Putin finally used the word "moral". Just like "sensible" who gets to define that term for all of us. Oh the danger of seemingly harmless ambiguities that become the excuse for anything and everything.

By the way Tettle, your so called scare about population control isn't really that scary. We do need to regulate the population of the earth.

"Oh the danger of seemingly harmless ambiguities that become the excuse for anything and everything."

Just like your loose use of 'socialism' becomes an excuse to gut all consumer protection and public safety regulations. If you were in charge this country would be a Buyer Beware Utopia of legally sanctioned fraud, abuse, and public safety hazards.

WTF? That's a strawman of such mind-bending pomposity that I feel I should applaud it, just for the breathtaking disconnect with any kind of logic. Kudos TC

But seriously, it's not freedom or totalitarianism. There can (and are) areas where government should have no influence, and some where they need more.

As I asked before (and you didn't answer), are you oppossed to mass vaccination? Hell, as far as I know, in the US you can't get your kids into school without their jabs- even us socialist Brits don't go that far, despite the fact these diseases are killers, and herd immunity has defanged them.

My line of reasoning doesn't have the problems that Pete and Putin have. You want to drink raw milk go for it. You want to sell raw milk cheese without labeling it you can't because that could hurt someone else. You want to smoke pot at home by yourself go for it. You want to drive a car after smoking pot you can't because that could hurt someone else. Individual freedom create a better society because it doesn't rely on ill defined terms like those of Pete and Putin- "sensible" and "moral." It was sensible to deny woman rights. I was sensible to enslave your fellow man. It was moral to beat your children into obedience. What useless terms "sensible" and "moral" really are. Respect for individual autonomy solves all those problems. The problem with individual autonomy is that it makes insecure individuals even more insecure. An insecure individual says "I'm too scared to do that, but they get away with it and that makes me insecure so I must stop it."

No Pete, it is freedom or totalitarianism. That's what you don't realize. It's sensible to force me to wear a seat belt. It's sensible to say I can't smoke pot. It's sensible to force me to buy health insurance. "Sensible" is just an excuse to exert your will on others. No one who supports this rhetoric can argue against torture at Gitmo or phone taps under the Patriotic Act because it's "sensible" by someone's definition.

Drug usage leads to increased crime. So you could hurt someone else (especially if you're on PCP or crack), hence whyit should be banned. You could hurt other people with your guns, which is why they should be banned. Your lack of seat belt use leads to increased premiums for everyone else, which is why they should be mandatory. Your lack of health insurance leads to increased insurance costs for everyone else and increased costs for the government, which is why it should be mandatory (and at the very least provided by the government via Medicare, etc).

I think we're on the same page.

You still haven't responded to the points about vaccination or speeding.

@Tettleton, can I ride a bike outside after smoking pot? Can I walk outside after smoking pot? I think you would say "of course" to the second question but what if I bump into someone really hard because my heads in the clouds? I'm causing direct harm, I could even knock them down a flight of stairs and kill them.

The phrase "direct harm" from your earlier post is subjective, and what you actually mean is "highly likely to cause direct harm" which is even more subjective.

What do you say to the person who says that secondhand smoke is killing them directly? Or the person who says that gay marriage is destroying their marriage? Or the person who says that all these fumes from cars is killing them?

Oh FFS. I can argue against torture at Gitmo. I can argue against phone taps. Somewhere between absolute freedom (or anarchy) and totalitarianism is where we sit. And where we sit on individual issues will be different. It's a logical fallacy to assume the end result of any government intervention is totalitarianism.

By your logic, any government intervention is wrong, because that is exerting your will on someone. Any. So you must be an anarchist.

"Drug usage leads to increased crime"

You obviously don't smoke pot. Unless procrastinating and crushing Mario Tennis is a crime.

Can you graml? If you get in a wreck and hurt someone else you have to pay the consequences. As a free individual you have that responsibility. Can you handle it?

No Pete, we aren't sitting we are moving towards one or the other. You only fool yourself thinking society and the ideology you espouse is static. That's the problem with individuals who don't think out the consequences of what they support.

What do you say to the person who says that secondhand smoke is killing them directly?

Oh, again for FFS. Of course we move. Of course society changes. And the changes in society mean it is foolish to view history through the eyes of modern sensibilities.

But it does not follow that supporting one area of government intervention means the end result is totalitarianism, any more than taking your position means we end up with anarchy.

I think you missed my point. If we consider every issue with complete freedom at one end of a line, and total coercive control at the other end, I would suggest that no-ones position on any range of issues would be a straight line. On some issues we will favour more control, on others less. This is where your argument falls down - it's the super-sized imposition of the ridiculous 'If you believe x, then you must also believe y' argument.

I disagree completely. You basically are saying you believe what you heard last. First society is sitting, now we are moving. If we are moving it is in a direction. You seem to think that "government" can manage the direction. That's is foolhardy given the historical record of government. On the other hand giving individuals freedom does none of the harm government can.
How totally idiotic to say that society is better when government has the power to prohibit you from drinking raw milk if you choose to because there is an argument you could get sick. People who believe that society is better are really helpless in my estimation, and there are a lot of helpless Americans that's for sure. I'll trust my own judgment for myself over some bureaucrats any day, but many of my hapless fellow countrymen are incapable of doing that.

If you trust your own judgement over some bureaucrats, aren't you worried a little about the bureaucrats ability to govern him or her self? Maybe you should give him or her some advice!

TC, I'm fed up of this. You pick on indivdual words, rather than the thrust of the argument.

At any given period, society will be 'sitting' at a certain point, on any number of issues. It can be simuItaneously controlling in some areas, and lassez-faire in others. It can (and does) then move. This can be driven by grass roots movements, individuals, and governments (which may or may not be elected by the people). If you can't grasp this, then I'm not sure how I could make it clearer

How you got to me believing what I last heard is beyond me. Even now, as Iearn more, I have to incorporate that into my world view. I find that works better than just rejecting stuff because I don't like the source.

The historical record of government is an exponential line of progress and increase in living standards. It is precisely when government has been strongest that our lives have been happiest, most comfortable, and healthiest. Look at the astronomical rise in living standards after the establishment of welfare states and social safety nets throughout the world since WWII.

200 responses in less than a day.

200+.

[Insert Over 9000 joke here]

I wonder what facism is. Something to to with social media?

As about 65% of this argument seems to revolve around not being able to purchase raw milk and or raw milk products look no further than your local Trader Joe's! Huzzah for clean-apple-pie-American-freedoms. Now that we know our ability to purchase unpasturized milk products is no longer stifled by the socialist regimes, we can sally forth in to a brave new world!

http://www.lunch.com/Reviews/food/Trader_Joe_s_Raw_Milk_Cheddar_Cheese-1432055.html

Putin, You are a great slave to your master. Who could dispute that you are happiest while your master controls your life. How do you fight the urge to move to Cuba?

If the government is the well spring of progress why didn't the cultural revolution solve all of China's problems? Why did the Soviet Union fail? Why does Venezuela have rolling electrical blackouts every single day. Why don't the masses of people in Cuba have newer cars than vintage 1950? Why is Greece bankrupt? Why did Portugal and Ireland need bailouts? Why are Spain and Italy on the brink of financial crisis? The list is endless and it makes a mockery out of the idea that government is key to progress.

Why did we have a housing bubble and why did it burst (government was key to causing that cluster fuck in the form of the FMs).

How about the government's role in modern scientific progress? Especially with the scale of research required in some fields today, national labs are probably the only viable way to make serious progress. Space programs, particle physics research, nuclear engineering etc. all need government involvement to happen.

The private banks couldn't even begin to write the volume of sub-prime mortgages they ultimately did without Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying up wave after wave of sub-prime mortgages in the secondary mortgage market.
Thank goodness the Clinton administration forced private banks to write sub-prime loans through government regulation and thank goodness that Christopher Dodd, Barney Frank, and Maxine Waters led the charge to defeat the reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that President Bush asked in his first term.
Thank goodness government brought us the progress of the financial meltdown.

Real quote from a Cornell academic about Boeing moving production of its new jetliner to South Carolina, a right to work state.

Kate Bronfenbrenner writes that “If the NLRB did not take on such cases, it would cede to employers unilateral control over a large swath of the U.S. workplace”

Anyone who argues that the United States is a capitalist economy where government does not control the marketplace just read the above quote.
Can 2012 come soon enough?