04-03-2008, 06:27 PM
Quote:Hi,
So, we agree. No law against suicide, just one against missing the intended target:)
Yep.
Quote:Actually, I really don't see how your example applies to this discussion. First, there is no indication of just what nanny law you have in mind. Is it a law against suicide, or does it have something to do with discharging a firearm in public? The first is hard to enforce ('attempted' and 'assisted' are other issues, but not pertinent to your story). And discharging a firearm in public is, quite rightly, against the law in most places.
The exchange was sparked by the example of burning gas in a fire pit, which led to mention of seatbelt laws, which went to how far should a government go to protect people from their own stupidity. And I said not so far that the government can't protect us from the government's own stupidity. (We might need an announcer re-cap at this point.)
A blunt way of saying it (and hopefully clearer) is I believe most government has a full time job already of keeping their own stupidity in check, without worrying excessively about it's own citizens. Least of all the deserving stupid.
To get it more on topic, I guess I should just say I agree that government does not have the right to mandate what kind of bulb to be used, not so much because of Liberty and Freedom with a capital L and F etc. But because if their track record is any indication, it's a simplistic solution for a complex problem.
If on the other hand, government wants to mandate that a more efficient, longer lasting and higher quality standard for both present and upcoming lighting technology is to be used, pressuring and rewarding manufacturers to do so, I'm all for it. (The government in my area is talking about the incan ban as well, so I have a stake in this too.)
Frankly I'm sick of having to go up on a chair and risking my neck to change that 100w incan in my kitchen area. As of now however, incandescent is the only practical solution for that specific need, that's available to me. So I'm all for government incentive and pressure manufacturers to develop better solutions. The sooner an efficient, fast, clean, long lasting and similar colour spectrum replacement arrives I'm all for it. I have no love lost for the incandescent bulb.
Same goes for things like SUVs. I don't hate all SUVs because they're all hurting mother earth. And banning SUVs would be just as ridicilous as banning incandescent light bulbs. What I do want is better gas mileage for it. Again, my angle is not of the selfless altruistic tree hugger. I actually like some of the older SUVs before they were known as SUVs, when they were called trucks, jeeps and Land Rovers;)etc. Banning them doesn't address the problem. Coming up with better, cleaner, and efficient design and technology is to me, a far better and practical method than trying to legislate a solution.
Quote: As are, as far as I'm concerned, laws whose only purpose is to impose one group's morality on the population as a whole.
On that, we never had a disagreement at all.