If you have no intent of proving my philosophy wrong, then why are you posting at all? That's what a debate is. "Philosophy- a particular system of philosophical thought(ideas)." My goal is maximum individual liberty. That is the only proper definition of liberty. Maximum societal benefit? So you're a social justice proponent then? There's many problems with that philosophy, which Ben Shapiro summarizes
here and in many other videos perfectly. I'm not going to touch the rebuke of social justice. Ben does it too perfectly. Any attempt on my part would detract from his genius.
You misrepresent my posts and my objections, which is by definition strawmanning. You misrepresent them into something that can be dismissed easily.
What is having an open mind? Following the evidence. Prove you have an open mind by, not only providing evidence, but following it. Provide evidence for your premises and then follow those premises logically. You've yet to do both so by that standard, no. You're not open.
Proving you wrong does, in the long run, mean nothing regarding what reality reflects. You're wrong regardless of what happens in this discussion. As embolded, you make think that the connection between government historically being terrible at managing other people's lives means that I should be okay with them over regulating mine? That's tenuously connected? Ermm...wrong again
Bernoulli is a physics principal. Physics principals are not responsible for deaths in those wars. Corrupt governments were. Actual people were. Stop extrapolating so poorly. They have references. Look at the posts. Actually read! I linked those specifically because they have TONS of sources.
What do you think government is? A computer? A government is filled with leaders, also known as people. This example is to prove that government historically is bad at looking out for its citizens. I mean look at the U.S. constitution. It's the ultimate historical document that draws the line in the sand regarding governmental involvement. It's literally a document for the free people to let them be free from a dictating government, like the one the earliest and current U.S. citizens immigrated from. If governments are historically terrible at managing even something as basic as keeping its citizens alive, why would we want to give more power to them?
Due to the facts I site, yes. That's certainly the direction history indicates. Government is bad at almost everything, except braking things. This is why the U.S. is so innovative historically. The U.S. is a country for the people, not itself. That's rare, but we need to keep it that way. Let the people run their own lives, pay for their own commodities, etc.
Summary:
I want to just take a moment and put all this into perspective. Why is all this relevant to some guy smoking next to some must? I mean really? Is this justified?
Here's my point. Follow the standard that the law sets for the business it's in. The law states specific health standards, as you outline
here. They don't follow the standards that the law outlines, but we are taking this past that. We are asking, 'how should the law outline a business runs'? This brewpub is an example. It isn't about what offends people; it's about what's just.
Point blank: The law should only require the standards that we hold our business to to be clear and publicized. The business should set that standard, as I quote:
I'm not misrepresenting your position. Your position is that the government shouldn't tell you what to do ever. That the government should not create regulations for how businesses run. That the government shouldn't oppose discrimination. Because you believe that each person should be allowed to do what they want to do, how they want, when they want, where, and with whom.
I'm probably not a proponent of "social justice" in the pejorative way that you mean it, but yes, I am in favor of what is in the best interest for the most people, even if it means that I have to give up some of my own freedoms. I don't mind my privacy being violated at the airport because I know that it helps keep everyone safe. I don't mind drunk driving laws because it benefits everyone. I don't mind anti-discrimination laws because it's not only better for society, but specifically helps the weakest members of our society.
Eventually the mods will stop this thread, which is their right. If they deem it too out of hand for the forum, and not the most beneficial for the forum, that's what they'll do. (Personally, unless and until someone calls names or makes threats, or otherwise is flat out "mean," I think we're having a discussion, even if it's passionate and even heated. I don't like mods shutting down threads. But I'm willing to go along with it if it's for the community's benefit.)
And just so we're clear, your position also includes "You're wrong regardless of what happens in this discussion." That's the opposite of open minded. No matter what evidence, no matter what you hear, you already know that an opposing viewpoint will always be "wrong." (Opinions and perspectives, when informed, as mine are, aren't "wrong." They might be different from yours, but that doesn't make them necessarily "wrong" unless only yours is "right." Again, open minded discussion.)
Here's the tenuous connection that you are building on: governments have done bad things to their own citizens and others. Therefore, all government involvement leads to harm. That's the crux of your argument. That's a tenuous link. And you posted irrelevant stuff about genocide to show that government regulations of all kinds are bad. That's tenuous.
But you picked up on my sarcasm about Bernoulli. Without his contributions, there would be no airplanes, and thus no war plans, and thus no pilots who died in combat. Bernoulli made flight possible, therefore he is responsible for deaths. That's a tenuous link and it makes no sense.
Hitler killed people, therefore governments always kill people, therefore government regulations are bad. Tenuous.
Governments also provide protection. Obviously you have to pick side if you use a war example, but when one government attacks or defends against another, it (at least ostensibly) does so to protect its citizens or allies. At the very least, it is to protect the interests of its citizens or allies.
Government regulations of food production cut down on contamination with infectious stuff (say anthrax or something) as well as allergens. So they take away your freedom to not wash your hands coming out of the restroom, in exchange for the rest of us having a reasonable expectation that your hands are clean when you make food. That seems like a small liberty to give up - you should wash your hands anyway.
"If governments are historically terrible at managing even something as basic as keeping its citizens alive..." You have not shown that to be a fact to build on. That's not a "given." For example, using the articles you linked earlier, you would have to show that LBJ caused X number of American deaths, compared to Y number of Americans living at the time whose death he did not cause. I will bet you $1 that there were more living than the 30,000 (or whatever) deaths attributed to him in that article.
That's not a solid basis for governments being historically "terrible at... keeping its citizens alive."
"Government is bad at almost everything..." Again, that's a viewpoint, but it's not really supported. To support that, you would have to make a list of everything government does, and then categorize them into things government does badly and does well.
And this is not a specific government, but government as an institution. And that institution since the beginning of time, as you're arguing against a concept. Talk about a straw man! In your explanations, "government" is a straw man that you have set up and knocked down.
"Follow the standard that the law sets for the business it's in." It's kind of hard to separate "the law" from "the government." That's how the law is made, implemented, and enforced.
But, "The law should only require the standards that we hold our business to to be clear and publicized."
So a company makes a product and as long as it says clearly, "This product is manufactured in a way that might endanger your health, according to some people, but hey, we're telling you about it, so it's cool" then it's ok. Like a cigarette warning - only it would be on all food. Baby food should be manufactured with no standards, as long as there is a sign that says so. Cars should have no regulations, as long as there's a sign that says "Buyer Beware!"
Businesses would set their own standards, and as long as they pass the audit against their own standards, it's fine. If people eat or drink their products and get sick, then the market will sort it out.
And don't let someone with the wrong last name go there, or someone with different colored skin. Because they can refuse service to anyone they want.
We had all that before. It was called the Middle Ages. We've come a long way from that. It seems to work better when we protect each other, even if it means one person has to give up the right to be dirty. Hand washing is not oppression.
I was so hoping for some examples of how the government has allowed drugs on the market that killed people. Like even one reference to Thalidomide or something. Instead, your dislike for government hangs on links to how many people were killed by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
Seriously - "Hitler was a bad guy, so I shouldn't be told to wash my hands. Live Free or Die!"
This is why I said that it's not about evidence, it's about a philosophy, and because of that, you and I won't agree. My philosophy is that the benefit of society is more important than individual liberty. Liberty is important, but less important than taking care of other humans. It's not about being right or wrong, we just see things differently.
And yes, there is a line, and I agree with you to a certain point about government interference. But only to a certain point.
