I've had some related conversations lately on the topics of criminalization and regulation of behaviors. I thought I'd bring the topic here. Some of the conversations went like this...
I made the point that I am fine with criminalizing behavior that is harmful (ie, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose) and was generally opposed to criminalizing behavior that isn't harmful.
For instance, even if you disagree with gay marriage, where's the actual, physical harm? I KNOW that some think there is spiritual harm in gay marriage, but we don't generally criminalize those behaviors that cause spiritual harm, only that which causes physical harm. I am strongly opposed to the notion of trying to criminalize that behavior which SOME MIGHT THINK causes spiritual harm. That is not the proper role of gov't.
Anyway, I am fine with criminalizing that behavior which causes actual harm. As are most people. We have no problem making it against the law to take something which does not belong to you - taking my bicycle, taking her barbie doll, whatever, we rightfully criminalize theft because of the obvious harm by one to another.
FURTHER, I am generally fine with the notion of regulating/taxing other behaviors that cause harm at the larger level. One person driving a car is not necessarily dangerous or harmful in and of itself. BUT, 200 MILLION people driving cars, emiting toxins, causing wrecks... THIS does cause harm.
In saying this, one person asked...
How much power are you willing to cede to the government to regulate your actions? At what point do we start calling it tyranny?
I’m willing and desiring that the People would say to a company that would pollute the groundwater, “You can’t do that.” Are you willing to cede to enterprise your right to clean water? At what point does “free market” become tyranny?
Don’t be melodramatic. I’m speaking of behavior that has measurably harmful effects. The right of the coal company to blow up a mountaintop ends at the People’s right to clean water and intact mountains. Do I support the freedom of a coal company to dig for coal? Yes. Do I support the People’s freedom to regulate that behavior if and when it becomes toxic, dangerous or at a loss to the People? Yes! It would be ridiculous not to do so.
To give up our right to do so IS to give up freedom.
Obviously, at SOME point, regulations and laws could lean towards tyranny, or at least be overbearing and counterproductive. I think of the Prohibition laws against alcohol back in the day, or the prohibiiton laws of today against marijuana and other drugs.
But there is a line somewhere that needs to be drawn.
This critic seemed to be presenting this as if on ONE side his side) there is the fight for liberty at all costs and on the OTHER side (mine) there is the attempt to promote tyranny. As already noted, BOTH sides involve a loss of liberty.
Telling a motorist that he has to drive 25 mph in a residential zone IS taking away “liberty” – the freedom to drive as fast as he wants – but we’d be stupid NOT to regulate that behavior.
The thing is, we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We DON’T have a right to take that away from others. THAT’s the difference I’m speaking of...
This person also said...
There is an extremely fine line between regulation and tyranny, so fine no one can really say where it is. When the government regulates pay? When it sets production? When it starts regulating what you eat, or how much you eat? How far you can drive? What you can drive?
I responded that I thought he was making this too hard: We have a right, as a People, to protect our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. As a result, we have a right and obligation to either criminalize or regulate behavior that takes away these.
"So fine that no one can really say where it is?" Of course we can and need to draw lines! Will these lines be perfect? No, but they are necessary nonetheless.
We already limit what you can drive: You can’t drive a tank. You can’t drive a street rocket.
I was asked...
Tell me where regulation ends and tyranny begins, in the name of “protection”.
The limit is, that which causes harm to others. When we allow people to take away the rights of others to life, liberty, etc in order to give OTHERS the right to make money, drive as fast as they want, blow up whatever they want, pollute, etc, we will have an ugly, undesirable society. I won't engage in the same sort of hyperbole as this critic and call it "tyranny," but I will call it unhealthy and undesirable.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Liberty, Laws and Regulations
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
219 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 219 of 219As I knew, as I stated and as you demonstrate time and time again, you kill the messenger. Geoffie. He cited sources, which is why I offered the link. Respond to those if you don't like "the quack".
Alan,
So, you're saying that that drop of rat poison in your oatmeal would stay in your system forever and kill you somewhere down the road? Nothing stays in your body forever, even fat soluble substances. They just take longer. Sure, continued use will casue a build up, but if the exposure is minute, the buildup's risk is also small. That's the argument against the 2ndhand smoke position.
"Please, everyone. No personal attacks, stick to the topic."
Too late, Danny-boy. You declared open season on me a few posts ago. The attacks don't hurt. I just consider the source(s). Notice how well behave I've been despite that.
In the meantime, Marty joins in to pile on with a blatant lie. Simply because someone is selling something, apparently, they are quacks and liars. That is, if their positions are opposed to those of all of you people they are. Typical.
WOW! I just read the background of the Dr. Simpson, to whose blog I linked in my first offering. To say that Geoffrey totally misrepresented this guy is to lie as badly as Geoffrey did. Simpson did far more than simply say that diets don't work, and what's more, he is hardly alone in so saying. Even Geoffrey's comment agreed by stating that any reputable doctor will say that diet and exercise is required. But more importantly, as Geoffrey is so terribly point challenged, he fails to understand the meaning as further investigation shows that Simpson is referring, not to "diet", but to "diets". Not a fine distinction there. As if that isn't enough, it is not a lie or misleading to say that diet alone is sufficient for weight loss. Not by a long shot. Exercise will enhance a weight loss program, but eating properly will never produce obestiy problems.
I think it's the guy's name that troubles Geoffrey so. He's had trouble refuting truths told by people with that name.
Art, there's a reason I didn't check the links on that doctor's website. If, for example, there were an actual scientific debate rooted in sound research that there might be a question the abundant toxins in the smoke from the burning end of a cigarette did not pose a health hazard to others, I might be willing to check out what various folks have to say about it.
As it is, the evidence from real scientists doing real research is overwhelming. Second hand smoke is a health hazard. States have the perfect freedom to regulate the exposure of their residents to known toxic substances by regulating where people can and cannot smoke in public areas. It would be one thing it, say, the state regulated the amount of perfume and cologne men and women could wear in public. That's an annoyance, and occasional reaction-inducing allergen. Tobacco smoke is a known toxin-carrier. The evidence of the correlation between second-hand smoke and increased risk of a variety of health hazards is well-founded. Not every scientist would agree, sure, but Einstein didn't like quantum mechanics and he helped invent it, so that's not exactly a big deal for me.
As I said, I have no problem with people choosing to smoke in the privacy of their own homes. That's their business. In public, where their actions are a clearly demonstrated health hazard, then, yeah, not only do I have a problem with it, I think the state has every right to step in and insist on certain limits. Smoking is not a "right". Doing something that is a demonstrable health risk to others is most clearly not a "right", by any stretch of the definition of that word.
I'm about to put up a post on an analogous problem - putting toxins in to the commons - and would be really interested to hear Art's take on it. And I do mean that. It'll be the post dated Sunday, April 17.
Marshall, I'm still not sure what you'd like in place of speed limit enforcement or drunk driving enforcement that doesn't "penalize" "good" people?
You're not saying you'd like to abolish speed limits or stopping impaired drivers, so what do you want in place of what we do?
Geoffrey,
"Art, there's a reason I didn't check the links on that doctor's website. If, for example, there were an actual scientific debate rooted in sound research that there might be a question the abundant toxins in the smoke from the burning end of a cigarette did not pose a health hazard to others, I might be willing to check out what various folks have to say about it."
Try actually reading the guy's post. I have stated that within that post he cites the studies you demanded I produce. The notion that there is "overwhelming evidence" is Gore-like in it's dishonesty. That's hyperbole of the type that led to the current laws on public smoking.
"The evidence of the correlation between second-hand smoke and increased risk of a variety of health hazards is well-founded."
That is exactly what is in dispute, that it is well-founded.
Put it this way: The lungs are designed to process certain substances. Anything other than these substances is harmful by virtue of the fact that the lungs are not designed for it. However, the lungs are capable of dealing with a certain level of exposure (as is the human body in general) to that for which they are not designed to process. How much is required to cause detectable harm is not the issue that is in question, but that secondhand smoke produces that level is. What's more, to GUESS how many people have died as a result of exposure and then to use that GUESS to craft law is reprehensible since that GUESS is based on data in dispute by reputable people (that global warm...I mean anti-smoke people deny are reputable for disreputable reasons).
Dan,
Why do you keep asking me about speed limits? I haven't spoken against them.
As to drunk driving laws, my point was that they were changed for reasons not based on credible reasons, but in response to the consequences of poor enforcement of previously existing drunk driving laws. The change burdened responsible people who may still achieve the new BAC. If you want to press me on an alternative, my alternative is to return to the previous BAC and enforce the law. When a cop, who is entrusted with the task of judging impairment, determines one to be impaired, the accused can insist on a breathalyzer at the time of arrest to defend himself. What could be more fair? THEN, if he blows a .10, he has no defense against the charge. I don't want the law to continue to reduce the BAC in order to pretend it's having an affect on irresponsible behavior, when all it is doing is forcing responsible law-abiding people to restrict activity they were already handling in a responsible manner. If this is still unclear to you, then it's obvious you intend to dictate how people live.
So, with all your complaints, you are FINE with a system that pulls people over and gives them a test as a preventative to them potentially causing harm. You just disagree with the limit?
Fair enough. It appears most people are more strict/less lenient when it comes to drinking and driving. You agree with us in principle, just disagree about the limit. You want to set the arbitrary but objective limit a little higher, while apparently most people want it lower, but we're agreeing on the principle: That it is okay to limit people's options on driving.
So, what's the fuss?
And I bring up the speed limit because it, TOO, imposes limits upon "law-abiding" people. You seemed to be suggesting that limits against law-abiders and "good" people was an unjust infringement of liberty, but you appear to agree with that, too, so you probably don't really think it IS an unjust infringement. I was just seeking to clarify.
Dan,
The issue was never that limits must be imposed in an ordered society. Good, moral and responsible people do not have a problem with speed limits as the need is obvious to them. The same with limits on whether or not anyone should drive while impaired, but the question is whether or not he is impaired. Merely ingesting alcohol does not impair a given person. Lowering the BAC level when the problem all along was lack of or ineffective enforcement is NOT impactful on irresponsible, immoral people. It only further inhibits the freedoms of good people.
Still waiting for that mountain of scientific evidence, MA.
..... I always love how when you're outfoxed you retreat back to "I don't have to do anything I don't want! hmph!"
It's like watching a deranged 3 year old.
Alan,
You asked for what you yourself have not provided. Yet, as I said to Geoffie, the link I submitted was chosen for the studies it cited as well as the host's own logical and well reasoned opinions. And just so there's no mistake, I don't give a flying rat's ass what you think. You're way too hateful for me to spend time with, despite your infatuation. Yap yap yap.
LOL.
Nice try, MA. Coward. Clearly you're afraid to provide any evidence.
Also, you need to develop some of your own material. See if you can find a couple brain cells to rub together to come up with something on your own.
"Nothing stays in your body forever, even fat soluble substances."
More "scientific" opinions from someone with a paleolithic view of the world.
Suddenly Dr. MA is an expert in epidemiology. Which Cracker-Jack box did you get your degree from, MA? The same place your quack doctor friend got his, perhaps?
Snake Oil University, selling online degrees to internet buffoons since 2004.
"Nothing stays in your body forever, even fat soluble substances."
I looked up this fact before posting to be sure. The body is built to heal and self-purify. The question is whether or not it can do so compared to the amount and frequency of contamination.
Not so suddenly, Alan confirms his hateful nature.
Yes, because I understand basic science and you get your paleolithic "scientific knowledge" from fortune cookies and Bazooka Joe comics, I'm hateful.
LOL.
You've totally lost it, MA. Perhaps you should take a few days off to find some minimal thread that might lead you back to sanity. Or sobriety. Or both.
Whatever you say, child. You keep telling yourself that.
Post a Comment