>>>>snipping is fun>
>>>
>>>>>>If you think about it, rather a lot of what government is for is what happens when people don't do the right things. (Not all of it, of course--stuff like trash collection and road building is for the common good, in another way.)
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course "right" is a very subjective term in this context. I think the government should be minimalist in its approach and I have a big problem with legislating behavior. I'm not speaking of crimes against others but of the nanny laws controlling individual choice, such as helmet laws, banning cell-phones while driving and smoking ordinances on private property. To me free includes the freedom to make choices, good or bad.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Tamar
>>>>
>>>>At the very least take the cell phone objection out. People kill other people when they don't pay attention to their driving. you might just as well abolish all the other traffic laws. The cell phone law is not a nanny law, it falls into the 'crimes against others' category.
>>>
>>>Until we ban children riding in cars I am not accepting any "distracted driver" laws. Not to mention radios, cd players, reading, eating, putting on makeup, changing clothes, smoking and daydreamers.
>>>
>>>>Even the helmet law is there not only to protect the rider from himself, but to protect the rest of us from the costs of his stupidity as well.
>>>
>>>In a free society people must be free to make stupid decisions.
>>>
>>>>I agree about smoking laws. Mostly I find them repugnant. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a non-smoker.
>>>
>>>I don't mind smoking laws as it pertains to public buildings, after all the public's elected representatives have made that decision. It's the private property intrusion I take issue with.
>>
>>I don't fully understand how you could find laws against smoking in public places to be ok but laws against cell phone use while driving not to be ok. If there is smoking in a restaurant, for example, I can simply not go in. But if some idiot crashes into me because he wanted to talk on his cell phone and didn't notice the stop sign, or red light, there isn't a lot I can do about it. The cell phone law is there to protect other people, not to protect the driver. How can you call that a 'nanny' law.
>
>The we must ban tired drivers, looking at scenery and other passengers, specifically children, in cars as they are the biggest distractions. It should be noted that we haven't banned the distraction, talking on the phone while driving, just holding the device while talking. Now get this. It is perfectly legal for me to hold the phone to my ear as long as I'm not talking to someone. Following this logic, should we ban talking to other passengers while scratching one's ear?
>

You do what you can and what's makes sense in a normal world. Making a law about talking on a cell phone (I'm not talking about hands-free) is doable. Banning scratching one's ear is not. Taking a perfectly sane thing and stretching it ad absurdum may sound logical, but it's not really.

>>I agree that people must be free to make stupid decisions, but I draw the line when those stupid decisions are detrimental to me rather than just the fool himself.
>
>I agree that it's a matter of where the line is drawn between someone else's rights and our own. I don't like the idea of making law abiding citizens into criminals because a portion of society cannot figure out how to hold a phone, talk and drive at the same time.

Very few people can do it well. Almost nobody who does it also properly operates their signal lights when they want to change lanes or make a turn. I've seen it far too often to kid myself and if such a law will help to keep me from being killed, then I'm all for it. Especially since everyone will know what the law is. Same as it's illegal to drive through a red light. People know the law. If they choose to ignore it, then it is at their and my peril, but at least they know the law can make them pay if they do it - even if nobody gets hurt.

>>If it's not the government's job to make laws to protect us from other people, then whose job is it?
>
>It's our responsibility to look out for ourselves.
>
Within reason. Should we inspect restaurant kitchens ourselves before sitting down to a meal? Do we need to educate ourselves in what to look for when inspecting a restaurant kitchen?

>>Here's an interesting one (to me anyway); how do you feel about fraud laws?
>
>Twofold. Primarily I fall on the side of we must look out for ourselves. However, there are obvious situations where conspiracy to defraud will trump even the meticulous. Therefore it comes down to the contracts involved. Always read them and if you sign them your at fault. If the contract makes false statements, then fraud has occurred.
>
>Now if your a so-called bigfoot expert and two yahoos claiming to have a "body" ask you for $50k up front and you call a press conference and pay them before thawing the "body", maybe that's a lesson you deserve.

How about that! We're up to 2 things (count 'em) that we can agree on now. Way I figure, you send your banking info to a stranger in Nigeria, don't come running to me for sympathy.