Really?

Huh, so I guess all the overweight people who live on bad food, or smoke large amounts, or drink large amounts of alcohol are just a figment of my imagination...

Now, I'm not saying we should ban 'junk' food, or smoking or even alcohol because yeah, people should be able to self moderate but, ya know, they don't..

Have you ever compared the price of junk food vs the price of healthy food? It's expensive to eat healthy. I'm sure they put corn in everything because it tastes so good. The government probably has nothing to do with any of that.

On smoking, it's already being banned in both public and private businesses all over the US and is taxed incredibly.

On alcohol, the drinking rate in the US is 4% lower than the 1970s and has been relatively stable for the recorded history of alcohol drinking in the US.

The answer is better education, not telling people what they can and cannot do.

It the government had a good track record of success when they are given more responsibility I might be inclined to side with you, but they don't.

I agree that better education is the answer. Unfortunately, our public education is not that great and will likely get worse before it gets better. In my state (Texas), they are slashing public school funds to deal with the debt crisis, which will only create more problems in the long run I feel. The other part of the problem is that many adults don't take initiative to continue to educate themselves throughout their lives. To make matters worse there are a lot of unethical corporations, collectives, and initiatives out there that actually put out false information to mislead people into purchasing their products, or to vote in a certain way, or whatever.


I really think that we need to be teaching critical thinking skills all throughout a student's education. Teach them how to properly evaluate the veracity of claims. Teach them how to determine fact from fiction. Teach them that they must think for themselves and not blindly follow some authority figure without question. And teach them how to dismantle arguments and identify logical fallacies. I wish that those were the things I was taught long ago, but I didn't fully develop these skills until a few years ago after some personal education and enlightenment.

I have a few friends (some of them conservative!) who think that people should not have the right to procreate if they demonstrate that they are incompetent to adequately care for a child's needs, whether its not having the financial stability to support a child, failing a drug test, etc. Now that I think would go way over the line, but I see where they are coming from.

There was a country that had such policy. Of course it "makes sense".

Which is why those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

The "octomom" is a good example of this, as we have a single mother who is unemployed now raising 14 children. And part of our taxes go to help support this unethical woman raise all of those children. So maybe the people (that government is supposed to represent) have a say in reproductive rights after all? [/quote]

How many children are unemployed people then allowed to have? One? Zero? Five? What about a respectable broker who suddenly loses a job. How much savings must they have?

Or the other way around - government *will not* help unemployed people raising children. It's simply how it was. See Charlie Chaplin or read Charles Dickens. The word orphanage was very common back then. So was starting to earn money at 8, commonly due to being abandoned or being unable for parents to take care of them. Shoe shining was a common job.

But it "makes sense". Like it did back then. It's such slippery slope.

People have just forgotten about why certain practices were put into effect.

Vaccinations cause autism, right? Maybe, but even if, the rate is absurdly low compared to millions that died before vaccination. But I do know that my mother almost died from whopping cough (how many people even know what that is anymore) and that two of her classmates contracted polio. One died, the other survived paralyzed from neck down. People just don't know about it since they were born into time when these problems were solved precisely due to government enforcement.

@ Antheus - Not only is nobody in any way infringing your personal freedomes, your freedom is guaranteed
I just listed several examples where I was. And they are just the tip of the iceberg. See Gay marriage.

@ Antheus - You are free to disagree with government policies
I believe a libertarian would argue that they know they're free. It's the level of freedom they disagree with.

@Antheus - But it's the lightbulbs... Those are the final straw.
I believe a libertarian would point to instances where our government gave guns and planes to criminals and Narco terrorist....Who then murdered a bunch of Americans. Or they would point to the various no-knock raids that killed innocent people. See ATF Operation Fast and Furious and Operation Castaway and the murder of Iraq war hero Jose Guerena by cops raiding the wrong house

@ Me - There isn't one thing in our life that our government doesn't have a hand in.
@Antheus - Then who would you have instead? Mafia? Clergy? Or rule of the strongest, the anarchy. Pick one, there's a country that has it, move there.
I don't believe most libertarians advocate for no government. And think they would question why they have to surrender and move from "The land of the free" to another country to gain more freedom.

@Antheus - No. But neither can someone else buy a crate of those and make meth.
I believe a libertarian would say ask why not? As long as a person isn't hurting anyone else why shouldn't they be allowed to get their drugs from a drug company/pharmacy? It's their body.

@ Me - I can buy the old mercury free light bulbs at Wally World?
@Antheus - Offices have been using flourescent lighting since cca. 1930s. Those contain several times more mercury. When exactly did mercury become a problem?
I believe a libertarian would say "what's wrong with having a choice?"

@Me - I can ride a motorcycle without a helmet?
@Antheus - Oh dear god, the first world is so terrible. The oppression. The tyranny. The fascism.
I think a libertarian would argue for a government that treats people like an adult and gives them a choice. Personally I think a majority of Americans are smart enough to not do crack and to wear a helmet.

@ Antheus - You're right. At least you are free to leave such horrible country. I cannot imagine anyone could still stay in a place like that.
I imagine a libertarian would say "Yeah, if they want to be able to sell their milk those damn Amish people can leave this country. Right on!" See dpadam450 links.

I could be wrong.

Have you ever compared the price of junk food vs the price of healthy food? It's expensive to eat healthy. I'm sure they put corn in everything because it tastes so good. The government probably has nothing to do with any of that.

Besides paying farmers not to farm, regulating and taxing small farms out of business, paying farmers to plant crops for energy and not food, and the like, right?

If Obama needs to write a letter, he doesn't go down to a local government owned forest, chop down a tree, pulp it and make his own paper. It's supplied to him like it would to any employee who writes letters.

Instead of using Microsoft him and everyone else in our government could use Ubuntu, instead of having their own private email network they could use yahoo, etc. I have no problem with Obama, and the rest, getting the things they need to do their job(beyond the fact they can afford to buy it for themselves)...I do have a problem when they are paying billions of dollars(stolen from the private sector) for what they could be getting for free. Especially when they're talking about cutting SS.

BTW, how good would Ubuntu be if it had been getting all those no bid contracts(our government and almost every other government on the planet has a contract with them)? How far ahead of the game have those government contracts(hundreds of billions of dollar) put Microsoft ahead of its competitors? How many have gone out of business and are going to go out of business due to this unfair advantage?

Instead of using Microsoft him and everyone else in our government could use Ubuntu, instead of having their own private email network they could use yahoo, etc. I have no problem with Obama, and the rest, getting the things they need to do their job(beyond the fact they can afford to buy it for themselves)...I do have a problem when they are paying billions of dollars(stolen from the private sector) for what they could be getting for free. Especially when they're talking about cutting SS.

BTW, how good would Ubuntu be if it had been getting all those no bid contracts(our government and almost every other government on the planet has a contract with them)? How far ahead of the game have those government contracts(hundreds of billions of dollar) put Microsoft ahead of its competitors? How many have gone out of business and are going to go out of business due to this unfair advantage?

They would never use standard open source software for significant, and more specifically classified, government work. It just isn't secure enough especially for machines that aren't on closed networks. They'd have to develop their own version of linux, and by that point they may as well just use windows because whatever they develop will be both worse and more expensive. Of all the things the government wastes money on, licensing windows/office is the least of our worries.

@ Me - I can buy the old mercury free light bulbs at Wally World?
@Antheus - Offices have been using flourescent lighting since cca. 1930s. Those contain several times more mercury. When exactly did mercury become a problem?
I believe a libertarian would say "what's wrong with having a choice?"

Because you might make the wrong choice. Does that impinge on your freedom? Yeah, it does. Tough. Governments and societies are about trading freedoms and rights for the collective good (including yours). Where that line falls is constantly in debate. Here it's a pretty simple decision. We use too much energy per person. Changing to these lightbulbs is a simple way to reduce that. It's a no-brainer.

but..

if you do not make the old ones illegal, then unscrupulous companies will continue to sell them cheaper than the new ones. Poor people will buy the cheap bulbs for short term gain, and end up spending more on electricity and using more energy. OTOH, if they are made illegal, then the impetus is on the lightbulb companies to find ways of making the new bulbs cheaper.

They would never use standard open source software for significant, and more specifically classified, government work.

Seeing as how the Chinese basically copied our ICBMs to the tee, I really don't see them as being more secure with Microsoft.

What did Bradly Manning steal all those files off of?

It just isn't secure enough especially for machines that aren't on closed networks. They'd have to develop their own version of linux, and by that point they may as well just use windows because whatever they develop will be both worse and more expensive.

If that's true, it would be those 20+ years and counting of no-bid government contracts Microsoft gets to develop their special secure versions of windows. Plus it doesn't hurt that they got that sweat deal that allows them to team up with the NSA(2005 to today) to make their operating system even more secure. They are pretty much a quasi-governmental entity at this point.

BTW, I would bet you dollars to donuts a properly configured version of one of Linux's better free versions could easily compete with Microsoft on every level including security. Check that, Microsoft is better for gaming.

Of all the things the government wastes money on, licensing windows/office is the least of our worries

That is unless you're trying to compete against our government...wait, I mean unless you're competing with Microsoft. The line has become blurred at this point.

@ Me - I can buy the old mercury free light bulbs at Wally World?
@ Antheus - Offices have been using flourescent lighting since cca. 1930s. Those contain several times more mercury. When exactly did mercury become a problem?
@ Me - I believe a libertarian would say "what's wrong with having a choice?"
@ ChaosEngine - Because you might make the wrong choice. Does that impinge on your freedom? Yeah, it does. Tough. Governments and societies are about trading freedoms and rights for the collective good (including yours).

That might be true for your country but here in America my Rights are Unalienable, not inalienable, and they can't be traded or given away.
UNALIENABLE. The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted.

I may make a bad choice in my pursuit of happiness, but provided I'm not hurting anyone else, this says it's my right to do so.