My very own brother believes we should be socialized to a degree more than the system you described in Denmark as being too communist for you. He literally thinks equal distribution of wealth is the only fair economic system. We have fun discussions.
Ok, first of all. Sorry for the late answer, there is a simple reason : I didn't notice your post here. I thought Niky's post was the last one after mine and tbh, i asked myself what took you so long to reply. Well, now I know
Back to topic. Well, I repeat myself, but, in my opinion it's all a matter of balance. Not too much communism, not too much capitalism, somewhere in between, maybe a little more on the capitalist's side.
Yes, many people consider rights as some sort of subjective thing. That is a problem in my eyes. I consider myself to be an objectivist, or very close to it. If you do not know what that is look at the works of Ayn Rand.
Ok, I also consider myself to be very objective ( I guess many will say that of themselves ), but truth is, everybody who is within the system, part of it, and not on the outside, is to a certain level subjective. No matter how hard you try.
Also, your means for being objective, your mind, is individually formed by everything you experienced since you were born.
Also, emotions can't be totally forgotten here. At every moment you have a certain hormone cocktail in you that influences your decision, argumentation etc. What seems to be a unquestionable fact to you now, can be full of doubts within a few hours, if your hormone physiology changes drastically.
All I want to say is, that while I understand what you say, ultimately it is a rather difficult discussion.
Rights will always be a matter of discussion. You can define them very precisely, but again, somebody has to do that, eitehr a single person or a group of persons have to find a compromise ( out of subjective, personal understandings of a certain regight by members of the defining group ) for that specific definition. And times change, the level of science changes.
A wise community has to adapt. That's my opinion.
Your country ( and the rights you talk about ) was founded a few hundred years ago, and not everything aged that well.
A modern society in this globalized world doesn't work like a lowtech almost dark age society made out of a few pioneers and reglious fanatics.
I'm pretty sure the founding fathers of the USA didn't have global economy, global warming, oil shortage, health care in modern medicine in mind when they did what they did.
I am not talking about anarchy and removing government as a whole. Government does have a role in protecting its citizens, and our Constitution laid out a very strict list of powers that our government has, without allowing it any room outside of that list. But through reinterpretations of certain wordings our government has managed to, over time, step vastly outside of those bounds. It has been doing it more and more in the last 100 years. It ranges from everything to assigning monetary policy to an un-checked Central Bank printing paper money with no physical value (the Constitution declares that as Congress' job, and even specifically says gold and silver coins) to war powers being handed to the President (Only Congress is supposed to declare war), and so on.
While I agree, that not everything your or any government does, is perfect, you can't ignore the fact that times have changed. And you would be as rich and powerful as some random post civil war third world country if your goverment still tried to stick to the gold and silver coin equivalent rule.
That of course doesn't mean that the government has to lower the rate of interenst in order to finance the war against terror and with that accidently lay the foundation for a global financial crisis.
But modern times request a modern financial system. That is something the Philadelphia Convention probably wasn't aware of. They probably also didnÄt know that trabns fat acids are bad for our health. If they knew, who knows, they might have forbidden their usuage
Third world countries in turmoil are doing is allowing every tough guy with a gun and money fight it out to see who gets to lead. I still think we require a democratic Republic to maintain the freedoms of all. No one is held back from attempting to achieve their goals in life, but no one is guaranteed them.
Ok, same opinion here.
My ideal is a place where everyone can equally succeed or fail, based purely on their ability to do so. In that situation, even the biggest winners of the past will falter or fail at some point.
You say ideal, and I guess we both know that this will never work. It is an illusion. But I agree that we should try to come as close as possible to it.
It is easy to pay because the rewards for mediocrity are larger here. I am barely considered middle class by many, but I have way more things than I need to live in my society (like three home video game systems, one portable, large screen HDTV, two PCs, etc).
Well, it is a lot easier to have a - by worlds standards - decent lifestyle.
That has many reasons, the main one that your population in general is consuming more than other populations. A lot of people live beyond their means. Great for the economy, but risky for the individual.
Higher net incomes, lower prices for several goods, easier access to credits ( credit cards, financed by other credit cards for example ) are some reasons.
I think that's great.
One of our founding fathers wrote, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." I consider the freedom to chose what I do or do not do with my body, so long as I do not force others to do things as well, to be an essential liberty.
I accept that, but I can guarantee you that he didn't have trans fat acids in mind but more profound things like oppresion by England or France etc, certainly not the right to eat a certain fat.
A forced reduction of industrial use of trans fat acid is not taking away your right to chose what you do to your body. You can still ear too much unhealthy food. But I understand, that for you this represents only the first step of many which will end in a more siginificant threat to your right of "body control".
In my opinion that fear is not justified / necessary, but I guess we simply won't agree here.
That said, happiness is not a right. The ability to pursue it is, but achieving it is not a guarantee. It is easy to be happy when you know that your neighbors will pick you up when you fail. I moved out from under my mother's care when I graduated college because I was ready to make my own decisions and mistakes. Since then I have been tied financially to only one other person, my wife, and we share a mutual dependency as part of a financial agreement (marriage) we made because we chose to spend our lives together for emotional reasons.
It is not a right, but providing easier circumstances for everybody to achieve happiness is not a bad thing, right ?
But the we is only happiness for those that don't work the hardest and produce the most. A "we" mentality punishes those who do the most while rewarding those who do the least.
Only in its most extreme version - when it doesn't make any difference at all when you work harder.
But it seems, that if the differences in incomes for example are significant, but rather small compared to othe rcountries, both the very hrad working rich and the the not so hard working poor are both happier. That#s what statistics indicate.
For example the happiness of all people in a huge company ( representing the society in my example, it doesn't work for one company in a society that works differently ) , beginning at room cleaners up to the management is increased, if the difference in income is only modest. For example the room cleaner earns 3000 $ a month and the CEO 15000 $. I guess 1500 $ and 3 million is closer to reality in most companies.
I understand why that is the case, yet it is a problem to a certain degree.
And like all other things, where that stops is a great big question. I know parents questioned because a teacher reported a student as being untreated for ADHD. Is that questionable parenting, or a teacher unable to control an unruly student? This has a very long discussion that defines good parenting and where the government's place to intervene should stop. I draw my line at an immediate threat to the child's safety.
What safety ? The safety of its health, its ateries ? Or is it enough for you if it doesn't starve ?
You are right, the question is, where to draw the line. I think you are a little too easy to please. I think the goal should be to provide a good basis for every child.
That's why, for example, I would suggest that every child has to go to school ( no home schooling ), from 8 am to for example 5 pm. A free and healthy breakfast & lunch paid by taxes for every kid, sports for every kid, not voluntarily but for everybody.
Why ? Because it reduces the freedom or careless parents to mess with their children.
Needs of the majority do not outweigh the needs of the few. That is how all kinds of civil liberties get violated. The US Constitution is designed to protect the minorities from the government intervention desired by the majority, and the smallest minority is the individual.
Again that statment is too general. I think you have to have a look at the specific case. Because in my opinion, the needs of the majority do not outweigh the needs of the few quite often.
You may not forget who emigrated to the States. Some people looked for adventure, some for success, but the majoreity fled from oppression in Europe. Thoese were bad and unfair times, but you can't simply copy those words and ignore that times have changed.
Back then the royals of Europe tried to make them stop believe in their religions and people starved to death. Were tortured because of the way they live or even think.
A modern society is a lot more complex and advanced, and therefor needs more rules and regulations. I truely believe that this quote of you is imo only valid to some basic rights, like free choice of relgion ( but not in practicing it in every detail ), freedom of speech - but I think there are limits, determined by society. Freedom to move etc. But there are exceptions for almost everything. And they have exist.
The government isn't evil, so no need to protect its citizens from it in every detail.
Which is slightly more preferable to living under the thumb of the government.
Is it a thumb or a protecting hand ? Matter of defintion, point of view etc
Government regulations for "safety" are trying to remove risks, nany adults, or act like they are the parents of all consenting adults.
Again, thats a negative interpretation. I don''t say that it is wrong, certainly true in some aspects, but still a little negative.
If you determine them as legally capable of doing these things, which can directly result in the harm and deaths of others, you cannot dictate what they may or may not eat to protect their own health. It is their health, but letting them drive risks others health.
I can, because not crashing your car into traffic ( boom, dead, pretty obvious, even to most animals ) requests much less intellect and knowledge than managing your health.
If you don't trust them to protect themselves, why would you trust them to drive a death machine down the street?
As I just said, even animals have instincts. Protecing yourself from invisible threats to your health is another topic. I study medicine for years now and even I wouldn't claim knowing to be fully able to decide for my own health.
I'd say over 90% of the population don't know how a human body works to degree necessary to fully understand what is good for you and what not.
How should they ? It takes year of intesive studies in medicine.
And there is no need for that. Division of labor. Do I truely understand how my computer works ? No I don't . Some people do, they make the rules, I listen to them and it works. Same in medicine.
I think you don't disagree here. you just don't like to be be forced to sth or not to do it, you'd prefer information instead. Then you decide on your own.
I respect that wish, and I even share it, but I don't think that it is the best way for the society in general.
They are legal, consenting adults. To refer to them as too stupid to make decisions for themselves is an elitist attitude.
Is it ? I don't think so. "Stupid" is such a harsh word. It includes a negative judgement.
That's not my intention. I justthink that it is a reality you can't ignore :
It is simply impossible to have the needed knowledge in this highly diversified modern world to be truely able to decide everything on your own.
The question is if providing guidelines is enough. For some people it certainly is. For others it isn't.
You know, I talk to patients about health related subjects all the time. Believe me, the majority doesn't know what they are doing
And again, I don't blame them. It is impossible, too complex.
I know what I want. I know what doctors and scientists tell me can help me and I factor that in, and make my own decisions for my own life.
Ok, let's say that is fact. But everybody thinks that. Also the idiot. Also the idiot parent. That's the problem. Not everybody can be right, right ? Some have to be wrong, and yet they do what they do, believing they are right.
And I repeat. You are not alone. What you do, affects your friends, your wife and your kids. What you eat, shapes the eating habbits of your children to a certain degree.
Not if I define that as a threat to the health status of your children, and (define) such a threat as a reason to intefere ( just as you would if the life of a child is in imminent danger, as you wrote above ), then I had to take action against you, because you regulary eat tans fat acids ( just an assumption to proove a point here ) and by that possibly harm the health of your kids.
And because that is not practicable ( the government can't and shouldn't have access to your home, your kitchen ), forcing a reduction of industrial use of trans fat acids is an elegant way to achieve that goal.
If we wait and let every parent and person decide for themselves, very little might change within 100 years. With regulations we might have changed eating habits rather soon and nobody will miss trans fat acids as nobody misses DDT or toxic colors or other stuff forbidden long ago.
Do you realize that you sound like the computer in i Robot? "We know better than you ever can what is best for you, so we will make you have to live safely for yourself."
haha, no I didn't. Again, a negative dystopia. I'm not voting for cutting all rights and making you a slave of the government.
I just say, that in my opinion, killing some rights ( like the right to have unlimited access to trans fat acids in all kind of products ) is ok, IF the reason in adequate.
You stated that as a doctor you recommend to your patients. Then stop there.
I will. Everything else is a waste of time anyway. I can't convince people to do what they don't want to do. At leats most of the time.
If you (via government) go any further you overstep your bounds as a doctor. I would even argue that you harm (do no harm) my rights. You suggest, via government regulation, treating diet the same way you would a psychology patient that is an immediate threat to themselves and needs to be restrained.
Hmm, difficult analogy. But ok : restraing somebody is violating more and more severe rights than reducing trans fat acids in several products. Agree ?
I mean your point is valid, for sure, but while it might feel unfair and nannystyle, it could still increase public health in these and future generation significantly at almost no costs. Because, as I said, nobody will notice the difference ( if there should be products that taste or feel significantely different even after several tries to get it right without trans fat acids, then leave them in, no deal. As I said. Exceptions are no problem in my world
It's the result at the end I focus most. Reduce them to the max where it doesn' hurt, let them be where absolutely necessary for taste )
No. I do not call it a principle unless I am willing to defend it, even in the face of Armageddon, and die doing so. You may not call it smart, but I call it honorable. It is how an all-volunteer military works. Why poor farmers pick up guns to fight a trained military.
I have no problem with honorable behavior. But is by defintion ignoring several rational aspects of a given situation. Like giving up your ( only ) life for a greater idea. I mean, hoborable, yes, but you are dead, first rule for most living beings after ensureing life of your offspring is saving your own life. Not saving ideas of an artificial society.
But don't get me wrong, I understand and respect such behavior. Just for the record, it is irrational to a certain degree. As are many of the best things in life.
Tell that to man who is willing to kill to protect his family, his country, and his freedom. Were the American colonists unreasonable? They found a principle and put their lives on the line in defense of it.
Different times. The question is to what degree apply the rules of that time today ? Apart from the first one maybe
Freedom is a term that stands for so many things. Many kinds of freedom should be protected by any means. By any, what ever it costs.
But I repeat, does that include the right to have unlimited access to trans fat acides in industrial produced food if you can't taste a difference ?
