Don't like freedom?

[csgators]

 

Smoking has extremely bad effects to the people around the smoker. Its completely logical to stop people from smoking in certain areas, it protects the freedom of others.

 

Fatty foods are fine as long as you the person getting them knows it is fatty food.

 

Why should the government have a say, you can chose not to eat at that establishment. It should be up to the owner of the property.

People don't know whats in the food unless the restaurant tells them.

 

That is why restaurants that want to attract people that care about such things tell them. Before the law I noticed many signs in restaurants touting the fact they used oil with no trans fats. If the people care about it, the restaurants will care about it. I also noticed more and more restaurants going smoke free BEFORE the bans were passed. So now instead of a choice the government has forced it down our throats.

[Vagrant0]

Of course since I don't think the government should be able to tell a restaurant what kind of cooking oil they can use I must be for legalizing murder.

Erm, find me a regulation which says that they must use a certain kind of cooking oil... That didn't also happen to ban the use of ones using animal/human byproducts, petroleum products, or something worse (like hormone additives)... I'm pretty sure just about every state uses vegetable oil (usually corn), peanut oil, or olive oil... Not because of some state regulation, but because those tend to be favored by anyone doing cooking. Even if there is a law restricting use of something like cooking oil, it is probably because someone decided to do something so horrendous that anyone could even be bothered to look into the matter.

 

But more to the point, the fact that you compare these two, suggests you have little understanding as to why laws even exist or how they get passed. You talk about all laws in a general sense as being against freedoms, but then recant against laws legalizing murder...

I think almost all regulations are a bad thing, that's what freedom is, the ability to lead your life without interference.

Ok, so what if how you wished to lead your life involved chaining your children up in the basement and sexually abusing them from birth till adulthood. It's not murder, but it's something you would agree is probably something which should be illegal right? What about a parent being able to feed hormones and drugs to their child to prevent them from reaching physical maturity and forcing them into destructive behaviors? Shouldn't that be illegal for the same reason since it is essentially letting a parent permanently ruin the lives of their children for their own interests? What about unpaid child labor? Indentured servitude of non-citizens?

 

There is a difference between these sorts of laws and say, a law preventing you from being able to smoke outside.

[csgators]

Of course since I don't think the government should be able to tell a restaurant what kind of cooking oil they can use I must be for legalizing murder.

Erm, find me a regulation which says that they must use a certain kind of cooking oil... That didn't also happen to ban the use of ones using animal/human byproducts, petroleum products, or something worse (like hormone additives)... I'm pretty sure just about every state uses vegetable oil (usually corn), peanut oil, or olive oil... Not because of some state regulation, but because those tend to be favored by anyone doing cooking. Even if there is a law restricting use of something like cooking oil, it is probably because someone decided to do something so horrendous that anyone could even be bothered to look into the matter.

 

But more to the point, the fact that you compare these two, suggests you have little understanding as to why laws even exist or how they get passed. You talk about all laws in a general sense as being against freedoms, but then recant against laws legalizing murder...

I think almost all regulations are a bad thing, that's what freedom is, the ability to lead your life without interference.

Ok, so what if how you wished to lead your life involved chaining your children up in the basement and sexually abusing them from birth till adulthood. It's not murder, but it's something you would agree is probably something which should be illegal right? What about a parent being able to feed hormones and drugs to their child to prevent them from reaching physical maturity and forcing them into destructive behaviors? Shouldn't that be illegal for the same reason since it is essentially letting a parent permanently ruin the lives of their children for their own interests? What about unpaid child labor? Indentured servitude of non-citizens?

 

There is a difference between these sorts of laws and say, a law preventing you from being able to smoke outside.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/new-york-city-passes-trans-fat-ban/

 

I really can't understand why you want to use such examples. I used the term "most" for a reason. I see no reason to respond further to raping children in the basement example. I am libertarian, look it up. Loving freedom requires respecting other peoples freedom. Your right to swing your fist stops at the tip of my nose.

[marharth]

 

Smoking has extremely bad effects to the people around the smoker. Its completely logical to stop people from smoking in certain areas, it protects the freedom of others.

 

Fatty foods are fine as long as you the person getting them knows it is fatty food.

 

Why should the government have a say, you can chose not to eat at that establishment. It should be up to the owner of the property.

People don't know whats in the food unless the restaurant tells them.

 

That is why restaurants that want to attract people that care about such things tell them. Before the law I noticed many signs in restaurants touting the fact they used oil with no trans fats. If the people care about it, the restaurants will care about it. I also noticed more and more restaurants going smoke free BEFORE the bans were passed. So now instead of a choice the government has forced it down our throats.

Restaurants sometimes won't profit off selling healthy foods. If there is no regulation to tell them to say its unhealthy, people will not know.

 

I honestly don't care if the companies profit is hurt, people need to know if something is healthy or not, it shouldn't be up to the chance of profit for that to happen.

 

To make myself more clear... I think people should be able to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else.

 

However, they need to know if they are hurting themselves as well.

Edited June 16, 2011 by marharth

[csgators]

 

Smoking has extremely bad effects to the people around the smoker. Its completely logical to stop people from smoking in certain areas, it protects the freedom of others.

 

Fatty foods are fine as long as you the person getting them knows it is fatty food.

 

Why should the government have a say, you can chose not to eat at that establishment. It should be up to the owner of the property.

People don't know whats in the food unless the restaurant tells them.

 

That is why restaurants that want to attract people that care about such things tell them. Before the law I noticed many signs in restaurants touting the fact they used oil with no trans fats. If the people care about it, the restaurants will care about it. I also noticed more and more restaurants going smoke free BEFORE the bans were passed. So now instead of a choice the government has forced it down our throats.

Restaurants sometimes won't profit off selling healthy foods. If there is no regulation to tell them to say its unhealthy, people will not know.

 

I honestly don't care if the companies profit is hurt, people need to know if something is healthy or not, it shouldn't be up to the chance of profit for that to happen.

 

To make myself more clear... I think people should be able to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else.

 

However, they need to know if they are hurting themselves as well.

 

I prefer a choice, there is a ton of health information freely available to everyone. Go to the local library, go online and do some research. The government is not your babysitter.

[marharth]

 

Smoking has extremely bad effects to the people around the smoker. Its completely logical to stop people from smoking in certain areas, it protects the freedom of others.

 

Fatty foods are fine as long as you the person getting them knows it is fatty food.

 

Why should the government have a say, you can chose not to eat at that establishment. It should be up to the owner of the property.

People don't know whats in the food unless the restaurant tells them.

 

That is why restaurants that want to attract people that care about such things tell them. Before the law I noticed many signs in restaurants touting the fact they used oil with no trans fats. If the people care about it, the restaurants will care about it. I also noticed more and more restaurants going smoke free BEFORE the bans were passed. So now instead of a choice the government has forced it down our throats.

Restaurants sometimes won't profit off selling healthy foods. If there is no regulation to tell them to say its unhealthy, people will not know.

 

I honestly don't care if the companies profit is hurt, people need to know if something is healthy or not, it shouldn't be up to the chance of profit for that to happen.

 

To make myself more clear... I think people should be able to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else.

 

However, they need to know if they are hurting themselves as well.

 

I prefer a choice, there is a ton of health information freely available to everyone. Go to the local library, go online and do some research. The government is not your babysitter.

Most people are too busy or too stupid to do that kind of research.

 

As much as I beleive in freedom, humanity is going nowhere if people can willingly kill themselves due to misinformation.

[csgators]

 

Most people are too busy or too stupid to do that kind of research.

 

As much as I beleive in freedom, humanity is going nowhere if people can willingly kill themselves due to misinformation.

 

That is why you hate freedom. It is not just a word, it means something.

Edited June 16, 2011 by csgators

[Vagrant0]

As much as I beleive in freedom, humanity is going nowhere if people can willingly kill themselves due to misinformation.

Kill themselves, give up freedoms, kill others, buy things they don't need, hate people they have no real contact with, fight wars in their back yards, sign away their lives, toss their name in favor of banning things that they actually like...

 

Misinformation is the tool of both sides, and has been in use since ancient times. The oldest way to keep a population in line is to scare the hell out of them, and control what information they have access to.

[Aurielius]

"Most people are too busy or too stupid to do that kind of research."

 

Please don't make this easy..(fights urge to make usual sardonic comment)...I can only resist for so long.

[Vagrant0]

"Most people are too busy or too stupid to do that kind of research."

 

Please don't make this easy..(fights urge to make usual sardonic comment)...I can only resist for so long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

 

One begs to differ.

 

Should I even bother to mention that bit about people being unsure if the President is an American?

 

Some bulbs are clearly brighter than others.. Unfortunately the bright ones are not the majority, and are usually out there trying to get the dim ones behind their own schemes for personal interest.