a bad thing?
Not as far as I can tell. I guess it is a bit like saying Anglicans don't go to Catholic Churches. They only go to Anglican churches not because they are banned from all other houses of worship but because that's just where Anglicans go.
I find suicide to be a remarkably selfish act. taking yourself out of the picture to let everyone in your life be devastated is horribly wrong. if people had the 'right' to kill themselves, do they have to 'right' to fuck other people's lives like that?
euthanasia at least is saying, well, I'm in chronic pain, or I've had a long and fruitful life and now it's time to go. that IS different although of course it's a fine line in many people's books. did anyone see that Compass programme on a couple of weeks back about Dr Nitschke and the french lady who committed euthanasia? fascinating - she was lucid and such an interesting woman and had obviously thought very hard about when she wanted to die. it was still sort of sad, though.
oh absolutely, I mean you could argue that we should prevent suicide, not because someone dies, but because of the impact on others.. looking at it in an impact on society rather than the individual. But then we allow drinking... so...
yeah, well, legal drugs vs illegal drugs and the roles they all play in screwing the lives of the users as well as their loved ones, whether they die from said substances or no.
ain't that a big fat kettle of fish.
I'm actually getting pretty sick and tired of all of them, myself... must be getting old and cynical or something.
I completely agree that it's for the most part better to just let people "fuck up their own lives." What bugs me more about "free will" is that the idea of it is too often used as an excuse to blame people for bad things that happen to them, things that really they don't have any genuine control over, and to absolve the community from helping them to pick up the pieces or taking any responsibility for what went wrong in the first place.
A recent example is Tony Abbott's disgusting suggestion that Aboriginal people really need to just pull themselves together, stop eating junk food, and go to the gym more often, if they want to improve their health and live as long as the whitefellas. Dubya is a master of that kind of rhetoric.
I feel the same way as Harry about the suicide issue.
I'm not saying (I think I'm not saying) that people are fundamentally too dumb or weak or or insane or stupid to think for themselves or make their own decisions, or that I think I know what's best for other people.
What I am saying is that very few people are in a position to make truly free and informed decisions and choices, and that's really, really bad. The only actual self-professed libertarian who I know well seems to be missing the part of the brain that understands this.
I don't think anyone can talk a true suicide down (or should that be up?). It's a matter of personal freedom that no amount of lawmaking can stop (a bit like abortion), and anyone that can be talked out of it wanted to be talked out of it. Those who wanna go will go no matter what you do.
I think suicide is wrong, because it hurts more than just one person, but I'm fully supportive of euthanasia, and I guess there's only a fine line between the two. One usually comes a little bit more of a surprise than the other, I guess.
Humourlessness here: I'm from the town (Coonamble) where the child and parents died in the fire. I knew them, though not well, but well enough to feel more than your ordinary "oh, how terrible".
If they'd had a fire alarm, they may have lived. No-one deserves that sort of death, especially not a small child. So I'm all for fire alarms being mandatory.
Okay, now for a joke... dammit, can't think of one. Aaargggh. I'll come back later.
Sorry to hear that Kate.
Yes, it's all abit "the lesson that no one learned last time."
Cancer screening would be another example of this. Especially considering how common cancer is.
Commenting by HaloScan
