Australian Nanny State

[Zarni]

The masses have a job, security and given up on privacy as long as Austrlians feel they are safe nobody will ever notice how decision making is slowy being removed from our lifes, good post Vangelovski

[Vangelovski]

There are plenty of examples of whats wrong with society, including programs for mass control.

What you have outlined is a social strategy to reduce smoking and alcohol abuse....

Great work hero..

What I've outlined is government sticking its nose where it does not belong and violating individual rights and freedoms. But that does not really ring a bell with you does it - individual rights and freedoms. As long as you "think" you have them then that's fine.

[Vangelovski]

The masses have a job, security and given up on privacy as long as Austrlians feel they are safe nobody will ever notice how decision making is slowy being removed from our lifes, good post Vangelovski

Self-imposed "do-gooders" that want to impose on us their own subjective values will never rest - even when they are making every last decision for us.

[Phoenix]

TV, I'm not sure what the problem is...

Clearly the State has an obligation to its citizens, to inform them and to protect them. I don't see an issue with programs that reduce the abuse of tobacco and alcohol products or any information and research that allows people to make an informed choice in these matters.

[Vangelovski]

Phoenix,

Other than protecting the natural rights of citizens, the state has no 'obligations'. Having said that, I do not disagree with state funded information campaigns. What I do disagree with is the state making decisions on how individuals live their lives, what we can and can't do, when we can and can't do it and how we can and can't do it. The state is not there to protect us from ourselves.

People need to take responsibility for themselves and stop whinging to the Government that McDonalds made them fat, Marlboro gave them bad breath and VB made them lose their licence.

[Phoenix]

Phoenix,

Other than protecting the natural rights of citizens, the state has no 'obligations'. Having said that, I do not disagree with state funded information campaigns. What I do disagree with is the state making decisions on how individuals live their lives, what we can and can't do, when we can and can't do it and how we can and can't do it. The state is not there to protect us from ourselves.

People need to take responsibility for themselves and stop whinging to the Government that McDonalds made them fat, Marlboro gave them bad breath and VB made them lose their licence.

TV, how are the natural rights of citizens protected if people are free to do whatever they like.
Surely many of these things that you find so offensive are actually geared to protecting a citizens natural rights.

[Vangelovski]

TV, how are the natural rights of citizens protected if people are free to do whatever they like.
Surely many of these things that you find so offensive are actually geared to protecting a citizens natural rights.

While a handful of these policies could be argued to be protecting the natural right to life and limb, the vast majority are nothing more than social engineering by a state that has absolutely no business in engaging in such endeavours.

As for people being "free to do whatever they like", you should perhaps gain a better understanding of natural law and the individual rights and responsibilities that it entails before making such comments.

[Phoenix]

While a handful of these policies could be argued to be protecting the natural right to life and limb, the vast majority are nothing more than social engineering by a state that has absolutely no business in engaging in such endeavours.

I still dont know what you find so offensive...you don't smoke, you don't drink, you don't eat junk food, you don't gamble, so why should you care...you're smart enough and morally sound enough to make the choices that you think are right for you.

The problem is that not everyone is like you, they're not equipped to make the 'right' decisions in life, that's the group in society that most of these laws, programs and information is geared toward and that's the obligation of the state.

[Vangelovski]

I still dont know what you find so offensive...you don't smoke, you don't drink, you don't eat junk food, you don't gamble, so why should you care...you're smart enough and morally sound enough to make the choices that you think are right for you.

The problem is that not everyone is like you, they're not equipped to make the 'right' decisions in life, that's the group in society that most of these laws, programs and information is geared toward and that's the obligation of the state.

Phoenix, everyone is equipped to make the right decisions in life - that's what makes us human. If there is a subsection of society which you believe is not 'equipped' to make decisions for themselves and need to be told what to do (other than children) then maybe they're not really human. Now, if they're not human, what are they? Perhaps a lower race or something? Been reading Mein Kampf lately?

But I do do some of these things. I do drink alcohol and I do eat junk food. In fact, I even enjoy a fine Cuban cigar once a year. The decision to consume these products is for me and me alone to make. Perhaps you don't feel comfortable making decisions for yourself (I know many Macedonians don't), but that is no reason to subvert the rights, and abolish the responsibilities, of others.

Again you make the claim that the state has some sort of obligation to protect individuals from themselves, alleviating their responsibility for themselves. Where did you get this idea from?

Btw, isn't there some new Victorian law that prohibits you from swearing? Who decides what is offensive language? Maybe one day they will decide that the word "Macedonian" constitutes offensive language!

[George S.]

vangelovski you raise pertinent questions as to individuals in a state must take responsibility for their actions.WE can't have too much govt interference for example we can't have too many interferences in our lives by establishing a huge bureaucracy & expect the govt to run our lives.We would all end up like a communist country.Someone said that in the press we are leaning towards communism.I think it reminds me of what john f kennedy said once ask not what the govt can do for you ask what you can do for the govt.

[Phoenix]

Phoenix, everyone is equipped to make the right decisions in life - that's what makes us human. If there is a subsection of society which you believe is not 'equipped' to make decisions for themselves and need to be told what to do (other than children) then maybe they're not really human. Now, if they're not human, what are they? Perhaps a lower race or something? Been reading Mein Kampf lately?

TV, I didn't say that people weren't equipped to make decisions, I said that perhaps they couldn't make the "right" decisions, the reason for this isn't that they're sub human as you've implied but the fact that they've been deliberately mislead, are uneducated or apathetic to the dangers of the choices that they make.

Today there was a story that ran in most internet news sites about the high levels of fat in many brands of muesli, some having more fat content than some notorious fast food products. This is a good example of the need to educate and protect consumers as well as keeping in check unscrupulous producers of these products and how they promote their brand.

But I do do some of these things. I do drink alcohol and I do eat junk food. In fact, I even enjoy a fine Cuban cigar once a year. The decision to consume these products is for me and me alone to make. Perhaps you don't feel comfortable making decisions for yourself (I know many Macedonians don't), but that is no reason to subvert the rights, and abolish the responsibilities, of others

Sure, the decision is yours but only if it doesn't affect anybody else...

Again you make the claim that the state has some sort of obligation to protect individuals from themselves, alleviating their responsibility for themselves. Where did you get this idea from?

You're kidding me...?
The abuse of alcohol, drugs, tobacco, fast food, firearms, traffic laws, building codes, workplace regulations...I wonder where we'd be without the states intervention in these areas.

A good example is in the automotive and aerospace industries, where government intervention/regulation has been a primary driver in making these transport modes safer.

Btw, isn't there some new Victorian law that prohibits you from swearing?

Dunno, never fuckin' heard of it...

[Vangelovski]

Phoenix,

Like I already said, and I've stated time and again over the years, I think more people should make informed decisions. But it is their decision to make.

Like I already said, natural responsibilities require the individual's actions/decisions not to harm others.

You should think more carefully about what you are supporting - the state TELLING individuals what they can eat, drink and smoke.

As for the other matters you just brought up, you make a point on some (for which the relevant principles have already been covered) but are on a very slippery slope for many of the others.

I'm surprised that you don't know about the new Victorian anti-swearing laws! For someone that has been defending state intervention in the private lives of individuals, I thought you would be on top of that one and fully complying with it. They are particularly relevant for swearing in the public domain. Lets hope that VIC police have not already traced your IP, otherwise you are up for a $240 fine!

[Phoenix]

Phoenix,

Like I already said, and I've stated time and again over the years, I think more people should make informed decisions. But it is their decision to make.

Like I already said, natural responsibilities require the individual's actions/decisions not to harm others.

You should think more carefully about what you are supporting - the state TELLING individuals what they can eat, drink and smoke.

As for the other matters you just brought up, you make a point on some (for which the relevant principles have already been covered) but are on a very slippery slope for many of the others.

I'm surprised that you don't know about the new Victorian anti-swearing laws! For someone that has been defending state intervention in the private lives of individuals, I thought you would be on top of that one and fully complying with it. They are particularly relevant for swearing in the public domain. Lets hope that VIC police have not already traced your IP, otherwise you are up for a $240 fine!

Sometimes I wonder if you're having a seperate conversation with another person, you have a very nasty habit of misrepresenting people, quite deliberately I feel.

I'm all for the state informing people of lifestyle choices regarding health issues, I want the state enforcing some of these measures if it takes the drunks, the drug affected and the thugs off the streets but I have NEVER advocated the state telling me what to eat, drink and smoke...maybe somebody else said that to you?

[Vangelovski]

Sometimes I wonder if you're having a seperate conversation with another person, you have a very nasty habit of misrepresenting people, quite deliberately I feel.

I'm all for the state informing people of lifestyle choices regarding health issues, I want the state enforcing some of these measures if it takes the drunks, the drug affected and the thugs off the streets but I have NEVER advocated the state telling me what to eat, drink and smoke...maybe somebody else said that to you?

Come on Phoenix, do I really have to quote you now? What on earth do you think this thread is about? Its about the Government telling people what they can and can't do and the specific topics that I have raised are alcohol, "junk" food and tobacco. YOU even gave the example of muesli and suggested that we need to be "protected" from the brands that contain "high levels of fat".

Today there was a story that ran in most internet news sites about the high levels of fat in many brands of muesli, some having more fat content than some notorious fast food products. This is a good example of the need to educate and protect consumers as well as keeping in check unscrupulous producers of these products and how they promote their brand.

Below you suggested that there are two necessary conditions in order for someone to make the 'right' decision - intelligence and morality:

I still dont know what you find so offensive...you don't smoke, you don't drink, you don't eat junk food, you don't gamble, so why should you care...you're smart enough and morally sound enough to make the choices that you think are right for you.

Then you went on to say that not everyone has those - i.e., they don't have what makes them human - intelligence and the ability to distinguish between what is right and wrong. If they do not have these traits, then they must not be human, as I suggested in response to this.

The problem is that not everyone is like you, they're not equipped to make the 'right' decisions in life, that's the group in society that most of these laws, programs and information is geared toward and that's the obligation of the state.

Later you claimed that you said no such thing:

TV, I didn't say that people weren't equipped to make decisions, I said that perhaps they couldn't make the "right" decisions, the reason for this isn't that they're sub human as you've implied but the fact that they've been deliberately mislead, are uneducated or apathetic to the dangers of the choices that they make.

But hang on:

The problem is that not everyone is like you, they're not equipped to make the 'right' decisions in life

The question comes back to what do you mean by the 'right' decision?

I still dont know what you find so offensive...you don't smoke, you don't drink, you don't eat junk food, you don't gamble, so why should you care...you're smart enough and morally sound enough to make the choices that you think are right for you.

Well, if these people think that the choices they make are right for them (in relation to the food they eat, the alcohol they consume and the tobacco they smoke) then that must the the 'right' decision. So I'm left confused about what it is you're on about at this point.

As for "misrepresenting" you, I don't think so.

[Mikail]

Vangelovski, you really do have way too much time on your hands.