The PokéCommunity Forums  

Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > Discussions & Debates
Sign Up Rules/FAQ Live Battle Blogs Mark Forums Read

Notices

Discussions & Debates The place to go for slightly more in-depth topics. Discussions and debates about the world, current events, ideas, news, and more.


Reply
Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.  
Thread Tools
  #1    
Old November 19th, 2012, 03:07 PM
von Weltschmerz
the first born unicorn
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
An issue raised in the "Marijuana" discussion, but a different issue entirely:

How much control should the government have in the personal affairs of its citizens? I.E. Smoking weed, eating too much sugar etc. If the discussion goes in such a direction, it could also encompass deeper issues such as governmental regulation of economy and etc.
Reply With Quote
  #2    
Old November 19th, 2012, 04:01 PM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
I don't think "sin taxes" are really about control. That's just a mask. It's more like "well, everybody does this. Might as well generate revenue off it". I'd rather have taxed marijuana than illegal marijuana, so fine.

But, outside taxing... I have no problem with graphic pictures and warnings on tobacco products as a deterrent. Over time they have shown to work. They protect people and those around them.

Same with seat belts. Or bicycle helmets. This goes beyond individuals. As this effects parents decisions on their children. And like second-hand smoke, the parents stupid decision shouldn't be a reason to harm the child. So, the rule applies to all to be fair.

Safety standards. Health standards. Guidelines and recommendations

Outside of safety, I don't think it is necessary. Like Bloomberg banning large soft drinks. I don't drink (I don't drink any size soft drink), but I think others should be able to. And food/beverage establishments shouldn't have to remove the item from their menu because the mayor doesn't agree with it. That was very nanny-ish. On the other hand, I'm okay when local governments get involved to ban food items that made from endangered species.

In short, I'm all over the place. When it makes sense, fine. When it doesn't, no. No catch-all.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3    
Old November 19th, 2012, 04:36 PM
von Weltschmerz
the first born unicorn
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
I wasn't talking so much about "sin taxes" when I mentioned government regulation as I was the idea of a free market. Should employers have the rights to set their own wages? Because I mean... if you don't like what a job pays, you don't have to work it. Things like that.

Second hand smoke, while an issue if people are being negligent about it, is not one if people smoke responsibly. So, if the government found an effectual way to control second hand smoke, would you then still be against it? I don't see how seatbelts and helmets affect anyone but the intended user. If you are riding a bike with no helmet and hit a car, your lack of helmet is only going to mean more damage to your head, and would not, in any plausible way, affect anyone else. The same with a seat belt; it would stop only yourself , and not wearing one would not make anyone else more liable to injury. And SURE, these things might be safer for an individual... but is that risk not up to the individual to decide on? I mean, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else? Or does the government have an inherent right to ensure its national security through the (forced) good health and longevity(by minimizing the amount of things we do that subtract from our life) of its citizens?
__________________
Being wrong isn't "bad", failing to admit that you are, is.
Reply With Quote
  #4    
Old November 19th, 2012, 06:00 PM
PiemanFiddy's Avatar
PiemanFiddy
Spreader of the T-Virus
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Florida
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Quote:
Originally Posted by von Weltschmerz View Post
An issue raised in the "Marijuana" discussion, but a different issue entirely:

How much control should the government have in the personal affairs of its citizens? I.E. Smoking weed, eating too much sugar etc. If the discussion goes in such a direction, it could also encompass deeper issues such as governmental regulation of economy and etc.

Um.. In terms of a Government, they should have NO control at all.


Since the Government relies on the votes of the Republicans, Democrats, and the average US citizen, it's easily implied that a large majority of the votes go on to the public and their OPINIONS. An opinion of something like Pot is going to get all the crazies out there hyped up, and they'll vote dishonestly.

Eating too much sugar? Umm... If you're implying that the government is allowed to monitor the average diet of the American People, then PLEASE point me in the direction of another country. That is just downright ridiculous...

In my opinion, the only interference there should be between Rapists and Potheads is the Police force. They have their own towns/states under control, and they can decide for themselves if the punishment is deemed worthy for Imprisonment or Probation.

Personally I think the only reason weed was legalized was because a large majority of americans who voted 'yes' were either Delinquents or Potheads. They only thought of themselves and how awesome it would be to smoke weed, but NEVER thought of the effects it could have on the other demographic. Dishonest voters.


Well.. this has derailed a bit.. but my moot point is that the Government really shouldn't bother with anything, since all they do is either make a big deal out of it, or go to war with it. =/
__________________
"The entire world will be infected. A new Genesis is at hand and I will be the creator!"
Reply With Quote
  #5    
Old November 19th, 2012, 06:06 PM
SamuJake's Avatar
SamuJake
I beat Red when I was 8' bro.
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Australia
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Modest
I personally think that as long as someone is doing something, and it doesn't affect anyone else, then it's OK. As long as people know and are educated on the risks of things, then I guess it's fine.

I don't really know, though. I'm sure what I just said would have a lot of flaws in it. But I think it's a good idea.
Reply With Quote
  #6    
Old November 19th, 2012, 06:16 PM
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14
Conservative Patriot
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Nature: Bold
Government naturally wants to expand its power and control, so We the People must fight back against it!
Reply With Quote
  #7    
Old November 19th, 2012, 06:17 PM
PiemanFiddy's Avatar
PiemanFiddy
Spreader of the T-Virus
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Florida
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 View Post
Government naturally wants to expand its power and control, so We the People must fight back against it!

This.


If only they wouldn't constantly try to tie themselves into other countries affairs and sacrificing our own people for their own damn problems.

It's a shame, really.
__________________
"The entire world will be infected. A new Genesis is at hand and I will be the creator!"
Reply With Quote
  #8    
Old November 19th, 2012, 06:17 PM
von Weltschmerz
the first born unicorn
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiemanFiddy View Post
Eating too much sugar? Umm... If you're implying that the government is allowed to monitor the average diet of the American People, then PLEASE point me in the direction of another country. That is just downright ridiculous...

In my opinion, the only interference there should be between Rapists and Potheads is the Police force. They have their own towns/states under control, and they can decide for themselves if the punishment is deemed worthy for Imprisonment or Probation.

Personally I think the only reason weed was legalized was because a large majority of americans who voted 'yes' were either Delinquents or Potheads. They only thought of themselves and how awesome it would be to smoke weed, but NEVER thought of the effects it could have on the other demographic. Dishonest voters.


Well.. this has derailed a bit.. but my moot point is that the Government really shouldn't bother with anything, since all they do is either make a big deal out of it, or go to war with it. =/
They don't exactly regulate the diet on such a personal level. But they seek to ban certain food items for consumption because they have too much of this, or too much of that. The question, however, isn't if their claims on the health affects are true, but whether or not they should get to decide that for people.

The "police force" is merely a legal extension of the government. It is through the government that they get their power. They cannot act in a way that defies the government. If the police were to arrest people for things not denoted as crimes by the federal government.. the judicial system would see them free, and the officers reprimanded/fired. Also.. the way that you use rapists and pothead in the same sentence... is not so shockingly offensive. Those are two ENTIRELY different types of crime. One is non-violent and affects only the user. The other is EXTREMELY violent and affects someone other than the perpetrator of the crime. That being said... marijuana is NOT legalized... so I don't know where you are getting that tidbit about "delinquents" skewing the results of the vote. And that is just it... smoking weed will affect no one but themselves. But that debate is for another thread. So the question is drawn between the two crimes that you proposed.

It seems to me like you are a much more states right oriented person. That would not equate to the police force running the town, but the states would, themselves get to choose what works best. That is what the U.S. was originally founded upon, but meh...

I also wonder if you realize the implication of "no government control." That would be a state of anarchy. Anarchy in which people could murder, rape, and steal as they please. Without any government... the police force would have no value. They, themselves, cannot decide that people are criminals. That is for the courts to decide. So even if that was changed, and the police got to make the decision... The solution to getting out of any crime would be to murder the entire police force. With no one able to denote you as a criminal... you couldn't go to jail.
__________________
Being wrong isn't "bad", failing to admit that you are, is.
Reply With Quote
  #9    
Old November 19th, 2012, 06:28 PM
PiemanFiddy's Avatar
PiemanFiddy
Spreader of the T-Virus
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Florida
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Quote:
Originally Posted by von Weltschmerz View Post
They don't exactly regulate the diet on such a personal level. But they seek to ban certain food items for consumption because they have too much of this, or too much of that. The question, however, isn't if their claims on the health affects are true, but whether or not they should get to decide that for people.

The "police force" is merely a legal extension of the government. It is through the government that they get their power. They cannot act in a way that defies the government. If the police were to arrest people for such things... the judicial system would see them free, and the officers reprimanded/fired. Also.. the way that you use rapists and pothead in the same sentence... is not so shockingly offensive. Those are two ENTIRELY different types of crime. One is non-violent and affects only the user. The other is EXTREMELY violent and affects someone other than the perpetrator of the crime. That being said... marijuana is NOT legalized... so I don't know where you are getting that tidbit about "delinquents" skewing the results of the vote. And that is just it... smoking weed will affect no one but themselves. But that debate is for another thread. So the question is drawn between the two crimes that you proposed.

It seems to me like you are a much more states right oriented person. That would not equate to the police force running the town, but the states would, themselves get to choose what works best. That is what the U.S. was originally founded upon, but meh...

I also wonder if you realize the implication of "no government control." That would be a state of anarchy. Anarchy in which people could murder, rape, and steal as they please. Without any government... the police force would have no value. They, themselves, cannot decide that people are criminals. That is for the courts to decide. So even if that was changed, and the police got to make the decision... The solution to getting out of any crime would be to murder the entire police force. With no one able to denote you as a criminal... you couldn't go to jail.

THIS is why my School Lunches are so crappy. Thanks for clearer confirmation on that matter. I know Obesity and Anorexia is a problem, but that doesn't have any business being in the hands of the government, let alone a School Board or Parent-Teacher conference.

You spoke of Personal Affairs and Legalized Marijuana. Most people who smoke Marijuana do it to make food taste better. Even though there ARE people who use it medicinally, the demographic of 'potheads' are much higher. I don't say this to be offensive, but if you seriously search 'legalized marijuana' on google, you'll get 1 of 3 things:

1. News Story coverage.
2. Reddit memes covering it.
3. Pictures of addicts living on the streets, or random 'bums'. (Often associated with Marijuana... idk why)


As for Personal Affairs, I assume it's either a family argument, domestic violence, or a rapist. Since most females (or males) that are raped tend not to tell anyone until they're given the help they need.


Oh well.. Maybe Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were the wiser of the founders since they knew how to run a country. Unfortunately, ever since Nixon, or even Bush, It's been devolving.

I never said the government couldn't have control over the police force... wait.. OK maybe I misunderstood myself. What I meant to imply was that the Government should ONLY be allowed to butt in with Police Force affairs as long as the crime was pre-meditated or etc. They shouldn't have COMPLETE control over the Police, otherwise the Police Force turns into the catalyst for spying on other Americans they have no business spying on.


Just what I always thought. Didn't mean to offend. If I did, I apologize.
__________________
"The entire world will be infected. A new Genesis is at hand and I will be the creator!"
Reply With Quote
  #10    
Old November 19th, 2012, 07:36 PM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by von Weltschmerz View Post
I wasn't talking so much about "sin taxes" when I mentioned government regulation as I was the idea of a free market. Should employers have the rights to set their own wages? Because I mean... if you don't like what a job pays, you don't have to work it. Things like that.

Second hand smoke, while an issue if people are being negligent about it, is not one if people smoke responsibly. So, if the government found an effectual way to control second hand smoke, would you then still be against it? I don't see how seatbelts and helmets affect anyone but the intended user. If you are riding a bike with no helmet and hit a car, your lack of helmet is only going to mean more damage to your head, and would not, in any plausible way, affect anyone else. The same with a seat belt; it would stop only yourself , and not wearing one would not make anyone else more liable to injury. And SURE, these things might be safer for an individual... but is that risk not up to the individual to decide on? I mean, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else? Or does the government have an inherent right to ensure its national security through the (forced) good health and longevity(by minimizing the amount of things we do that subtract from our life) of its citizens?
Think broader on the helmet issue. Five year old kid going for a ride. Is he really buying the bike or the helmet? No. His parents buy the helmet. His parents tell him to put on the helmet. It's their responsibility. But, some parents are bad parents and won't have the kid wear a helmet. So, the kid suffers.

Same with seat belts. Is the kid going to do it for themselves? No. And even if you were the only one in the car, and by extension the only one injured or dead. There are a number of outcomes to that that don't just involve that single individual. Entire family structures are upended. Emotional damage for others. Economic challenges if the bread winner of the family dies. So, it affects other people.

To think either action only affects the one individual is an incredibly selfish and self-centred way of looking at it. Other people are hurt. I have no problem with safety regulations and standards to prevent people from unnecessarily being injured or dying. Like hard hats on construction sites. It isn't something that can avoided 100% of course, nor perhaps should it. But, if you can make things safer. Why not? That's why we have drivers licenses. If it's in your own house and there's no way someone could police that, then yeah don't bother. And wouldn't be the government's responsibility anyway. But out in public? Sure, protect people.

As for the wages. Employers can set whatever wages they want. I'd support the idea of mandatory cost of living increases, but I don't see that happening. But even then, the wage is what the employer set.... just updated. If you're talking about minimum wage... sure? It's just a couple of bucks. Otherwise you'd just get a couple of cents. Neither is livable, and minimum wage shouldn't really be livable as you want to encourage moving up the ladder and beyond that. But, if you get a couple dollars out of it instead of cents, there's a least a reason for someone to actually want that job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by von Weltschmerz View Post
They don't exactly regulate the diet on such a personal level. But they seek to ban certain food items for consumption because they have too much of this, or too much of that. The question, however, isn't if their claims on the health affects are true, but whether or not they should get to decide that for people.
There are things that the US government has banned that don't make sense. Like unpasteurized cheese. Fine for the rest of the world, but not America? Makes no sense.

I don't really have a problem with them having corporations print ingredients and nutritional information. That's for our benefit. We don't need to obey it. It's just extra knowledge. I see that as a useful tool for the free market. By aiming consumers with information that can better make decisions. Heck, you don't even have to use it for health reasons. I mostly want to know which item has more substance to it. More bang for my buck. Also, I don't see what's bad with having standards so that certain bad chemicals and substances can be in consumable goods. Or marking food that has been genetically modified. It's just knowledge, and with knowledge you can make choices.
__________________

Last edited by TRIFORCE89; November 19th, 2012 at 07:48 PM. Reason: Your double post has been automatically merged.
Reply With Quote
  #11    
Old November 19th, 2012, 07:54 PM
Oryx
open up your sea chart
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 View Post
Same with seat belts. Is the kid going to do it for themselves? No. And even if you were the only one in the car, and by extension the only one injured or dead. There are a number of outcomes to that that don't just involve that single individual. Entire family structures are upended. Emotional damage for others. Economic challenges if the bread winner of the family dies. So, it affects other people.
Doesn't that go down a dangerous road though? The economic challenges would still be the same if a person was killed riding a motorcycle or overeating. But these are seen as personal freedoms. You said yourself you're against banning larger soft drinks, but those larger soft drinks are unhealthy in every sense of the word, empty calories. And there are plenty of economic challenges if the breadwinner of the family dies. So logically, we should ban large soft drinks. It becomes a slippery slope when you decide that one thing is unsafe enough to force people to change by law, but another thing isn't. You have to be really careful that your arguments are very narrowly tailored to a specific situation.

I appreciate the children argument though. Would it be a better law to require all children to wear seatbelts and helmets, so as to eliminate parental influence, but allow adults to act as they please?
__________________

'Hoy, small fry!
Reply With Quote
  #12    
Old November 19th, 2012, 08:04 PM
von Weltschmerz
the first born unicorn
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 View Post
Think broader on the helmet issue. Five year old kid going for a ride. Is he really buying the bike or the helmet? No. His parents buy the helmet. His parents tell him to put on the helmet. It's their responsibility. But, some parents are bad parents and won't have the kid wear a helmet. So, the kid suffers.

Same with seat belts. Is the kid going to do it for themselves? No. And even if you were the only one in the car, and by extension the only one injured or dead. There are a number of outcomes to that that don't just involve that single individual. Entire family structures are upended. Emotional damage for others. Economic challenges if the bread winner of the family dies. So, it affects other people.

To think either action only affects the one individual is an incredibly selfish and self-centred way of looking at it. Other people are hurt. I have no problem with safety regulations and standards to prevent people from unnecessarily being injured or dying. Like hard hats on construction sites. It isn't something that can avoided 100% of course, nor perhaps should it. But, if you can make things safer. Why not? That's why we have drivers licenses. If it's in your own house and there's no way someone could police that, then yeah don't bother. And wouldn't be the government's responsibility anyway. But out in public? Sure, protect people.

As for the wages. Employers can set whatever wages they want. I'd support the idea of mandatory cost of living increases, but I don't see that happening. But even then, the wage is what the employer set.... just updated. If you're talking about minimum wage... sure? It's just a couple of bucks. Otherwise you'd just get a couple of cents. Neither is livable, and minimum wage shouldn't really be livable as you want to encourage moving up the ladder and beyond that. But, if you get a couple dollars out of it instead of cents, there's a least a reason for someone to actually want that job.
Even if helmets were a requirement... that wouldn't ensure parents teach their kids to use them. It would only go to anger the people who have no such interest in wearing a helmet. The kid should know to wear a helmet, even if his parents don't tell him to. It says it in the manual, on the bike... It says it all sorts of different places. Places that people are SUPPOSED to read, even if they don't... Yeah, most five year olds probably don't have too great of reading skills. But then again... most bikes made for 5 year olds aren't dangerous. And just because some people fail to do something does not mean everyone should be forced to. By such logic... we should make it the law to drink water. Because you need to keep hydrated. And not EVERY parent tells their kid that... You ask why not make things safer? No one says you can't. YOU can make things as safe as YOU want. FOR YOU. But I would, even if it is completely stupid of me, like to remain unsafe if it meant keeping my liberty intact.

The emotional effects are not taken into consideration. That is just as much as accountable for the people experiencing them as it is for the event that caused them. It isn't anymore a crime because you made someone "feel bad." The economic situation of the family MIGHT be a selling point. But I mean... what if the "bread winner" decides to leave the family? The same financia issues would arise, and I doubt you would want a law requiring couples to stick together. Sure, they might be able to get child support.. but they could also get life insurance to cover the financial loss when s/he dies. And if they can't afford life insurance... I really don't think that any form of child support received would be viable as a financial solution. The driver license thing falls short to me.. because how you drive effects other people. But saying that a seat belt would is like saying that you're a more reckless driver because you are wearing a red shirt instead of a blue one.

And I'm sorry... but if the kid isn't going to do what's safe for him... that is still his own choice. Obviously the seat belts are there for a reason.. They aren't just some fancy decor.

I was talking about minimum wage, yeah. I'm not saying that it is a bad thing(I agree with it completely) but I mean... the idea that jobs would be reduced to working for pennies is simply asinine. People wouldn't work a job worth so little. That means, that in order to get employees, the employers would have to offer an attractive rate of pay. And that would have to be one that is at least viable for basic survival of human beings. They have to pay like 8 bucks on a person. But if they instead could pay 4, that means that they could hire two people. That means two families are getting income, not just one. Not that it would necessarily work that way, but it could. Just as the examples you provided COULD happen that way. (Yeah right. This isn't what I think though, so it's okay. Just trying to generate convo)

And at Toujours: That would be a nice law. From what I understood... that was kind of the situation with helmets. I've always been told that you had to. And that in some places the age to be "helmetless" was 16 or 18.
__________________
Being wrong isn't "bad", failing to admit that you are, is.

Last edited by von Weltschmerz; November 19th, 2012 at 08:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13    
Old November 19th, 2012, 08:13 PM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toujours View Post
Doesn't that go down a dangerous road though? The economic challenges would still be the same if a person was killed riding a motorcycle or overeating. But these are seen as personal freedoms. You said yourself you're against banning larger soft drinks, but those larger soft drinks are unhealthy in every sense of the word, empty calories. And there are plenty of economic challenges if the breadwinner of the family dies. So logically, we should ban large soft drinks. It becomes a slippery slope when you decide that one thing is unsafe enough to force people to change by law, but another thing isn't. You have to be really careful that your arguments are very narrowly tailored to a specific situation.
Overeating is different. The other things I mentioned are more like accidents. You want to mitigate the impact of the accident, not prevent them from occurring. So, don't ban a motorcycle. But have motorcycle helmets. I think a better analogy might be cross-walks. We're not banning walking, we're facilitating safe walking. You not use the cross-walks and cross in the middle of the road or not follow the traffic lights, but you may be putting your life in danger. You can if you want, but the safe option is there.

Anyway, helmets, seatbelts, jaywalking, whatever, you shouldn't get imprisoned. You may get ticketed though. So, just like speeding, go ahead if you want to risk getting ticketed. There are speed limits for a reason too (although they should be raised). Here in Toronto, we recently made texting while driving against the law. Get caught, get a ticket. I don't see that as really preventing something. And as such, it isn't government control. More like encouraging or reinforcing safe behaviour. Don't follow if you want, but just know it isn't safe and you may get a ticket.

If you don't want such things to be something enforced, policed, or ticketed. That's fine too. Then the government should invest in educational campaigns instead. Not against the law to not use a seatbelt, but there may be commercials to encourage their use for instance. Knowledge is power XD

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toujours View Post
I appreciate the children argument though. Would it be a better law to require all children to wear seatbelts and helmets, so as to eliminate parental influence, but allow adults to act as they please?
Sure. And by having that behaviour reinforced early on, they'll probably maintain it in adulthood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by von Weltschmerz View Post
And just because some people fail to do something does not mean everyone should be forced to. By such logic... we should make it the law to drink water. Because you need to keep hydrated. And not EVERY parent tells their kid that...
See, no, that's not what I'm arguing. If it's coming across that way, then I'm not conveying it properly or something.

To use your water analogy though, I would see the equivalent to what I was proposing as the government providing clean water through your taps. Want to drink it? Go ahead. Want dirty water? Go to a lake. Want to buy water? You can do that too. Options. But, by the presence of the clean water they're encouraged to use it over lake water should they want a drink of water. Don't want to wear a helmet, okay. Go ahead. But through the presence of a law (even if it isn't enforced), you're encouraged to wear one. It's suggesting, not forcing. It's against the law here to drive without wearing a seat belt, but I'm not being forced to wear it. I can pull out of my driveway without it and likely no one will know. I have that freedom. But the threat or risk of a potential ticket encourages me to wear my seat belt (along with other better reasons).
__________________

Last edited by TRIFORCE89; November 19th, 2012 at 08:26 PM. Reason: Your double post has been automatically merged.
Reply With Quote
  #14    
Old November 19th, 2012, 08:33 PM
von Weltschmerz
the first born unicorn
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 View Post
See, no, that's not what I'm arguing. If it's coming across that way, then I'm not conveying it properly or something.

To use your water analogy though, I would see the equivalent to what I was proposing as the government providing clean water through your taps. Want to drink it? Go ahead. Want dirty water? Go to a lake. Want to buy water? You can do that too. Options. But, by the presence of the clean water they're encouraged to use it over lake water should they want a drink of water. Don't want to wear a helmet, okay. Go ahead. But through the presence of a law (even if it isn't enforced), you're encouraged to wear one. It's suggesting, not forcing. It's against the law here to drive without wearing a seat belt, but I'm not being forced to wear it. I can pull out of my driveway without it and likely no one will know. I have that freedom. But the threat or risk of a potential ticket encourages me to wear my seat belt (along with other better reasons).
When I say "can" and "can't" as with most legal discussions, I refer to the ability to do so legally and without penalty.

To use your analogy.. it would be like "You want clean water? Go ahead, we're giving it you. You want dirty water? Pay us money and we will let you drink it. But NOT ONLY THAT, we are going to take time out of your day, "pulling you over" to let you know that you owe us money because you didn't drink OUR water. And from that... in a couple of days you are going to have to give a visit in court where you can appeal to not pay us... but our trained professionals know best so we're just going to make you do it anyway.
__________________
Being wrong isn't "bad", failing to admit that you are, is.
Reply With Quote
  #15    
Old November 19th, 2012, 08:45 PM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by von Weltschmerz View Post
When I say "can" and "can't" as with most legal discussions, I refer to the ability to do so legally and without penalty.

To use your analogy.. it would be like "You want clean water? Go ahead, we're giving it you. You want dirty water? Pay us money and we will let you drink it. But NOT ONLY THAT, we are going to take time out of your day, "pulling you over" to let you know that you owe us money because you didn't drink OUR water. And from that... in a couple of days you are going to have to give a visit in court where you can appeal to not pay us... but our trained professionals know best so we're just going to make you do it anyway.
But you make it sound like it's a guaranteed you'll get "caught". It is more of a big if.

I'm arguing more for the thought, than the penalty
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #16    
Old November 19th, 2012, 08:47 PM
von Weltschmerz
the first born unicorn
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Well see... I shouldn't have to worry if I'm getting "caught" or not. Criminals worry about getting, "caught" not law-abiding citizens.
__________________
Being wrong isn't "bad", failing to admit that you are, is.
Reply With Quote
  #17    
Old November 19th, 2012, 08:48 PM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Like I attempted to say with Toujours, it's not the ticket or the law that I necessarily support. But rather that the government in some way encourages safe behaviour. Without penalty, all the better if it is just as effective. If there's a better way, go for it. But the sentiment remains the same and I don't see the difference. Because I thought the thread is about control (and the degree, if any), not the delivery of it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18    
Old November 19th, 2012, 08:55 PM
von Weltschmerz
the first born unicorn
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
I agree with you too. The government should fully endorse and suggest things good for public health and safety etc. But that it is where line is drawn... at suggestion. They can tell me to wear a seat belt all they want.. but when they start arresting/fining me for it.. THAT is where I get a little upset. Or where I would. I'm intelligent enough to know to wear one... It's sad, really. When I get in a car with people my age... and buckle up in the back seat they all say, "Dude, what are you doing? You're not sitting in the front... they can't tell if you're wearing your seatbelt or not." And I just mentally headdesk myself on the headrest for two reasons... One being that I'm not wearing my seat belt for the cops... I'm wearing it for me. And two being that yes, yes they can tell. Maybe not as easily... but they are still trained to spot those violations...

I tell them that I like being safe and they kinda laugh or whatever.. but you know.. if we get in a crash.. they will be the ones that are gonna die.. yanno? Kinda harsh.. but they aren't exactly my "friends" so I don't really care if they decide to be so stupid. If someone does.. then they can come over and buckle them up.

EDIT: This thread is about control. And my want for less of it. Suggesting is not control to me. Control is when they have ability to penalize or otherwise reprimand me for doing something they don't like(believe is detrimental)... Now, that might make a good mother, but not a good government.

EDIT EDIT: But also... what does that even have to do with anything? Is that not what we just discussed?

ALSO, I MISSED THIS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PiemanFiddy View Post
You spoke of Personal Affairs and Legalized Marijuana. Most people who smoke Marijuana do it to make food taste better. Even though there ARE people who use it medicinally, the demographic of 'potheads' are much higher. I don't say this to be offensive, but if you seriously search 'legalized marijuana' on google, you'll get 1 of 3 things

1. News Story coverage.
2. Reddit memes covering it.
3. Pictures of addicts living on the streets, or random 'bums'. (Often associated with Marijuana... idk why)
Marijuana doesn't make food taste better, haha. I think you got some misinformation. Marijuana stimulates the appetite and makes people hungry. When people are hungry... food "tastes better" because they are simply glad to have some food. The only offensive thin that you did was put smoking weed in line with rape. It wasn't intentional, however, so I'm not offended anymore. Being a "pothead" isn't anything bad. It just means you are known for smoking a lot of weed. If that is bad, I don't know. That's opinion. I don't think so, but I know plenty of people who do.


ALSO: I googled it and the first page(minus one link to wikipedia) was about the Colorado/Washington legalization. And that does not surprise me.. They way that most search engines work is that they provide you with the most recent trends in page hits for webpages containing the words you googled. With that being the most recent news... it only makes sense. Give it a while, and it'll be something else. I saw no reddit memes and no images of bums(not even in google images). So I take that offensively as you obviously made it based on your own perception of "potheads" and not what Google actually had in store.



Quote:
As for Personal Affairs, I assume it's either a family argument, domestic violence, or a rapist. Since most females (or males) that are raped tend not to tell anyone until they're given the help they need.
By personal affairs, I mean matters that affect only them. Obviously enough the government should step into stop rape... but they should not step in to stop me from smoking a joint. Domestic violence is also a crime that harms someone other than the perpetrator. But to give you an example you might understand easier... It would be kind of like the government making it illegal for the family to argue because it make affect them badly mentally. Arguing doesn't really "harm" anyone but the people who decide to take part in it. I'm not going to be an emotional wreck because my neighbors got in argument. I might call about a noise complaint... but that is a different situation entirely. It also would be different if the parent was yelling at/verbally abusing their child... that is not an argument and THAT affects more than the perpetrator in adverse ways. I mean... some things are going to make you feel bad... and you're just gonna have to suck it up, but lines are drawn. Obviously it wouldn't be illegal for a parent to reprimand their child, so long as their "punishment" is not abusive in either physical or verbal means.

Quote:
I never said the government couldn't have control over the police force... wait.. OK maybe I misunderstood myself. What I meant to imply was that the Government should ONLY be allowed to butt in with Police Force affairs as long as the crime was pre-meditated or etc. They shouldn't have COMPLETE control over the Police, otherwise the Police Force turns into the catalyst for spying on other Americans they have no business spying on.
Well what I meant is that the police force has rules to adhere to. Rules set by the federal government. One such "rule" is that they are merely enforcers of the law, not judicators. That they can arrest someone for breaking a law, but they cannot pass official judgment on whether they are guilty or innocent... nor they can decide the punishment. The punishment would, first of all, have to be standard for everyone. The only route I could see the police taking to "make their own punishment" is by offering solutions to arrest. By saying, "If you do x, we won't arrest you." But again, that is not something they are supposed to do, either.

Just what I always thought. Didn't mean to offend. If I did, I apologize.
__________________
Being wrong isn't "bad", failing to admit that you are, is.

Last edited by von Weltschmerz; November 19th, 2012 at 09:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19    
Old November 20th, 2012, 03:58 AM
Rodriguezjames55's Avatar
Rodriguezjames55
No Jokes #MegaCharizard
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United states, New York, New York City, Bronx
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Send a message via Skype™ to Rodriguezjames55
i share johnsons perpective
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #20    
Old November 20th, 2012, 04:59 AM
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14
Conservative Patriot
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Nature: Bold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodriguezjames55 View Post
i share johnsons perpective
The LP's takes no position on abortion, as its members are split on the issue.
Reply With Quote
  #21    
Old November 20th, 2012, 09:44 AM
PiemanFiddy's Avatar
PiemanFiddy
Spreader of the T-Virus
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Florida
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Quote:
Originally Posted by von Weltschmerz View Post



Marijuana doesn't make food taste better, haha. I think you got some misinformation. Marijuana stimulates the appetite and makes people hungry. When people are hungry... food "tastes better" because they are simply glad to have some food. The only offensive thin that you did was put smoking weed in line with rape. It wasn't intentional, however, so I'm not offended anymore. Being a "pothead" isn't anything bad. It just means you are known for smoking a lot of weed. If that is bad, I don't know. That's opinion. I don't think so, but I know plenty of people who do.


ALSO: I googled it and the first page(minus one link to wikipedia) was about the Colorado/Washington legalization. And that does not surprise me.. They way that most search engines work is that they provide you with the most recent trends in page hits for webpages containing the words you googled. With that being the most recent news... it only makes sense. Give it a while, and it'll be something else. I saw no reddit memes and no images of bums(not even in google images). So I take that offensively as you obviously made it based on your own perception of "potheads" and not what Google actually had in store.





By personal affairs, I mean matters that affect only them. Obviously enough the government should step into stop rape... but they should not step in to stop me from smoking a joint. Domestic violence is also a crime that harms someone other than the perpetrator. But to give you an example you might understand easier... It would be kind of like the government making it illegal for the family to argue because it make affect them badly mentally. Arguing doesn't really "harm" anyone but the people who decide to take part in it. I'm not going to be an emotional wreck because my neighbors got in argument. I might call about a noise complaint... but that is a different situation entirely. It also would be different if the parent was yelling at/verbally abusing their child... that is not an argument and THAT affects more than the perpetrator in adverse ways. I mean... some things are going to make you feel bad... and you're just gonna have to suck it up, but lines are drawn. Obviously it wouldn't be illegal for a parent to reprimand their child, so long as their "punishment" is not abusive in either physical or verbal means.



Well what I meant is that the police force has rules to adhere to. Rules set by the federal government. One such "rule" is that they are merely enforcers of the law, not judicators. That they can arrest someone for breaking a law, but they cannot pass official judgment on whether they are guilty or innocent... nor they can decide the punishment. The punishment would, first of all, have to be standard for everyone. The only route I could see the police taking to "make their own punishment" is by offering solutions to arrest. By saying, "If you do x, we won't arrest you." But again, that is not something they are supposed to do, either.

Just what I always thought. Didn't mean to offend. If I did, I apologize.

Yeah, I never meant to tie in Marijuana with Rape, so I apologize if that was a mistake on my part, but I was just trying to seperate the two and define them so that a younger or less-informed demographic could understand me. =/ ...but yeah, I always sorta assumed that Marijuana made food taste better since most people around youtube seem to claim that. If that's some sort of myth or lie, I apologize for being misinformed. XD


Yes of course, I understand that. I never meant to imply that the Government should restrict couples from arguing, or parents from grounding their kids.... I just used Domestic Violence and etc. to make an example about Personal Affairs.. which is something I do agree with. The government SHOULD be able to control those situations if they get out of control.


I didn't actually mean JUST google. Most of the google search engine is based off of how often you visit certain webpages. I suppose since I visit reddit a lot, I saw a lot of memes covering it. It could also have something to do with what I searched and what you searched. Personally, I searched "Is Marijuana legal?" and I think the first or second result was a yahoo answers things, and then images showed a bunch of news stories and bums... SOME images showed reddit memes, but I didn't see everything as a meme. Sorry if it offended you.


I understand that the Police have rules to adhere to. That's how martial law is created. I never said the Government should abandon to help them altogether, but rather lower the amount of security for it. The more security, the more worried they are, which inevitably leads to things like Cameras on stop-lights. Unecessary spying.


Once again, sorry if I offended you. I was just giving you things based on MY personal experiences.
__________________
"The entire world will be infected. A new Genesis is at hand and I will be the creator!"
Reply With Quote
  #22    
Old November 20th, 2012, 10:03 AM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
In short, yes, I think it's good to have some government control/regulation. In theory we shouldn't need it - people should take responsibility for themselves and the consequences of their actions - but in practice it doesn't really work like that. You can't just up and leave your job for a better one because your boss doesn't pay well. There may be no higher paying jobs, or they may be too far away and the cost of travel negates the higher pay, or a dozen other things that make it functionally impossible to improve your lot. That's why we need minimum wage laws.

Whenever topics like this come up I'm reminded of something I heard from my econ teacher in high school: externalities. In economic terms these are the things that don't get calculated into the price of a transaction or business but nevertheless have an affect somewhere. Pollution is a great example: your factory is on some land you own and in the process of running your business the factory generates waste. You leave on your own land, but it seeps into groundwater, or a river, and affects a nearby town negatively. This is why we have air quality standards and things of that nature. There would be no solution otherwise because the factory owner could say "Hey, this is my land. I'm doing what I want. Don't like it? Move somewhere else. No one's stopping you."

Government needs to step in whenever externalities are bad or hazardous for people. That's what you get with safety laws, because people acting on their own while driving without restrictions will cause accidents and people will getting hurt. How much we restrict people is the only real question. We make people follow traffic laws because it prevents lots of accidents. We make people wear seatbelts even though that won't affect accidents, but will prevent/ameliorate injuries when accidents do occur, thereby ensuring families' lives aren't thrown into chaos, emergency personnel aren't overburdened saving people's lives, governments aren't paying for medical care which could have been prevented, and so on. We don't mandate that everyone ride buses instead of their own cars, even though that would reduce pollution (and bad health effects) and accidents. We see that as too much of a burden on people.

I think of government control in a law-of-diminishing-returns-kind of way. A little control helps a lot, a little more still does good, a little more and you're still getting some benefit but not much, a little more and you're not seeing much improvement at all, a little more and you're hurting things.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
  #23    
Old November 20th, 2012, 11:59 AM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
So, Scarf said what I was trying to say... only much more eloquently XD
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24    
Old November 23rd, 2012, 10:00 AM
von Weltschmerz
the first born unicorn
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarf View Post
-snip-
Pollution is a great example: your factory is on some land you own and in the process of running your business the factory generates waste. You leave on your own land, but it seeps into groundwater, or a river, and affects a nearby town negatively. -snip-
At this point, his actions affect more than just him... even if they were done on his land. If he disposed of such hazards properly, then it would affect no one. Then the government would have no reason to step in it. The government should definitely be able to step in at the point. But should it matter WHAT I'm producing in my factory? I mean... so long as I manage it properly so that it affects no one but myself? That is kind of what I am getting at here.

As for the seatbelt issue and what not... You've got me totally convinced on that. I can definitely see how that would come into play.
__________________
Being wrong isn't "bad", failing to admit that you are, is.
Reply With Quote
  #25    
Old November 23rd, 2012, 10:42 AM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by von Weltschmerz View Post
At this point, his actions affect more than just him... even if they were done on his land. If he disposed of such hazards properly, then it would affect no one. Then the government would have no reason to step in it. The government should definitely be able to step in at the point. But should it matter WHAT I'm producing in my factory? I mean... so long as I manage it properly so that it affects no one but myself? That is kind of what I am getting at here.
Personally, I feel like there hasn't been a good enough track record for people disposing of things properly so I'm still in favor of there being people to check to make sure crap gets disposed of correctly. But more than that, I believe in preventing bad crap in the first place so I'm in favor of rules being in place which require certain standards to be met. You can't keep air pollution on your land, amirite? Better to keep from making as much as possible.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25



All times are UTC -8. The time now is 05:15 PM.


Style by Nymphadora, artwork by Sa-Dui.
Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.