View Single Post
Old November 19th, 2012 (7:36 PM). Edited November 19th, 2012 by TRIFORCE89.
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89 TRIFORCE89 is offline
Guide of Darkness
  • Gold Tier
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 8,128
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.

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.
Reply With Quote