Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lamplighter
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.
|
Government intervention, in the case of tobacco, was suing the tobacco companies for lying, and making them print facts about the deadliness of smoking on their packets. So does that mean you're fine with the sale of raw milk to consumers who specifically prefer it, as long as there is a big Surgeon General's warning on the bottle?
For the record, I'm not in favor of pure Libertarianism as a form of government myself. But it seems really obvious to me that you are cherry-picking examples "in need" of regulation when exponentially larger and more destructive examples are readily available. People who chose to smoke in the past might "deal with the problem," now that they are better informed? People who are obese might "deal with the problem" if only they were aware of the dangers of a high-carb, refined-sugar diet? Honestly?