Wells Hall Off Topic Board

we've been heading down the slope for a long time now. Have you heard of the war on drugs?

Because clearly they're equal in terms of infringing upon your personal liberties.

You lybs will defend anything the government does, won't you? Maybe you could program your drones to take out fat people next?

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

C. S. Lewis

Pretty simple distinction.

One Involves the use of government coercion or force to limit individual choice. Less choice=less liberty.

The other is offering an individual a choice which the individual may or may not enter into (contractually in the case of a Student Loan) It is voluntary to participate.

Huge difference. The idea that because "society" shares in the cost of health care (in the case of the soda/obesity argument) is the rationale for the power of government to pass such laws. That argument is ultimately the death of liberty. With that argument, the nanny state can justify most any restriction on your liberty they wish. There will be no moderation by government, because there is never a shortage of busy bodies that "know what's good for you".
That is the main libertarian argument against government health care. Besides nationalizing 1/7th of the national economy and dooming us to mediocre care and loss of choices, the nanny state will be free to ban, restrict, and regulate virtually anything that can be even loosely tied to our health, under the "it costs all of us more" argument.

so where do you draw the line at "Civil Liberties" Shitckbender?

As far as I'm concerned if something has a negative impact on society it should be regulated, much like smoking has been. In the case of soda and crap food it has a negative impact on the health and productivity of society and the costs of caring for these fat asses.

1) I love how anytime someone starts making sense around here, the lyburls start claiming schitcks.

2) Your posts negatively impact society, as all are dumber for having read them. When do you get regulated?

love how when connies cannot answer back they resort to insults. Too predictable.

You all are all for regulating what a woman can do with her body but not fat asses. Though I guess the overweight, soda sucking redneck is the core of the GOP.

We agree. You are correct. Taxation for redistribution is not congruent with true liberty and the Founders intent. GRR was comparing voluntarily taking a student loan to being forcefully prevented from buying or selling a product. Voluntary commerce between private individuals. I was just pointing out that one is a choice, the other is not. However, in the big picture you are right, someone loses their choice to keep their money when it is seized as taxes. The micro regulation of every little aspect of life due to perceived or imagined costs to society is the end result of Progressive philosophy. It's the opposite of liberty. It ends in tyranny. Sadly it appears that we are approaching a point where the majority of the people are choosing security over liberty. The Historian Alexander Fraser Tytler was attributed this quote which I think unfortunately may sum up our near future:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

Even though we are a representative republic and not technically a democracy, I think the constitutional underpinnings to protect us from our own government are hanging by a thread. I hope for the future of this great country and for my 3 children's sake that he's wrong.

Encouraging Americans to make better choices about the food they eat is a laudable goal. But there are good ways to do it and bad ways. Banning certain sizes or types of food won't get the job done, and will create way more controversy than it's worth.

Now, eliminating farm programs that essentially subsidize the least-nutritious foods available and give them a competitive advantage over healthy alternatives, that would be a step in the right direction, and it wouldn't even give the "Nanny state" whiners any ammo. Win-win.

They are doing it all wrong. Why attack the citizens rather than the people making the food? People are old enough to make their own choices in life, from eating a 24 oz. steak twice a week to doing speed balls in their living room to getting drunk as hell at the bar. And if a person isn't old enough (see: a child), parents should help them to a degree.