• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which unnatural deaths form an acceptable part of a free society?

Should government stop people from making deadly dangerous decisions?

  • Yes -- by the force of law.

    Votes: 4 8.7%
  • Yes -- by taxing harmful items.

    Votes: 6 13.0%
  • No.

    Votes: 36 78.3%

  • Total voters
    46
The actual question is flawed. Government (or anybody else) can’t stop people making deadly decisions. All the laws and taxation in the world can’t cure stupid and we can’t entirely predict which decisions will actually be deadly. Government can discourage potentially deadly (and otherwise harmful) acts and they can also implement measures to reduce environmental risks in general. For example, government has laws requiring driving licences, banning drink-driving and enforcing seat-belt use. They also regulate the quality of roads, pedestrian crossings and road markings and the like. That doesn’t stop negligent drivers killing people but it will generally reduce the risk.

The thread title is also flawed though. This isn’t about some calculation of a number of deaths than is considered acceptable. No deaths are acceptable but equally some deaths are inevitable. Government has a role in seeking to reduce and mitigate risk (and do individual citizens and private organisations of course) but there will always be a fundamental conflict between my right to do what I want and your right not to be harmed by my decisions.
 
That is a good point, but thats also because they are much more simple devices. However, we also have a lot of regulations on the types of cars you can legally drive on road.

and there are lots of regulations of when and where you can discharge a firearm, buy a firearm, carry a firearm and of course, unlike my driver's license, my CCW license doesn't work in say NY, Md, Illinois and other Bannerrhoid areas
 
We should have thought about it 5776 years ago.

If we could draw pictures on caves 30,000 years ago, we could have thought about it then, too.
 
People are clearly to stupid, ignorant and misinformed (sometimes intentionally by marketers) to make smart decisions. True libertarianism would be an absolute unmitigated disaster for this country. If anything, as society grows more and more complex we need increased guidance in order to keep up.

No more legal selling of snake oil. Regulate and ban where science indicates such should be the case.

I've had enough with bullsh*t being tolerated in the name of freedom. Do what our smartest minds indicate should be done. Don't leave it to a bunch of ignoramuses to decide for themselves.

OMFG! Listen to this arrogant crapola. Freedom is about taking personal responsibility for yourself. How someone dying is none of your ****ing business.
 
Government can discourage potentially deadly (and otherwise harmful) acts and they can also implement measures to reduce environmental risks in general. For example, government has laws requiring driving licences, banning drink-driving and enforcing seat-belt use. They also regulate the quality of roads, pedestrian crossings and road markings and the like. That doesn’t stop negligent drivers killing people but it will generally reduce the risk.

Definitely, these laws and regulations have been beneficial. Another interesting law is that although alcohol is legal, it is taxed so much as to be much more expensive then it would be otherwise.
 
Yes, like taxing cars more heavily? Tax Pepsi more? Tax TV's since people sit around not getting exercise that leads to obesity?

Don't think you really thought this one through at all.

I believe Scandinavian parliaments have put thousands of person years of works into developing the laws of the land.
 
I believe Scandinavian parliaments have put thousands of person years of works into developing the laws of the land.

Well, that is a cop out response if ever I heard one. :lol:
 
Well, that is a cop out response if ever I heard one. :lol:

I am not an expert on Welfare State which provides good life to all citizens and guards them from danger. But Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark have decades of experience.
 
I am not an expert on Welfare State which provides good life to all citizens and guards them from danger. But Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark have decades of experience.

So they are not allowed to drive cars in Sweden? Base jump in Norway? Drink vodka in Finland... again, see where we are going or are you going to pivot again?
 
So they are not allowed to drive cars in Sweden? Base jump in Norway? Drink vodka in Finland... again, see where we are going or are you going to pivot again?

They are allowed and they do. But due to enormous taxes on gas, they use much more public transportation.
 
They are allowed and they do. But due to enormous taxes on gas, they use much more public transportation.

You don't have much of an argument... good luck.
 
58180444.jpg
 
OMFG! Listen to this arrogant crapola. Freedom is about taking personal responsibility for yourself. How someone dying is none of your ****ing business.

It's the opposite of arrogance. I recognize I lack the information necessary to making sound decisions regarding issues which the average person knows little about. I would suggest I know less than 1/2 of 1% of the information I would need to fully function in this society without relying on others. You to, you apparently just don't recognize that fact. No single individual can be self sufficient in this complex society of interdependency.

We and the natural environment need protections from those snake oil salesman who's only concern is the bottom line. You can't make informed decisions when you are lied to and intentionally confused by industries like the tobacco companies. The public can not make informed decisions concerning global warming when they are lied to by industries and political think tanks.
 
It's the opposite of arrogance. I recognize I lack the information necessary to making sound decisions regarding issues which the average person knows little about. I would suggest I know less than 1/2 of 1% of the information I would need to fully function in this society without relying on others. You to, you apparently just don't recognize that fact. No single individual can be self sufficient in this complex society of interdependency.

We and the natural environment need protections from those snake oil salesman who's only concern is the bottom line. You can't make informed decisions when you are lied to and intentionally confused by industries like the tobacco companies. The public can not make informed decisions concerning global warming when they are lied to by industries and political think tanks.

And the govt is here to help you, with lobbyists on their side. :lamo
 
I agree, only people with PhDs in science and math should be allowed a voice.

You miss the point in an attempt to be sarcastic.

We should follow the voice of those in positions of expertise in their field of interest. That's only common sense. That's why we educate people, so that they learn the basic knowledge we humans have accumulated over the centuries. Beyond the basic knowledge is the realm of the specialist. We rely on specialist to inform us on matters we know little about.

When snake oil salesman can lie and obfuscate the expert thinking we can not function as a democracy which depends on an informed people. We need a governing body which referees and points out who the actual experts are and who are the frauds. Without that governing body we are one confused group.
 
I would rather be dead, then live in a society that does not allow me to risk my own life if I so choose.

'It's better to be dead and cool. Then alive and uncool'

+1

If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room.
 
You miss the point in an attempt to be sarcastic.

We should follow the voice of those in positions of expertise in their field of interest. That's only common sense. That's why we educate people, so that they learn the basic knowledge we humans have accumulated over the centuries. Beyond the basic knowledge is the realm of the specialist. We rely on specialist to inform us on matters we know little about.

When snake oil salesman can lie and obfuscate the expert thinking we can not function as a democracy which depends on an informed people. We need a governing body which referees and points out who the actual experts are and who are the frauds. Without that governing body we are one confused group.

Who gets to choose those who are experts and thus get to speak for the rest of us? You know left to government, it's all going to be Monsanto and Goldman Sachs folk.

On some level I almost think we need another branch of government, separate and equal to the others, Science and Standards. Something that gets away from the standard politics and allows regulations and standards to be set by scientists or experts of the field. But that's not really going to happen.

And I wasn't missing a point to be sarcastic. You had made some idiotic claim about libertariansm being a disaster based on some preconceived notion of what libertarian society would be. And while our laws would be limited and government force against the People limited, it's not a free-for-all. it's not even without regulation. But people may be able to do things that, when taken to extremes, could hurt themselves. Like riding a motorcycle.
 
Last edited:
Could we place a tax on human stupidity? I mean, most deaths are a result of stupidity.

Since we cannot tax stupidity as it is defined, let's all go ahead and regulate ourselves into mental midgets.
 
Who gets to choose those who are experts and thus get to speak for the rest of us? You know left to government, it's all going to be Monsanto and Goldman Sachs folk.

On some level I almost think we need another branch of government, separate and equal to the others, Science and Standards. Something that gets away from the standard politics and allows regulations and standards to be set by scientists or experts of the field. But that's not really going to happen.

And I wasn't missing a point to be sarcastic. You had made some idiotic claim about libertariansm being a disaster based on some preconceived notion of what libertarian society would be. And while our laws would be limited and government force against the People limited, it's not a free-for-all. it's not even without regulation. But people may be able to do things that, when taken to extremes, could hurt themselves. Like riding a motorcycle.

In science the expert opinion is represented by the National Academy of Sciences. It was formed for the very purpose of informing policy makers. Most industrialized nations have one.

Would we have an EPA under a Libertarian government?
 
It's simply a childish word game to claim that smokinng does not cause death directly. No one ever stabs someone w/a cigarette and it causes death.

Smoking directly contributes to death, and that is simply undeniable reality.

You wish. If, for example, cigarette smoking caused cancer then we would know who many cigarettes over what period of time but we don't, do we? Not only that but we're told by the priests that second-hand smoke is as bad as smoking and more recently the priests have announced that third-hand smoke is just as bad.

Smoking is certainly not good for you but the "causing death" is nonsense. We all die and if you die having smoked it's a smoking-related death unless you were run over by a bus or shot in the head.
 
When I did my mandatory time in the military it was a wonderful learning experience. One thing I learned was that a million people looking to screw with the rules can beat a thousand people writing rules. Once, you've made life so incredibly safe, people will find a new way to make you pee your pants.
 
In science the expert opinion is represented by the National Academy of Sciences. It was formed for the very purpose of informing policy makers. Most industrialized nations have one.

Would we have an EPA under a Libertarian government?

Why wouldn't we have an EPA in a libertarian government?
 
Back
Top Bottom