Wow, that's very... Authoritarian of you.

It's a shame Prohibition was abolished.

And why is that?

"Putin just sub in a worker with a jackhammer than food processor and the logic that brownpapertiger is still valid, plus you get an analogy that you get."

Aaaaaand then you realize that ear protection is mandated wherever enforceable in that case. Thanks, OSHA!

Sorry, were we making a point about unnecessary regulation? 'Cause if that's the case, we're getting farther and farther away from the goal.

KingCyrus, because alcoholism puts an unnecessary burden on public health funds.

@Aha195, @KingCyrus: thank you

There we go, the admission that we should all be the property of the state. Prioritizing the state over the individual implies that the state must be preserved at all cost, even that the expense of the liberties of the individual.
Here is an idea, why dont we let individuals act in the way they want to (without infringing on anothers life). Then, ideas and products that benefit society can thrive without the need of state monopolies.
Hence here is a mechanism that decelerates your body in a controlled manner in a crash which results in increasing your survival possibility, here is a piece of equipment that reduces the effects of loud noises and allows you to hear better for a longer duration of your life, here is an idea (individual and his/her rights be protected) that maximises the capacity for the state to protect thoses said freedoms but minimises the effect that state has to restrict those freedoms.
Common sense does not and should not be made into a law. Let individuals decide on what they want to do with their life via their actions and let them handle the benefits and consequences that result from their actions.

BPT you are welcome.

@ Aha: In a properly functioning democracy, the individual and the state are one and the same thing. The individual is part of the state, not separate from it; the state is formed of the massed collection of individuals and acts on their behalf.

I remember a very powerful speech by ASLEF president Tosh McDonald, at last year's Durham Miner's Gala (one of the largest annual socialist and trade unionist events in Europe). He talked about his pride, in the 1970s, in starting work at 18 as a train guard on the UK's state-owned railway:

"I put on my uniform and reported for work at the rail depot which we owned, met my colleagues and boarded a train that we owned, and helped drive it along the rails we owned to a coal mine that we owned. The train was loaded with coal mined by my fellow workers (who were immensely proud of their productivity) and we took our coal to a power station THAT WE OWNED to be used to generate electricity for our communities and our people."

Even in the USA you have a reference to this in the opening phrase to the pre-amble to your precious constitution: "WE, THE PEOPLE".

Now, unfortunately, neither the USA nor indeed the UK are currently properly functioning democracies - but I believe in the positive power of the state as an embodiment of the will of the people and I would rather work and fight to bring that about.

I like how aha is now trying to give deregulation credit for the invention of earmuffs. That's high-quality argumentation right there. Of *course* the only two choices on offer are free market and government monopoly, that's just how the economy works, right? And slipping in liberty maximization as the sole goal of the state for afters! What a barrel of laughs.

Dearest brainbombe, are you trolling ? Who owns the roads you intend to use ? As long as you intend to only use your vehicle on your own private land, then imho you may decline to wear a safety belt. However, once you decide to use your vehicle on public roads then you have to comply with the laws, regulations and rules that apply, similarly if you want to use your vehicle on a privately owned road, eg commercial tollway then you are required to agree to the terms and conditions of the " contract of use" offered by the tollway operator.
It's like stopping at a stop sign, or red light you ninny. Road accidents cost the taxpayer money, so the state on behalf of it's citizens has the legal power and responsibility to enact laws regulating the use of public areas, particularly roads simply to minimise the cost to taxpayers for " picking up the pieces" . There's also liability issues, an owner of a road who doesn't act reasonably to ensure safety of use for users fails a duty of care responsibility, and could be found to have been negligent and have partial responsibilty for accidents and be liable for compensating victims. You cannot deny the "owners" of roads their rights to control the use of their property.

@Jamie, that is awesome.

My only question is how to better achieve that state. Especially when some people believe in socialism and others free market capitalism. How do you, in theory, have a state which is one with everyone?

My only answer is empowered, individual and community diversity. A state which supports and empowers people on both levels; whether they are operating on a corporate level (as the state currenty support, and legally empowers) or a community or personal level...

Major Mitchell If I ever start appearing to be anything other than a contrarian troll on this forum please bitchslap me. Surrounded by faux intellectualism brings out a creative side in me. The following 3 illustrate this:

1. I suck at diplomacy
2. Republicans are idiots
3. If you believe anything I post you are dumber than a Republican.

Also I worship Obad Hai god of the forest.

PEACE LOVE UNITY RESPECT (repeat x12)