New Year Brings New Laws

[Marokai Backbeat]

This really is more of an example of my problem with the Libertas type. It doesn't matter if the new laws are useful, effective, or serve a good purpose. It doesn't matter what the usefulness of the laws are at all to him.

To people like Libertas, it's foolish to argue over effectiveness or whether a law serves a good purpose or not, because Libertas and his ilk sidestep that sort of argument entirely. To them, it doesn't matter whether or not something is making society a better place in any respect, because their beef is over whether government should do anything at all.

It's really quite an immature and shortsighted philosophy. Instead of arguing against the fact that pretty much everything cited in this article are good laws indeed, Libertas simply says "ew, look, laws."

[Marokai Backbeat]

This has become, all the often, all the substance your ilk has been capable of giving. Substance, please. Issues, please. Details, please. Not more of your ideological masturbation and cute reality-impervious one liners. I want facts.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Marokai, with your sort of nonsense and low-class behavior what else do you expect? I'd be more than willing to debate the merits of these laws (what little we know of them) but instead you make blanket generalizations and constantly assert your obvious intellectual superiority no matter what. Grow up.

I wasn't making a blanket generalization, it was a comment directed mostly at Libertas' immature dismissal of laws simply because they are, obviously, laws. It didn't matter what effect they had or if they were good or not, he simply said "there's alot of laws from laws now, nannyism!"

[Marokai Backbeat]

Marokai, with your sort of nonsense and low-class behavior what else do you expect? I'd be more than willing to debate the merits of these laws (what little we know of them) but instead you make blanket generalizations and constantly assert your obvious intellectual superiority no matter what. Grow up.

I wasn't making a blanket generalization, it was a comment directed mostly at Libertas' immature dismissal of laws simply because they are, obviously, laws. It didn't matter what effect they had or if they were good or not, he simply said "there's alot of laws from laws now, nannyism!"

The laws mentioned in the OP were mostly nanny laws.

Seatbelts save lives. Who cares? Smoking bans are proven effective ways of improving the health of the community, it's been shown countless times. Trans fats are useless and unhealthy and do little to nothing to improving the taste of any food, so what harm does this do? Texting while driving has been shown to be as dangerous, or moreso, than drunk driving, so it makes sense to pass laws against it.

The list goes on.

But none of this really matters to you, does it? They're just "nanny laws" because you don't like them, nevermind if they serve a good purpose.

Marokai, with your sort of nonsense and low-class behavior what else do you expect? I'd be more than willing to debate the merits of these laws (what little we know of them) but instead you make blanket generalizations and constantly assert your obvious intellectual superiority no matter what. Grow up.

I wasn't making a blanket generalization, it was a comment directed mostly at Libertas' immature dismissal of laws simply because they are, obviously, laws. It didn't matter what effect they had or if they were good or not, he simply said "there's alot of laws from laws now, nannyism!"

We tried explaining and you just had your typical knee jerk reaction... 'duh, STATE GOOD!!! LOLROFLLFLLFLFLFL LMAO'. So don't you dare accuse anyone else of not initiating a proper discussion.

Unfortunately I never said anything of the sort. The state can be good, the state can be bad. Blanket rejection of any action they take is nonsensical, and accusing me of a "knee jerk" reaction after you said "the state is awful, they screw everything up" is laughable.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Notice how I said 90%. Oh wait, you can't because your head is trapped up your ass. I've never seen you EVER criticise any action like this, so don't go on about being balanced, because you can only see things one way.

I think plenty of laws are silly and of course I have problems with alot of government action. But I'm just not the type to think that Australia banning child porn sites or Scotland banning air guns for instance is the end of free society as we know it.

Seatbelts save lives. Who cares? Smoking bans are proven effective ways of improving the health of the community, it's been shown countless times. Trans fats are useless and unhealthy and do little to nothing to improving the taste of any food, so what harm does this do? Texting while driving has been shown to be as dangerous, or moreso, than drunk driving, so it makes sense to pass laws against it.

All irrelevant points.

It's not "irrelevant" to talk about the reasoning and effectiveness of the laws. This is precisely the point I was making with you and what I got a ton of "oh how dare you"s over. You don't CARE if they're good laws or not, because they're just laws, and you hate them for that and that alone.

It's not an irrelevant point to mention how many lives are saved by banning public smoking. It's not an irrelevant point to mention how seat belts are effective tools to prevent injury. It's not an irrelevant point to mention how texting while driving is a danger to yourself and all those around you. These laws serve good purposes, and save lives. I don't care about your anarchist sensibilities.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, they are nanny laws because they deprive individuals of personal freedom to make their own decisions and hand it over to the state, as if handing over a child to a nanny.
[/quote]

The freedom to what? Fly out a windshield when they crash? The freedom to harm another's health by smoking near them? The freedom to cause a 6-car-pile-up because they were sexting their boyfriends? Give me a break. We're not preventing freedom of speech or something, it's stopping unhealthy and dangerous activities that harm everyone around them.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Seatbelts save lives. Who cares? Smoking bans are proven effective ways of improving the health of the community, it's been shown countless times. Trans fats are useless and unhealthy and do little to nothing to improving the taste of any food, so what harm does this do? Texting while driving has been shown to be as dangerous, or moreso, than drunk driving, so it makes sense to pass laws against it.

All irrelevant points.

Some people don't need laws to tell them eating fast food garbage every day is bad for them. How would you like it if the government put you on a diet?

     I pretty much agree with this. In my view, "it doesn't do any harm" is a pretty terrible standard for whether a law is alright or not.

Saving lives doesn't matter to you? You don't care if a law actually does something good or not?

I find the libertarian standard for determining the usefulness of a law downright disturbing and dangerous.

[Marokai Backbeat]

It's not "irrelevant" to talk about the reasoning and effectiveness of the laws. This is precisely the point I was making with you and what I got a ton of "oh how dare you"s over. You don't CARE if they're good laws or not, because they're just laws, and you hate them for that and that alone.

The use of force against others is unacceptable.

And if this is your philosophy even in the face of such things, fine. But I think it should be spelled out for all to see, that you don't care about the effectiveness of laws or not, only that they are, in the end, laws.

And this is, by the way, EXACTLY what I said in my first post that ended up getting a bunch of feign outrage.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Would Winston prefer to live in the Fallout world?

I was thinking more of the Bioshock environment.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Oh Lief I missed you