Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble
<snip>
Regardless, if your argument is really that people should be forcibly protected
from making themselves sick, can I assume that you are also in favor of outlawing tobacco,
and enforcing government-mandated dietary guidelines for all obese citizens?
|
I start from the premise that some form of government is required for a modern society.
That government should/must do what people cannot or will not do for themselves.
Therefore, government must regulate certain activities in which others will/can/may be harmed.
Thus since not everyone can be a self sufficient farmer, the distribution of
safe
food products to the public is valid regulation by government.
Therefore, the Libertarian premise of no government intervention is doomed to fail.
I do also subscribe to the notion of the most good to the most people.
Therefore, not all people will be happy or unaffected by governmental actions,
and a smaller number may even be negatively affected.
(That's the reason I include vaccinations as a legitimate activity of government ... to protect
the greatest number possible,while doing unavoidable harm to the smallest number possible.
It's also my reason for concern over the current activities fracking for production of natural gas.
For the examples you mention (tobacco and obesity),
the latter is a gray area still open for discussion.
We don't yet know if a better informed public will deal with the problem.
But the former is now clear, the tobacco industry was lying about
the safety of tobacco and making a profit based on that lie,
so government intervention is/was justified.
Likewise, since children cannot make their own decisions,
government legitimately forbids them from certain activities.
Of course, the survivalist way of life would avoid these issues,
but living in modern society does have a cost.
.