Reid Goes After Brothels

[Aimless]

The problem with Scotland is that it is full of Scots.

Okay let me rephrase it... by tying it to insurance you help the insured and the intelligent, you don't help the uninsured and the stupid or mentally ill.

[Ominous Gamer]

I support letting each individual make decisions. You want to smoke? Go for it. You want to drive without a seat belt? That's fine, its your life. Want to sell your body/buy a hooker? Distasteful but that is not my business.

If you want to be governed by laws against harmful things then OK but don't force everyone else to accept your tyranny.

Ultimately liberals have nothing but contempt for people. They think that people are too stupid to manage their finances. (In favor of regulation/banning pay day advances, cash advance places, capping interest rates, support laws against credit card fees, debit card point of sale transactions, attempting to curb RAL, outlawing gambling *well except state run gambling...*)

They think people are too stupid to take care of themselves health wise. (Banning Happy Meals in SF, spending tax payer money in efforts to get people to eat "Right", banning certain types of dishes on the city level, requiring menus to display nutritional information, getting rid of vending machines in schools, raising taxes on tobacco products).

I could go on. But in the end liberals have this belief that the country is full of helpless pathetic sheep that must be led by a shepherd (government) or they will be destroyed by their own vices and roaming wolves (business). This kind of view is the polar opposite of what America stands for. America stands for freedom, rugged individualism, the freedom to try and yes the freedom to fail fantastically.

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
— Isaac Asimov

[Draco]

Are 'free' police, firemen and teachers permissible?

Police yes, since they're there to protect our rights. As for firemen and teachers -> privatise.

Ah, the precious principles. So, you're willing to let people DIE for your precious principles? Especially when faced with the fact that there's NO practical downside?

I'm not responsible for a persons life if they decide not to wear a selt belt, and then die in a car accident. So I'm not letting them die. Anyway, even if it is the law, you can still choose not to wear the seat belt, and die anyway in the event of a car accident.

Principles are very nice and all. But the inability to bend or even break principles shows that you've got limited life experience. As far as I know you're quite young yet, so you'll probably did not have to face something like that yet, but there will come a point where two or more of your moral laws (or "principles") will stand in conflict with each other.

No I don't have that much life experience. But I am proud of staying true to my most fundamental principles/morals since I've been a teenager (which are unrelated to this topic), and the others that I'm developing have only come about these past few years, and I intend to stick by them. But if I ever come to such a situation where I'm in a personal conflict, then I'll deal with it then.

At that point you'll hopefully realize that principles are a nice thing to have - but applying them without thinking about the consequences is not a good thing to do.

I think about the consequences, but if somebody wants to drive a car without a seat belt, or if they want to insert multiple syringes into their arms, or if they want to do anything that doesn't threaten the life/rights of another, then I don't care.

We had this same debate over here in Germany. Seat belts were not mandatory at first. Which meant that nearly no one used them and the number of deaths did not really go down. Then they promptly became mandatory and the number of deaths took a massive downswing.

Thus we can say that seat belts save lives. We also can say that they have no downsides.

That sounds like a reasonable outcome. But I'd prefer the government to go about other means of encouraging people to wear seat belts, rather than making it a law.

In contrast, applying your "principles" would mean that people would be killed for no reason other than to support a "principle". And that's something you want?

It's what I mentioned before: little by little, we're allowing the government to become bigger, and then they give themselves the right to draw a fine line on any other matter for 'public safety.'

Let me give you some food for thought: When an idea/principle/ideology becomes more important than the people it's actually intended for, then you'll have to worry. Because the same happened in Soviet Russia - the idea of socialism became more important than the people.

What I'm advocating for and what the Soviets were advocating for, are two very different things though. I'm for the individual and their rights.

Your personal property [your car] has limits once you drive on a public road. Then you're interacting with other people, and they have a right to drive on a safe road.

Definitely.

It's not black and white---over the years we've seen how babies and children need special safety seats. Are you against a law mandating kids car seats in the privacy of your own car?

Yes I'm against that too. I'm against anything that denies a person their right to a choice. But this topic on safety seats for babies and children would be far more in depth since we'd be talking about the childs 'right to a choice' and whether they're capable of making such a choice, or understand it, is for another topic.

But I'll bring it back to my other point, that the average person is smart enough to know that their child will very likely die if they are not in one of those safety seats, in the event of a car accident.

Using cell phones and texting while driving causes distracted drivers, and many accidents. Is it okay to ban hand-hell devices while driving in the privacy of your own car?

I'm inclined to agree with such laws, that ban the use of a mobile phone or other hand-held device that takes your attention away from the road, and thus result in an accident. I haven't read much into such matters though, but for the time being I'd say that it's 'ok' for the government to make that one illegal, since you do really pose a threat to other drivers and pedestrians.

Sure, it's now common knowledge that seat belts save lives, and most folks use them automatically. Just in case, auto makers installed that irritating DING DING alarm until they're fastened. If you're involved in a car accident and someone is injured while not wearing a seat belt, insurance companies will fight in court to deny that personal injury / liability claim. Does it bother you that insurers have so much control over who pays the lifetime care of the quadriplegic?

Since I only just learnt of insurance companies lobbying to have such laws, in this thread, I'd say that it does bother me, from the point of view that they have contributed to the whole "denying people their right to choose" principle. It's understandable that they're doing it to protect themselves, but it doesn't justify it. Why couldn't they just say in their policy outline "If you're involved in an accident, and it was proven that you were not wearing a seat belt, then we won't help you" or something.

So my owning a nuclear weapon is alright in Draco's version of the United States? I'm equally as likely to pose a threat to another person's right to life with a nuclear weapon as I am a firearm, which is no threat at all, since I'm a safe and responsible citizen, who will practice proper weapons handling and safe keeping, and will never try to violate any other person's safety with them.

You're going a bit off topic mentioning the likes of firearms, and even nuclear weapons (I won't even point out the difference between the two).
A person should have the right to defend themselves in a situation that calls for defense. Any one of us could find ourselves in such a situation, where we're cornered by some imbecile, or they break into our house (or group of imbeciles) with a knife, or a gun, or another weapon, and as such, the person who's the target should have every right to defend themselves. The type of defense shouldn't even be questionable, so yes, they should be able to own a firearm. I know where you're getting at with this, and can expect the type of questions/rebuttals you'll pose, which is why I'd suggest that you open up a new topic (although I won't guarantee that I'll actively involve myself in it since I'm rather busy at this period of time).

Also, here is a fun scenario for you. We're both driving on a road in Draco's Land, USA. We're both doing about 55 MPH, and I'm in the lane to your left. I swerve in front of you and brake hard because I wasn't paying attention, and need to make a right on that street we're about to pass. You don't really have time to brake yourself, so you hit me going about 50. I, of course, was exercising my right to not wear a seat belt, and my right to deactivate my air bags. I'm now dead, strewn somewhere in between my seat, the hood of my car, and the road in front of it. When the police arrive, they'll be arresting you on possible manslaughter charges. Since I'm dead, and you're the cause of it.

If only we had some legal way to determine that it was actually I who was in the wrong for not wearing my seat belt, and for deactivating my airbags...

Well the same thing could happen even if the law was still there, you may have decided one day not to wear the seat belt, and to also deactivate your air bags.

I don't know if you're alluding to an actual case of that happening, but nothing will ever justify denying a persons right to make a choice, so long as they are not denying the life/rights of another. But in your scenario, are we assuming that the police need time to investigate the scene? Because how can they just automatically arrest me on the spot, for what would have looked like an accident. And how would I have known that you weren't wearing a seat belt? So how could I be arrested in the scenario? Or are you assuming that the police couldn't determine whose fault it really was? In which case, I still shouldn't be arrested, since you were the one without the seat belt, you suddenly came up infront of me, and thus your death was really your own fault/doing.

Of course its not you. Several people are just having the same problem with you because you're such an eloquent and clear speaker, with well-thought out, well-argued, water-tight ideas.

It seems people are more in uproar over my unconventional ideas, rather than the way I've approached to argue them.

I've explained it before: People should have the right to do what they want with their life, their property, their body, so long as they do not deny the life/rights of another person. I keep on getting the "W-W-WHY" response, and my only rebuttal is: the fact that it is their own life, property, body etc, and nobody else has the right to interefere in those matters, for the simple fact that if we allow one seemingly minor instance of interference, then we open the door for everything else.

Enoch the Red gave a good analogy, with unhealthy foods and heart conditions. We know that people die as a result of unhealthy food, so should there be a law on what you eat?

Consider this, your explanations weren't good there. They still aren't here. They don't get better with age, because they are text, not cheese or wine.

I don't know what more you want, other than what I just said. I've already mentioned in a previous post that I'm not that well read on such political topics, and I'm only applying my reason/logic to such matters, and what I state is what makes most sense for me.

A discussion on prostitution and seatbelt laws - A strange combination. Perhaps brothels should exchange a whip for a seatbelt for someone like Draco, it might make him feel extra horny knowing he's being erotically stimulated by the government. If all else fails, he'd be a good poster child for safe sex.

Hush you

[Aimless]

Look man you abide by my rules when you're on my roads. Don't you be trying to justify naked rock-climbing without protection in my home either

[Draco]

Look man you abide by my rules when you're on my roads. Don't you be trying to justify naked rock-climbing without protection in my home either

I don't get this..unless it's some joke?
But if you do own a set of roads, then it's your right to create the rules for driving on them.

[littlelolligagged]

I don't get this..unless it's some joke?
But if you do own a set of roads, then it's your right to create the rules for driving on them.

That's the point they've been trying to make for pages and pages now, I'm glad you finally get it.

[Draco]

That's the point they've been trying to make for pages and pages now, I'm glad you finally get it.

And I'm glad that you're glad
But what I meant by my last comment, is that Aimless actually owns the roads, his private property, hence he could create the rules that he wanted. I didn't mean in it in regards to the government.

[Aimless]

Regardless of what you meant, the govt. owns the roads more than you do.

[RandBlade]

And I'm glad that you're glad
But what I meant by my last comment, is that Aimless actually owns the roads, his private property, hence he could create the rules that he wanted. I didn't mean in it in regards to the government.

Who owns the highways in the US?

[Draco]

Regardless of what you meant, the govt. owns the roads more than you do.

Doesn't give them the right to deny my right(s) when I'm in no way denying another persons rights.

Who owns the highways in the US?

I don't know? I'm assuming the corresponding state governments do?

[RandBlade]

Doesn't give them the right to deny my right(s) when I'm in no way denying another persons rights.

You don't have a right to use public roads as you choose. Try driving without a licence, while drunk at 150 on the wrong side of the road (whatever side wrong is).

I don't know? I'm assuming the corresponding state governments do?

So don't they have the right to set the rules while people are using their property using your logic?

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's what I mentioned before: little by little, we're allowing the government to become bigger, and then they give themselves the right to draw a fine line on any other matter for 'public safety.'

1. Can you show me how government is growing increasingly bigger (relative of course)?
2. Can you found your prediction that they are somehow going to give themselves the right to draw lines? Aren't their line-drawing rights seriously limited by the people who will or will not vote for them in the next election? That's what opposing parties are for aren't they?

Question to the libertarians (no argument, just out of interest). What is your take on dealing with people who have suicidal tendencies?

[Veldan Rath]

Rand and (shudder) Khen is correct in this respect.

On your own private property you can drive with one foot on the wheel and lean out your window naked with your seat belt cut off and wrapped around your head like Rambo if you want. But when on the public roads, you have to follow the rules passed to use them.

[GGT]

Yes I'm against that too. I'm against anything that denies a person their right to a choice. But this topic on safety seats for babies and children would be far more in depth since we'd be talking about the childs 'right to a choice' and whether they're capable of making such a choice, or understand it, is for another topic.

Nope, same topic. Weighing your personal freedoms against others' freedoms. Unless you're living on an isolated island, other people are part of daily life, and they have a right to not be 'victim' of others' choices. Contrary to what you may think.....the laws aren't meant to protect you from yourself, they're meant to protect others from you.

I'm inclined to agree with such laws, that ban the use of a mobile phone or other hand-held device that takes your attention away from the road, and thus result in an accident. I haven't read much into such matters though, but for the time being I'd say that it's 'ok' for the government to make that one illegal, since you do really pose a threat to other drivers and pedestrians.

Loud music and crying babies are distractions for drivers, too! Should they ban radios and CD players in the car, along with babies as passengers?

Since I only just learnt of insurance companies lobbying to have such laws, in this thread, I'd say that it does bother me, from the point of view that they have contributed to the whole "denying people their right to choose" principle. It's understandable that they're doing it to protect themselves, but it doesn't justify it. Why couldn't they just say in their policy outline "If you're involved in an accident, and it was proven that you were not wearing a seat belt, then we won't help you" or something.

Insurers do write in rescission and non-liability disclaimers, to protect themselves. Sounds like you don't mind insurance companies interfering with your right to choose, but if it's a law then you object? Y'know, instead of seeing these laws as infringing on your freeeedom or gummint telling you what to do, remember you also benefit from these laws. They protect you from others.

[RandBlade]

A Conservative viewpoint
As a Conservative I believe that the state should have as little a role in our life as possible, both economically and socially. But I'm not an anarchist and so do believe the state is best-placed to deal with some problems.

Public roads are one of them. I am happy to pay taxation that means the state can both build and maintain public roadways so that I can go about both in my personal life and for the smooth operations of my business. My personal preference is for the tax to be generated through petrol (gas) as that is as close as you can get to a private funding solution - the more you use it, the more you pay.

With rights come responsibilities. By delegating the right to build and maintain the roads (and paying taxation to fund them), I believe the state has a responsibility of care to ensure the roads are well maintained and available. I don't think I should have to suffer from being unable to drive due to potholes not being repaired in a timely manner, or the roads being closed unnecessarily because of an avoidable fatality on the road, or having my life put at risk by another driver driving dangerously. For my business to run smoothly, for me to be able to get about in my personal life, we rely upon the smooth operations of the roads. Since we've chosen to have the roads publicly ran, the state has a duty to set the rules of the road.

Last night the M62 motorway was closed due to a fatality between Junction 12 (Manchester and the M60 ring-road and M602) and Junction 11 (Birchwood, Warrington). This made the only 15 minute journey normally one of hours and had knock-on effects of making the M60 and M602 both at a standstill too. One of my employees couldn't get into work because of this, he was stuck in traffic for 3 hours. Thousands and thousands of others would have been affected.

If allowing people to drive without seatbelts caused that to happen more often, the state would be negligent in its duties to ensure the smooth running of the roads which I as both a citizen and a business operator expect.

PS it is worth noting that most "rules of the road" only apply on publicly-owned roads. If you have privately-owned roads (eg on a farm), you can have children driving tractors or whatever else you want for a large part because you set the rules on your own road.

[RandBlade]

Rand and (shudder) Khen is correct in this respect.

On your own private property you can drive with one foot on the wheel and lean out your window naked with your seat belt cut off and wrapped around your head like Rambo if you want. But when on the public roads, you have to follow the rules passed to use them.

Love the imagery!

[Lewkowski]

Rand and (shudder) Khen is correct in this respect.

On your own private property you can drive with one foot on the wheel and lean out your window naked with your seat belt cut off and wrapped around your head like Rambo if you want. But when on the public roads, you have to follow the rules passed to use them.

The problem with that logic is that it is circular. Government decides they will create and own roads. Therefore we must obey the government when they declare ownership of something? That's like saying "Hey you aren't allowed to speak freely on government property. Oh your house is now government property by the way."

[RandBlade]

The problem with that logic is that it is circular. Government decides they will create and own roads. Therefore we must obey the government when they declare ownership of something? That's like saying "Hey you aren't allowed to speak freely on government property. Oh your house is now government property by the way."

No, it would only be circular if the government was allowed to nationalise whatever it wanted. In your example the house wasn't built, paid for or maintained by the government. The roads are built, paid for and maintained by the state. The government didn't just "declare ownership" of the road, do you think God laid down the roads for everyone to use?

[GGT]

The problem with that logic is that it is circular. Government decides they will create and own roads. Therefore we must obey the government when they declare ownership of something? That's like saying "Hey you aren't allowed to speak freely on government property. Oh your house is now government property by the way."

No, the people decided they wanted public roads. That it wasn't logical to have a bunch of private roads connecting our cities and states.

[Enoch the Red]

*bzzt* Maybe you should look up the definition of fascism before you make yourself look like even more than a fool.

That was precisely my point. Calling an apple an orange does not an orange make.

And yes, your attitude is Eugenicist only by different means. Stupid people make stupid decisions. We have the means to protect them from that.

You're seriously attempting to equate Eugenics with allowing people the freedom to decide what to do with their life?

And you're worried about me looking stupid by calling an apple an orange? I think you've aptly illustrated a complete lack of understanding of what Eugenics is, and for that matter, what freedom is. Allowing people to live their life as they see fit is in no way comparable to enacting and enforcing policies and legislation aimed at controlling the genetics of a population.

So, why on earth shouldn't we? The only reason I can think of is that you think that stupid people should be punished for being so, so we can get rid of stupid people in some kind of social darwinistic experiment - "only the clever survive" and all that.

Yes. Clearly.

The only reason to value a persons right to dictate how they live their life is social Darwinism.

Oh, and your stupid example about food and heart attacks? That only shows your inability to think. Your "counter argument" is a clear example of someone not being able to think in degrees of moderation - everything has to be black and white, a clear-cut issue with clear-cut answers, no deviations, no margin for errors.

Because, y'see, not everyone can eat the same stuff. Not everyone will eat the same stuff. Not everyone will digest the same stuff with the same efficiency. Some people are sick and thus gain weight. Others are sick and don't gain weight at all. Some have genetic dispositions. Some can eat like a horse. And so on and so forth.
Which means, for this multitude of possibilities, you can't derive a clear rule. What works for one, doesn't necessarily work for the other, or is even harmful.

I'm sure that you would be so kind as to grant the statistical outliers a permit to eat at their Medical Mickey Dee's.

That you can't envision creating healthy dietary policy that would generally be healthier, and indeed save lives, isn't so much a condemnation of the policy itself, as much as it is your intelligence and creativity. Or, what I find increasingly more likely, your unwillingness to admit being wrong.

It's different in the case of seat belts. They work for everyone equally, they don't have disadvantages, they save lives indiscriminately, you don't need special rules.

I'm sure you can imagine a case where a seat belt has done more harm than good. Off the top of my head, a situation where a person needs to get out of the vehicle, but can't, due to a malfunctioning seat belt or being unable to reach the buckle.

Which means that your "counter argument" isn't one for the reason that the underlying issues are vastly different. You can't compare the situation because the effects from which the condition arises are quite different.

All metaphors, and by extensions comparisons are, by definition, imperfect. That you can't see a danger in claiming that the ultimate societal good can be found in saving lives, and that anyone who disagrees is a Eugenicist monster speaks more about yourself, and your views than mine.

In essence, it's an issue of weighing. Namely, weighing the positive effects against the negative effects. And I'm talking about REAL, substantial and measurable effects here, not some pie-in-the-sky concept which does not even exist save in the minds of some sociopathic morons.
The real and measurable positive effect is: It saves lives by the bucketloads.
The real and measurable negative effect is: Umm. I'm drawing a blank here.

The real and measurable positive effect of enforcing a healthy dietary policy: saving lives on a scale that makes seat belts look meaningless by comparison.
The real and measurable negative effects are: Drawing a blank.

You are arguing that the ends justify the means. I'm arguing that individual freedom, as dangerous and terrible as it is, trumps the good brought about by this policy.

As someone who so loves Kant I'm surprised you don't see an issue here.

"Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus"

[Veldan Rath]

Okay let me rephrase it... by tying it to insurance you help the insured and the intelligent, you don't help the uninsured and the stupid or mentally ill.

Still applies.

[Enoch the Red]

No, it would only be circular if the government was allowed to nationalise whatever it wanted. In your example the house wasn't built, paid for or maintained by the government. The roads are built, paid for and maintained by the state. The government didn't just "declare ownership" of the road, do you think God laid down the roads for everyone to use?

Which can be done: see eminent domain.

[Veldan Rath]

True, but the Government has massive hoops (theoretically) it must go through first...Kelno v. New London being a horrible exception to the rule.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The problem with that logic is that it is circular. Government decides they will create and own roads. Therefore we must obey the government when they declare ownership of something? That's like saying "Hey you aren't allowed to speak freely on government property. Oh your house is now government property by the way."

You wouldn't recognize logic etc etc etc. Logic does not come from writing 'therefore" in a sentence.

[RandBlade]

Which can be done: see eminent domain.

If the government abuses eminent domain to take my house off me and then do something with it I won't be pissed off because of what they did with it, I'd be pissed off that they took the house at all.

I do not want the government to be in the business of providing houses for everyone, I do want them to be in the business of providing roads for everyone. Unless anyone here wants the government to have nothing to do with roads then the government has a duty to enforce rules on the roads that we've asked for. I've not seen anyone here who wants all roads privatising and the government to stop getting involved with them.

[Khendraja'aro]

I'm not responsible for a persons life if they decide not to wear a selt belt, and then die in a car accident. So I'm not letting them die. Anyway, even if it is the law, you can still choose not to wear the seat belt, and die anyway in the event of a car accident.

Sorry, I can't stand the hack'n'slash attitude some people here do. If you want an answer to your ramblings, then post coherent paragraphs instead of using shitty one-liners. As such, I won't respond to hack'n'slash anymore. Because you're taking something that's meant as a whole and try to get one up by taking things out of context which were never meant to be out of context. The same moronic tactics Jehova's Witnesses use, by the way.

And actually, yes, you are responsible. Because as soon as you speak out against seat belt laws and they're abolished due to your speech and people begin to die again, then that's a direct consequence of your actions. So, in fact, you are responsible. Giving people "freedom" also means that you're responsible to a certain degree for what they're doing with that "freedom".

[Draco]

You don't have a right to use public roads as you choose. Try driving without a licence, while drunk at 150 on the wrong side of the road (whatever side wrong is).

Well I've already stated that I agree with any action so long as that action does not pose a threat to another persons life/rights.

So don't they have the right to set the rules while people are using their property using your logic?

The only rules the government should have the 'right' to set are those that protect and guarantee the liberties of each individual who is a citizen of that country. The likes of speed limits, alcohol consumption levels, are permissible for obvious reasons, but the likes of seat belt laws are not, for reasons that I've already stated.

1. Can you show me how government is growing increasingly bigger (relative of course)?

Well if it's not obvious from all the regulations that Western governments have introduced, all these anti-this, anti-that laws (such as anti-discrimination), the type that take away the will of a person to act as they wish, to do what they want with their body, to do what they want with their property (SO LONG AS the individual is not infringing on the rights of others), then I don't know how else the government is getting bigger?

2. Can you found your prediction that they are somehow going to give themselves the right to draw lines? Aren't their line-drawing rights seriously limited by the people who will or will not vote for them in the next election? That's what opposing parties are for aren't they?

This is the best part of our democratic world: the majority always wins, even if they're voting to deny a person their right to marry whoever they want, it's all ok because voting is great!

Question to the libertarians (no argument, just out of interest). What is your take on dealing with people who have suicidal tendencies?

Let them be. It shouldn't be the responsibility of the government to bring them back into reality. This is what I meant by the government getting bigger little by little. You allow for one aspect of control (say, assisting those with suicidal tendencies) and next thing you know, you're being told that you can't smoke on the street, or you can't marry someone, or you're not allowed to deny service to another person because there's a law that says they're a 'protected minority.'

Nope, same topic. Weighing your personal freedoms against others' freedoms. Unless you're living on an isolated island, other people are part of daily life, and they have a right to not be 'victim' of others' choices. Contrary to what you may think.....the laws aren't meant to protect you from yourself, they're meant to protect others from you.

But how do seat belt laws offer that protection? Is it because of the whole manslaughter charges? It doesn't make sense for someone to be arrested on the grounds that they hit another car in which the driver wasn't wearing a seat belt and subsequently dies (unless of course it can be proven that they broke the law in some way beforehand, say driving over the speed limit, or they were drunk, etc).

Or are you getting at the insurance companies? I've already stated what I thought about that all.

Loud music and crying babies are distractions for drivers, too! Should they ban radios and CD players in the car, along with babies as passengers?

Of course not. You don't concentrate on your radio, or you don't concentrate on your baby whilst driving, the same way that you would whilst talking on a mobile phone.

Insurers do write in rescission and non-liability disclaimers, to protect themselves. Sounds like you don't mind insurance companies interfering with your right to choose, but if it's a law then you object?

Of course I'll object.
The insurance companies are privately owned though.

Y'know, instead of seeing these laws as infringing on your freeeedom or gummint telling you what to do, remember you also benefit from these laws. They protect you from others.

Well why stop there? Why not support a law whereby fast food (or anything remotely related to unhealthy food) is strictly limited, because a lot of people end up becoming obese and die early deaths as a result. Or lets make pest control products illegal too, because what if a child finds some rat poison in the cupboard and decides to eat it all?

[Draco]

Sorry, I can't stand the hack'n'slash attitude some people here do. If you want an answer to your ramblings, then post coherent paragraphs instead of using shitty one-liners. As such, I won't respond to hack'n'slash anymore. Because you're taking something that's meant as a whole and try to get one up by taking things out of context which were never meant to be out of context. The same moronic tactics Jehova's Witnesses use, by the way.

Oh damn, I must have picked up that tactic from the likes of you.

And actually, yes, you are responsible. Because as soon as you speak out against seat belt laws and they're abolished due to your speech and people begin to die again, then that's a direct consequence of your actions. So, in fact, you are responsible. Giving people "freedom" also means that you're responsible to a certain degree for what they're doing with that "freedom".

Ok, how about I don't speak out, and let everyone else speak out, but really I want the laws abolished, what about then?
Oh wait, you're not going to reply to me anymore for some childish reason, grow up.

[Aimless]

So let me get this straight, your ideal world is a world that is okay with letting people kill themselves even though the desire to end one's life is frequently a symptom of a treatable psychiatric illness?

[Draco]

So let me get this straight, your ideal world is a world that is okay with letting people kill themselves even though the desire to end one's life is frequently a symptom of a treatable psychiatric illness?

I just wrote a lengthy paragraph, but why bother..when you and others like you will continue to twist my views, to make me seem like this heartless person who gets off car accident deaths and now suicides. I've repeated myself many times so I'm done with this topic.