Here come the UK SWAF teams!

[Seth]

Seems good to me.

Prime role of government is to protect the people from external and internal threats which includes themselves, in fact especially themselves.

Taxation needs to be applied to unhealthy food, to socially engineer a better society (socially engineering is a very good thing)

Sounds like the sentiments of a hopeless sheeple.

[Seth]

To Seth, the American who chose to point the finger.

The USA is the country with the highest obesity rate per capita in the world.

England is in number 6 position, which is behind my country (number 4). Mexico is number 2.

Among developed nations, Japan is the one with the least obesity.

That's entirely beside the point, which went WAY over your head. The point is that the UK is bordering on the verge of deploying "fat police" to enforce the state's notion of healthy eating on its citizens, which is just another in a long litany of freedom-destroying government overreaching. It is, however, entirely predictable in a society that uses socialized medicine. When the government controls and funds health care, it assumes control of your lifestyle as well. You may be fine with that, but that's the attitude of a sheeple, not a free person.

[pErvinalia]

Seatbelts and motorcycle helmets. Are they compulsory or not in the United States of motherfucking Freedom!!1??

[Seth]

Seatbelts and motorcycle helmets. Are they compulsory or not in the United States of motherfucking Freedom!!1??

Nope. Not everywhere. I'm not certain about seatbelts nationwide (I think Montana doesn't enforce seat belt laws), but helmets are not required in Colorado and in several other states. And the fact that it might be compulsory to wear a seat belt or a helmet doesn't mean that such laws do not infringe on the freedoms we are supposed to enjoy. As in most cases, such laws are created by nanny-state meddlers who have decided that their vision of society is more important than the right of the individual to assess and respond to risk on his own. Such laws are most certainly infringements of our liberty and I would do away with all of them and allow people to make up their own minds which risks to accept and which risks to mediate.

[pErvinalia]

Sounds like the sentiments of a hopeless sheeple in those states.

[JimC]

mistermack wrote:

...It's that I should be dead by now...

What a line to deliver to your online enemies!

[JimC]

Seems good to me.

Prime role of government is to protect the people from external and internal threats which includes themselves, in fact especially themselves.

Taxation needs to be applied to unhealthy food, to socially engineer a better society (socially engineering is a very good thing)

Sounds like the sentiments of a hopeless sheeple.

MrJonno goes too far in one direction of this pendulum, Seth too far to the other.

I think compulsory reporting of obesity goes way too far - better education is more important, and less likely to involve breaches of privacy and individual rights...

But Seth's attitude to compulsory seat belts or helmets is too far in the other direction.

I, of course, occupy the perfect middle ground...

[Seth]

Sounds like the sentiments of a hopeless sheeple in those states.

Certainly there are a lot of them here too.

[Seth]

Seems good to me.

Prime role of government is to protect the people from external and internal threats which includes themselves, in fact especially themselves.

Taxation needs to be applied to unhealthy food, to socially engineer a better society (socially engineering is a very good thing)

Sounds like the sentiments of a hopeless sheeple.

MrJonno goes too far in one direction of this pendulum, Seth too far to the other.

I think compulsory reporting of obesity goes way too far - better education is more important, and less likely to involve breaches of privacy and individual rights...

But Seth's attitude to compulsory seat belts or helmets is too far in the other direction.

I, of course, occupy the perfect middle ground...

Why do you care if I wear a seat belt or helmet? What business is it of yours?

[JimC]

Seems good to me.

Prime role of government is to protect the people from external and internal threats which includes themselves, in fact especially themselves.

Taxation needs to be applied to unhealthy food, to socially engineer a better society (socially engineering is a very good thing)

Sounds like the sentiments of a hopeless sheeple.

MrJonno goes too far in one direction of this pendulum, Seth too far to the other.

I think compulsory reporting of obesity goes way too far - better education is more important, and less likely to involve breaches of privacy and individual rights...

But Seth's attitude to compulsory seat belts or helmets is too far in the other direction.

I, of course, occupy the perfect middle ground...

Why do you care if I wear a seat belt or helmet? What business is it of yours?

Because of the overall reduction in horrific injuries and deaths that are purpose of such laws. In balance, the relatively minor loss of freedom for the individual is outweighed by the gains for the population as a whole.

Most civilised societies accept such compromises. But note from my post that I well know that there are limits to how far such interventions should occur, such as the absurd mandatory reporting suggested in the OP...

[Seth]

Seems good to me.

Prime role of government is to protect the people from external and internal threats which includes themselves, in fact especially themselves.

Taxation needs to be applied to unhealthy food, to socially engineer a better society (socially engineering is a very good thing)

Sounds like the sentiments of a hopeless sheeple.

MrJonno goes too far in one direction of this pendulum, Seth too far to the other.

I think compulsory reporting of obesity goes way too far - better education is more important, and less likely to involve breaches of privacy and individual rights...

But Seth's attitude to compulsory seat belts or helmets is too far in the other direction.

I, of course, occupy the perfect middle ground...

Why do you care if I wear a seat belt or helmet? What business is it of yours?

Because of the overall reduction in horrific injuries and deaths that are purpose of such laws.

If I choose to be horrifically injured, what business is it of yours? By what right do you presume to interfere with my right to risk horrific injury?

In balance, the relatively minor loss of freedom for the individual is outweighed by the gains for the population as a whole.

Does it? What do you gain by my not being horrifically injured? What do you lose by my being horrifically injured? What business is it of yours at all?

Most civilised societies accept such compromises. But note from my post that I well know that there are limits to how far such interventions should occur, such as the absurd mandatory reporting suggested in the OP...

They may "accept" them because they are not given a choice to reject them, which is the case in most places. Such regulations are never put to a popular vote, nor would it matter if they were. Your argument that society is better off is incomplete and a "just so" story. You don't explain why or how society is better off, you just vaguely allude to it. Can you do better than that in articulating a rational motive behind such nannyism?

[JimC]

Society interferes with the rights of individuals in many areas. It can easily be done to excess, but a certain amount simply needs to be accepted for pragmatic reasons. Societies need to have a serious debate about the extent of the reduction in liberties for the greater good, and I would like them to be on the minimum side, but there is no point in a romantic delusion that we will eliminate any restrictions whatsoever. Each country will find its own "equilibrium position" on the spectrum of individual rights and restrictions imposed by society. You have a legitimate voice in such a debate as a representative of one side of the spectrum, perhaps MrJonno has a voice for the other extreme. But don't pretend that your voice has a moral imperative that supercedes the considered views of the population as a whole, unless you want to be an elitist, sneering absolutist...

[pErvinalia]

Sounds like the sentiments of a hopeless sheeple.

MrJonno goes too far in one direction of this pendulum, Seth too far to the other.

I think compulsory reporting of obesity goes way too far - better education is more important, and less likely to involve breaches of privacy and individual rights...

But Seth's attitude to compulsory seat belts or helmets is too far in the other direction.

I, of course, occupy the perfect middle ground...

Why do you care if I wear a seat belt or helmet? What business is it of yours?

Because of the overall reduction in horrific injuries and deaths that are purpose of such laws.

If I choose to be horrifically injured, what business is it of yours? By what right do you presume to interfere with my right to risk horrific injury?

In balance, the relatively minor loss of freedom for the individual is outweighed by the gains for the population as a whole.

Does it? What do you gain by my not being horrifically injured? What do you lose by my being horrifically injured? What business is it of yours at all?

Most civilised societies accept such compromises. But note from my post that I well know that there are limits to how far such interventions should occur, such as the absurd mandatory reporting suggested in the OP...

They may "accept" them because they are not given a choice to reject them, which is the case in most places. Such regulations are never put to a popular vote, nor would it matter if they were. Your argument that society is better off is incomplete and a "just so" story. You don't explain

why or how society is better off, you just vaguely allude to it. Can you do better than that in articulating a rational motive behind such nannyism?

We've explained this to you hundreds of times over the years at the various fora. Why should we explain it again when you are wilfully ignorant of the answer?

But, hey, one more time for the shits and giggles. In societies that have socialised medicine, said injuries cost taxpayers money. And in all societies a sick and injured population of workers is a negative hit to economies. This is basic stuff. I wish you would fucking get it.

[Blind groper]

Actually, preventing other people being injured is important to everyone. When your neighbour gets injured, the harm is far beyond just that neighbour. In medical costs. In loss of productivity costs. In emotional costs. These things always affect a lot more people than just the victim.

[JimC]

Actually, preventing other people being injured is important to everyone. When your neighbour gets injured, the harm is far beyond just that neighbour. In medical costs. In loss of productivity costs. In emotional costs. These things always affect a lot more people than just the victim.

Agreed, but that is not a position without limits. In some areas, I will take a libertarian stance - the State cannot impose restrictions on individual liberty that go beyond what is reasonable, and acceptable to a broad (not narrow) majority.

For me, seat belts and helmets are on the acceptable side of the line.

Banning gin would not be...