The proper role and scope of government

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Clod, I hope your remark above was exaggeration only for impact... otherwise I call BS.

I was specifically referencing this part from Griff's link:

Originally Posted by Griff

I didn't over look that a single dairy plant had 16,000 proven and between 168,791 and 197,581 actual cases, much as you didn't overlook that this single farm caused 40+cases.

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

There is risk in discussing
the numbers of illness cases because cases depend on the size of each dairy's clientele.

This is what I was already saying, when I referred to the "missing data point." The other problem with any debate of this nature is how to factor in the additional effects of pasteurizing products, beyond pathogenic infection.

The human species is dependent on symbiotic relationships with "good" species of bacteria for a number of biological functions, and it may turn out that indiscrimately wiping out bacteria in our lives will eventually cause a species-wide health crisis (say, for example, the skyrocketing rate of autoimmune diseases.)

No one can say for sure what the overall impact of such a policy will be--it may be that we're not as good at killing things as we'd like to believe, and our efforts won't really matter, or it may be that those individuals who depend more on this symbiosis will die out, and the species will evolve to match the new environment we've created.

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?

[Lamplighter]

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.
.