One more example of the govt,s pandering to minority groups the nipple insiden5t was hardly noticeable in the half time entertainment of the 2004 superbowl . in fact if it hadnt been for the *keepers of our morals * making such a fuss it would have been long forgotten with no lasting bad influence on out kids morals or outlook on the human body .because of there idiotic and neurotic babblings much neaded govt many and time has been spent on this non event .
this obbsesion of the govt to control and censor all parts of our lives when the elected officials should spent as much time,effort and MONEY solving the hunger , unemployment , war and the many other issues that effect our daily lives .
just more prove that we dont have a govt *of the people for the people by the people * but puppets of any special interest groups that contribute the most dollars into the ruling parties coffers .
help change this by supporting any candidate who advocates a major change in the struture of the administration and less MUCH less GOVT control of our everyday lives .
end of rant .
articule
http//business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2434811.ece
For the most part, yes, but in my opinion, 'for the common good', the government needs to take a more active role in other things. For instance, there are a lot of idiots here in Ohio that don't wear motorcycle helmets because them and the libertanians kick up a stink whenever a law is mentioned for them to wear helmets.
However, if the unfortunate happened and I had an accident with someone not wearing a helmet which otherwise would have saved their life or saved them from serious injury, why should I have to deal with the psychological scars of them suffering injury or face being charged with a crime that could have been prevented?
Same for cell phones, except I and my family risk being a casualty of some moron being distracted using a cell phone while driving. Its the 'libertanian' thing to do to allow people to use cell phones or text messages while driving. but it endangers me. Also the same for wearing seat belts.
Same for smoking in restaurants and bars. I don't particularly agree with government bans on smoking in bars and restaurants, but I see the reason for it.
Some people are incapable of making good decisions unless they are required to!!
Etc, etc, etc....
Our local county fair has a "big name" playing each fair day and the concert is free with the general admission to the fair.
This year, for one of the days the fair board engaged the rock band "Poison" to appear on the main stage which is not far from where all the 4-H kids had their animals.
Well apparently the band had a film show projected behind them and apparently there was a brief showing of bare breasts during that film show.
One of our local commisioners, who herself recently narrowly defeated a recall, decided that although 5000 happy people watched and enjoyed that free show, the eight people who she claimed complained to her about the exposed breast had more rights.
I have never understood how anyone can complain about an object whose primary purpose is to feed a baby! But supposedly all those 4-H kids were exposed to something really bad.
I have recently returned from a camping trip in the backwoods of Oregon. Over 100 men, women and children aged from a few weeks to mid seventies, living together for a week in tents with clothing optional. Folks were skinny dipping in the river and just walking around as nature intended with no hang ups. Babies were breast fed on an as needed basis and nobody complained about the sight of a nude body because nobody there had the hangups of "enforced guilt" which society tries to place upon the populace.
The children at these camps are amongst the most intelligent and happy that I have seen over here. They are joyful, free and their laughter and worry free faces tells the whole story.
The teens attending this camp, who have been raised this way, are polite, considerate well balanced kids who are mostly home schooled. They carry on intelligent conversations and I have been pleasantly surprised at the wide range of topics they can converse with as they chat to you. I had more intelligent chats with these kids than with some of the "educated" adults living near me.
We do have a rule, however, that no child is to be alone with only one adult unless that adult is a parent of said child. I attend this camp annually and we have never had a problem in that regard.
As for Janet Jackson... does anyone really care whether she exposed her nipple deliberately?
What a caffuffle over nothing.
For the most part, yes, but in my opinion, 'for the common good', the government needs to take a more active role in other things. For instance, there are a lot of idiots here in Ohio that don't wear motorcycle helmets because them and the libertanians kick up a stink whenever a law is mentioned for them to wear helmets.
However, if the unfortunate happened and I had an accident with someone not wearing a helmet which otherwise would have saved their life or saved them from serious injury, why should I have to deal with the psychological scars of them suffering injury or face being charged with a crime that could have been prevented?
Same for cell phones, except I and my family risk being a casualty of some moron being distracted using a cell phone while driving. Its the 'libertanian' thing to do to allow people to use cell phones or text messages while driving. but it endangers me. Also the same for wearing seat belts.
Same for smoking in restaurants and bars. I don't particularly agree with government bans on smoking in bars and restaurants, but I see the reason for it.
Some people are incapable of making good decisions unless they are required to!!
Etc, etc, etc....
As far as accidents go theyall could be prevented thats why they are called *accidents *
i havnt heard* libertarians* complain about reasonable laws that protect *others from injury if i our others do sonething dangerous .
im in the libertarian camp and a non smoker .
my views on smoking in restaurants /bars should be a dicision left to the owner /administator . if he wants a non smoking or smoking bar .. or both , I as a customer will decide which establishment i frequent . that way all views are respected if idont like a restuarant that allows smoking I DONT HAVE TO EAT THERE
now smoking in govt or national building where i might have to frequent (like a court room ) is differant , in other words where i have no choice my non smoking view should be respected areas can be allocated for smokers same as places to eat , and bathrooms are .
I look at smoking in restuarants much like I look at religion, each has its own rules and practices and you can CHOOSE to follow any of them or non of them and give the one you believe in your support by attending that church . no need to BAN any of them they are all of equal value .
there is to much govt interferance in private behaviour of which smoking ( tabacco or other ).drinking ,gambling ,prostitution , whom one sleeps with ,etc are prime examples of behaviour which will not harm any other member of the public if its voluntary ,and not a threat to individual or national security .
there is a fine line. but most of the restictions on private behaviour laws are a result of religious mantra controlling the govt at some time or other .
Some people are incapable of making good decisions unless they are required to!!
Etc, etc, etc....
See thats exactly what we libertarians mean . who says *they * are incapable of making a good decision .
cus its not the one you would them to make dont make it a bad decision
example 1
motorcylist should be MADE to wear a helmet cus if they dont they may kill themselves in a accident .
so they made a bad decisions not wearing one when they (helmets) are avialable
example 2
smoking should be BANNED cus smoking can course lung cancer and may kill you .
so smokers made a bad decision not to stop smoking when cures are avialable
in these examples do you consider the smoker and the motorcylist made BAD decisions so we should pass legislation to make sure they make the right one ?/
its a fine line as to were govt interferance should intrude on a persons private decision weather that decision is the right one of not
its all a matter of who should decide
I agree with you on the smoking, but I can see why its a law.
The point is, if a motorcyclist or a car passenger or driver doesn't wear a helmet or selt belt and goes and drives into a tree and causes themselves serious injury, then its their own stupid fault if they get injured more than they otherwise would.
However, say if an animal runs into the road, I swerve to avoid it, but don't see the oncoming motorcyclist without helmet, I crash into him and end up killing him, why should I have to deal with the psychological stress of having killed someone and any legal circumstances that may come will killing someone as opposed to injuring them if they did wear a helmet?
John your fear of government control is clouding your judgement. Think of the cost to the general public by people that take risks.
I think if you check any insurance policy they have limitations for those people that take risks and will not pay out if ignored.
The same should aply to smokers etc. Why should they be covered by health insurance related to their illness when they know the risk.
Come on John, why should we pay for the medical care for idiots that get additional injuries because they don't where the hats?
The smoking ban in public places is to protect the people who are required to be there as part of their job, waiters and barmen and women, etc.
Ditto Keith and Michael.
Insurance policies are 'mutual' - when someone smashes their skull for want of a helmet, you end up paying John.
When lots of them do it, as in Ohio or New Hampshire, where I live, then you pay a lot.
Smoking carries the same argument plus the proven consequences of second hand smoke.
I have enough bad habits of my own without being killed by someone elses.
John your fear of government control is clouding your judgement. Think of the cost to the general public by people that take risks.
I think if you check any insurance policy they have limitations for those people that take risks and will not pay out if ignored.
The same should aply to smokers etc. Why should they be covered by health insurance related to their illness when they know the risk.
Keith
In both those instances you quoted they should,nt (be covered ) and i never suggested they should .
My point was they should have the choice /freedom to smoke or not, or to wear a helmet of not .
insurance rates are a differant subject should they be contructed at differant levels to give a lower premium to those who dont take risks ..YES
Thats why universla health coverage wont work *one size fits all * would mean we would be covering them
Come on John, why should we pay for the medical care for idiots that get additional injuries because they don't where the hats?
The smoking ban in public places is to protect the people who are required to be there as part of their job, waiters and barmen and women, etc.
Let me state what i ment more clearly and please see response above to keith .
yes its SILLY and iresponsible to ride a motorcyle without some sort of head protection and YES its unhealthy to smoke . i didnt give the impresion taht iagreed with doing those things did I Micheal ?
i was offering the argument taht each person should have more freedom to choose his .her own livestyle with out to much govt interferance the govt pokes its nose to far into our private lives .
as i siad if a bar allows smoking its success will find its own level if to many folks abject and refrian from eating there its life will not be very long .
insurance rates run by private companies would set the rates for those who live less responsible live than the norm and place a premium on risky behaviour .
but should folks be able to choose a live style with more forseeable risks YES
As far as laws to combact bad / irresponsible / ricky behavoiur you might as well pass a law saying any person not wanting a child and not using contraception is irresponsible so they shouild be penalised .. i cant see liberals condoning a law like that can you) ?
ditto to those who stuff themselves with fatty food after reading all the dangers of it get obese and risk heart failure should fatty foods be banned ??? thses poeple need a lot of health care should we pay for that .. ?
if you let the govy decide all these things where will it end . they already tell us who we can sleep with ( homesexual laws . do you want them to tell us waht we wear and eat as well ... govt greeps giving itsself more powers each congress session while at the same time excepting itsself ....
getting back to my point IMO the govt has to much intrusion into our private lives and who decides what is *irresponsible/ risky behavoiur the individuual or the state //
being in favour of people having the *right* to choose doest mean i agree with that they do
Ditto Keith and Michael.
Insurance policies are 'mutual' - when someone smashes their skull for want of a helmet, you end up paying John.
When lots of them do it, as in Ohio or New Hampshire, where I live, then you pay a lot.
Smoking carries the same argument plus the proven consequences of second hand smoke.
I have enough bad habits of my own without being killed by someone elses.
But rob you are contraditing your self you say why should we pay .
?? universal health care would be * all pay the same * and we would end up paying for the guy who injured himself by not wearing a helmet and the guy who got cancer thou smoking, also the person who had numorous pregnancies thou not taken precautions taken to term or not .
and other non responsible and risky behavior by members of the public .
as i say and you seem to agree *one size dont fit all *
Thats why universla health coverage wont work *one size fits all * would mean we would be covering them
that's spot on.
people who ride motorbikes or smoke don't pay taxes.
where as old codgers on Medicare.......salt of the earth........
so fuck em.
Thats why universla health coverage wont work *one size fits all * would mean we would be covering them
that's spot on.
people who ride motorbikes or smoke don't pay taxes.
where as old codgers on Medicare.......salt of the earth........
so fuck em.
you havnt changed have you manc .
you will be on medicare one day if you live that long ,and its not not a charity from the govt its a earned benefit for paying into a system for 50 years ...
poeple whp smoke will pay more in taxes if hillary clintons health bill is passed into law .
so if you are a smoker you will finally get to pay a bit more in taxes to cover the health care of those who dont have it and be a part of paying for a programe you so long have supported
Yes, I agree with that up to a point, but when those bad decisions have a discernable effect on other people, then the law needs to step in to make them get in line.
What would be your line on drunk driving? After all, its 'government control' if they pull people over for drinking and driving. Why don't they legalise that?
i was offering the argument taht each person should have more freedom to choose his .her own livestyle with out to much govt interferance the govt pokes its nose to far into our private lives .