Good lord, this drives me batshit crazy.
Professor Hale decides that the anti-smoking fascists are correct.
I read hale a lot, he comes here, I think him a reasonable person, in the main. And then he comes out with this horseshit.
Look, people, there’s this thing called “Liberty”. You know what it means? No, it doesn’t mean you can do stuff you want when you want it, it doesn’t mean that at all. It means that all around you, you are surrounded by people who will, every single fucking day of their lives, with malice aforethought, do shit you don’t like. And you have to shut the fuck up and DEAL.
“I’m all for freedom but Texting while driving SHOULD be illegal!!!” Shut the fuck up and deal.
“I’m all for freedom but smoking SHOULD be illegal!!!” Shut the fuck up and deal.
“I’m all for freedom but all forms of alcohol SHOULD be illegal!!!” Shut the fuck up and deal.
“I’m all for freedom but smoking dope SHOULD be illegal!!!” Shut the fuck up and deal.
“I’m all for freedom but letting gays have the legal rights of straight people SHOULD be illegal!!!” Shut the fuck up and deal.
“I’m all for freedom but guns over a certain magazine capacity SHOULD be illegal!!!” Shut the fuck up and deal.
Let me say this again: Freedom- or libertarianism, or whatever the fuck you want to call it is NOT ABOUT YOU HAVING THE FREEDOM TO DO AS YOU PLEASE. Freedom is about YOUR WORST ENEMY DOING SHIT THAT YOU HATE AND DOING IT DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF YOU.
Deal. Jesus. Or stop pretending to be about liberty.
UPDATE: Pascal suggests a graphic for the post.
SMOOOOOKE!!
46 comments Og | Uncategorized
If you don’t have the right to do something wrong, you aren’t free. We talk about the price of freedom being those who have given their lives so that we might be free. There is another group that pays that choice, those who in a free country make the wrong decision. I know a guy who had a problem with drinking and driving. He figured out the two didn’t mix, so he stopped driving. I would argue that he made the wrong choice. However, in a free society he has every right to make the wrong decision.
Unfortunately, we still have laws against laying an almighty beatdown on those who think freedom means not only the right to smoke (to grab an example) but the right to blow it in the face of those who would rather they take it elsewhere. It’s an imperfect system.
Eh. You could always call it self-defense, Joanna.
Joanna: Now that’s just rude. Freedom should certainly not mean freedom from conequences- you can be rude all you want but sooner or later somoene’s gonna poke you in the nose for it. And should.
Now, so long as they don’t start coming after me for beingugly in public with malice aforethught, i’m OK.
Sometimes choice is a loaded gun.
And that’s how it should be.
You should have the freedom to be an ass — but there are consequences to actions. For example, if you cause an auto accident because you’re texting and not paying attention to your driving, you should absolutely be cited for it.
If you want to ride your motorcycle without a helmet that should be your choice — but you shouldn’t expect that drastic measures will be taken to try to rescue your sorry brain if it gets bruised or broken.
If you smoke — anything — and you do so in a way that annoys/endangers others, they should have the right to slap the pee-whopping shit out of you for being an ass.
I’m not saying there should be no protections — I’m not recommending a return to the days of Upton Sinclair’s “Jungle” or circumstances that caused the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire — but reasoned and reasonable situations and not the Nanny State that we’re in now.
Being stupid should hurt more. Making bad choices has consequences and mostly people should not be kept from those consequences, it’s the only way they’ll learn.
“Use wisely your power of choice.” — Og Mandino
Jenny
The thing that makes this personal freedom thing a little tricky is that we now have so much more ability to adversely affect other people while exercising our freedoms. Used to be, driving drunk simply meant you ran the risk of putting your wagon in the ditch; at worst you’d injure your hoss and damage your wagon. Now, driving drunk gives you the ability to wipe out a whole car-load of other people. To my mind, the litmus test for restricting a person’s freedom to do something should be this: does it increase the chance that other people will be hurt? There has to be a balance between your freedom to swing a stick and my freedom to not have a bloody nose.
but you shouldn’t expect that drastic measures will be taken to try to rescue your sorry brain if it gets bruised or broken.
Why not? You’re going to be paying for the medical service, why can’t you expect it?
Og,
Thanks for your polite and well worded response. I admit that this is a weakness of mine but I find that as I age, I become more curmudgeonly and less ideologically pure. So far, I have the freedom to do so. But isn’t the basis of all of our laws the proposition to make other people do things that you think are right? You don’t need laws to make you do the things you want to do anyway. You only need laws to make your neighbors do or stop doing. The conversation about where that line is between your freedom and my freedom is at the heart of this argument. The history of human civilization has been arguing that forever, resulting in a constantly moving boundary.
So let me have this one little quirk…
… and my distaste for Palestinians.
… and hippies.
“I’m all for freedom but Texting while driving SHOULD be illegal!!!â€
Nope, but by God if you’re doing something like that and cause property damage or injury you should be punished extra for your stupid recklessness.
It seems like most people who use a phone* for anything while driving are, sadly, not competent to do so safely.
So if they prove it by causing a problem, punish them extra; this aligns incentives and preserves liberty.
(* Frankly, having seen them on the road, I think most people can’t even carry on a conversation with a passenger while driving without being ridiculously stupid about it.
Don’t want that banned either, just roundly punished when it causes damage.)
“But isn’t the basis of all of our laws the proposition to make other people do things that you think are right?”
NO.
let me make this a little clearer:
FUCK NO, NO FUCKING WAY NO.
“To my mind, the litmus test for restricting a person’s freedom to do something should be this: does it increase the chance that other people will be hurt? There has to be a balance between your freedom to swing a stick and my freedom to not have a bloody nose.”
Litmus test? Here’s a litmus test for you: Freedom good. Restricting freedom bad. Deal. Jesus Christ people, this isn’t rocket science.
Guard duck: Exactly. if you’re paying for your insurance, and you slip off the pavement and ball you and your motorcycle up in the weeds, you deserve the care you paid the insurance for. That’s the point. But you also have to remeber, if you aren’t wearing a helmet your chances of ending up a turnip are way the hell high. And no insurance is ever gonna fix that. That’s on you. And suing Suzuki because their motorcycle is too fast and dangerous should get you shot.
“It seems like most people who use a phone* for anything while driving are, sadly, not competent to do so safely.”
Actually, it’s just people you NOTICE. For every 26 year old that sits ahead of you in the left lane doing 40 on the expressway because she has to text her BFF, there were 60 that zoomed by you that were also texting or surfing or getting directions, and you don’t notice them because they were not remarkable.
There are certainly people that cannot talk on the phone while driving, let alone text or surf or play Nintendo DS, or whatever. Most of those people should take the radios and passenger seats out of their cars too; if you can’t have a conversation with someone on the phone you have no business having a conversation with the passengers in your car or listening to the radio. but as Jenny says, we are all free to be just as ignorant as we please, snd we should continue to be that free, and not expect the fedgov to spray bactine on our boo-boos when we fuckup.
Restrictions should be minimal, and consequences should be draconian.
People would fuck up far less.
“Restrictions should be minimal, and consequences should be draconian.”
And it should start in politics. Do a crappy job? End your term at the end of a rope. Think how much better government would get almost immediately.
Your rights end where mine begin.
Unfortunately such a simple statement is still subject to circumstances. I have a right to not smell someone’s tobacco smoke, unless I walk into a bar that allows smoking. But do I have that right just walking down the street. I think so. To me the smoker needs to try to minimize violating my rights.
I like to play very loud music. My neighbor has a right to peace and quiet. If she asks me to turn my music down so that she’s not disturbed in her own home, is that not HER right?
However trying to legislate protecting our rights isn’t going to work. It’s always too broad. And subject to abuse.
Og, your response to Graumagus seems to indicate that you (perhaps grudgingly) accept the idea that some restrictions may be necessary. Why, then, the strong reaction to my litmus test comment?
For the record I, too, decry the “nanny state” mentality. We should be allowed great freedom so long as we are also held accountable for our actions, if not by the state then by the aggrieved party. I’ve heard “He needed killin'” used to be an arguable defence; I’d like to see “He needed a punch in the nose” become one, too: prove that the person deserved to be punched and assault charges are not filed/dropped, but fail to prove it and to the pokey you go.
“But do I have that right just walking down the street. I think so”
I think you’re fugly. I have the right not to have to look at you when I’m in public! I don’t think so. When youre in public, you’re going to be subject to a lot of sights, sounds, smells, etc. Thats why they call it “public”. You don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public. You don’t have any expectation that you won’t be exposed to things you don’t like. If you don’t like that, you can stay home. You do have a reasonable expectation of those things at home.
No, I don’t think your fugly.
“For the record I, too, decry the “nanny state†mentality As long as they stop those people over there that are doing shit I hate!!” is what you actually mean.
Read Grau’s comment and my reply again. This time, notice the word “Minimal”
“As long as they stop those people over there that are doing shit I hate!!†is what you actually mean.”
No, really, it’s not. Frankly, I pretty much hate everything everyone ever does. Hell; I hate some of the stuff *I* do! If the powers-that-be used “does grizz like it?” as criteria for banning stuff we’d all, myself included, be stuffed into tiny, smelly, boxes.
I did see the “minimal” and I agree with it; just trying to figure out where you believe the line should be.
That’s the point of my litmus test. Freedom, good, not freedom, bad. A caveman can do it!!!
Should power plants have their ash emmissions regulated?
Should power plants have their ash emmissions regulated?
Fuck no.
And if you’re ignorant enough to make a comparison between ash emissions and cigarrette smoke, You have lost the argument before you even began.
I admire your purity.
Having lived in a few third world countries, I can tell you that I greatly prefer the clean air here that is a direct result of our air regulations. I didn’t want to burden this discussion with arguments about trace emmissions so I skipped down the list to big solid particles that make a mess of everything. Your 2:34 response makes your position on this clear.
“greatly prefer the clean air here that is a direct result of our air regulations.”
You really have no clue wahtsoever, do you?
Hale: Get your ass into a coal fired plant in the US, and into one elsewhere. The EPA didn’t “Fix’ this, they made it worse. Market forces drove the cleaning of the stacks here, and nothing else. if it werent’ for the EPA, we’d be a lot cleaner not just here but worldwide.
Let’s take a look at Kodak and BASF. Both companies that deal with huge quantities of toxic chemicals. Both of those companies ON THEIR OWN WITH NO GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION cleaned up their act, voluntarily. At incredible cost. Nobody told them to do so, they did so on their own to be a better neighbor to their communities. I’ve been there. I’ve seen the plants, and their voluntarily built massively expensive treatment facilities.
I’ve been in third world countries too. Know why they have crappy air? often due to the EPA in the United states. More than one plant shut down because of stupid EPA regulations has been cannibalized and shipped to China . Read this:
http://neanderpundit.com/?p=2450
So when you sit back and say “Oh, its much better here because of the regulations’ and pat yourself on the back for taking the moral high ground, you’re demonstrating your ignorance of the facts.
Well, I had a retort, but fortunately I thought it through and am wondering what constitutes rights in a public area.
You’re correct that I can expect to hear and see things that I might not want to but at what point does something you do in public infringe on the rights of others.
In actual fact I’d be satisfied if smokers could just be aware of other people and be considerate.
“In actual fact I’d be satisfied if smokers could just be aware of other people and be considerate. ”
I’d be happy if drivers were considerate. Women who have been wearing the same perfume for so long they can’t smell it unless they wear a gallon. People who can’t figure out how to operate an ATM. People who can’t count to ten items or less. People who can’t figure out the left lane is the passing lane. Do you want me to go on? I can, forEVER.
Hell, David, is other people. I hate everything all of them are doing, all the time. In order for me to be free, those idiots have to be free. That’s the nature of freedom.
Man up.
Perhaps I worded that a bit too “nicely”.
I wish smokers could just stop going out of their way to be assholes about smoking.
The problem is that if being an asshole was illegal, most of the human race would be behind bars.
lol. Nice one, Bob.
Dave: I wish all people wouls top going out of their way to be assholes period. When you can get the idiots to stop coming to a complete stop on a busy street before they turn right, the smoking will be an easy fix.
Og,
Granted I may be giving the EPA more credit than it deserves. It has certainly going overboard in the past 20 years. Some industries certainly do go the extra mile to be good neighbors on their own. And some don’t.
Under the crushing weight of your arguments, I concede and will restrict my hatred of public tobacco smoke to muttering under my breath, dirty looks and using the word “Dick” to describe people flicking butts out their windows on the highway.
But we will revisit this if I am ever elected king.
We don’t need laws to deal for us, we need creative ideas for dealing.
Acidman understood this. His idea was that most people should be dragged off and shot.
Me, I think that people who decide to change lanes but take about a half mile to get the transaction completed should die in a crotch fire.
“But we will revisit this if I am ever elected king.”
If you’re elected king, you better be willing to share whatever you’re smoking.
Hale: I perfectly respect your right to hate smoke. When I did smoke, I never smoked in the house, nor around people it bothered. I won’t stand by while people trash basic freedom for their own convenience sake.
Og,
I can’t believe you’d even associate with this nutless wonder.
(I can’t believe these control-freak idiots are banning pot and antihistamines and phosphate detergents and incandescent light bulbs and rat poison and tobacco before they ban guns. Is there really a provable link between statism and mental retardation?)
“Is there really a provable link between statism and mental retardation” Hell, I think you just answered your own question.
Hale is often normal. Some times he needs to be dragged back onto the reservation, though. Associate? I dunno.
Excellent post. And exactly on the mark.
Using “freedom” as an example (along with a bit of real free enterprise), in my state (Illinois, Peoples Republik of) ya can’t smoke in restaurants, or bars (and one suspects not too many other places, if the anti-smoking turds have their way). A far simpler solution would have been to allow business owners to run their bars/restaurants as they see fit. If you want to allow for smoking in your place of business, go for it. If you don’t want to allow for smoking in your establishment, well..you should have that choice as well. Let the public at large decide for themselves which place of business better suits them.
But no, we have to have the state impose their will upon us all (for our own good of course). And individual choice, freedom, and even to some extent personal responsibility takes another hit.
Give me freedom any day of the week.
I can’t believe you’d even associate with this nutless wonder.–Tam
I am sure if you got to know me you would discover that I am just as big an asshole as everyone else. Further, by almost any useful definition, I have nuts and I know how to use them.
I haven’t got a clue, and I came here to whine about what a cunt I am. I hate it when other people get to do what they want to do! WHAAAH!
The insidious way that we’ve gotten to the point we have as far as government intrusion/intervention in our lives is ‘for the public good’.
Seat belts lead to air bags lead to backup cameras lead to…., Firsthand smoke to the perils of second hand smoke to the dangers of third hand smoke….., etc. etc. etc.
When they really want to ramp it up, they add ‘for the good of the children’. So they take away playgrounds and recess and exercise because someone might get hurt and then control what the kids eat because of childhood obesity.
But it never stops until we’re all duct-taped to the couch wrapped in bubble wrap being fed high-fiber organic cereal.
“I can’t believe these control-freak idiots are banning pot and antihistamines and phosphate detergents and incandescent light bulbs and rat poison and tobacco before they ban guns.”
Because you can’t kill the fuckers with dish washing powder when they come to take it away.
Well, I suppose you could, actually, but it would be logistically problematic….
Graumagus, they most likely would be squeaky clean (and quite shiny) before they would head toward the here-after.
You don’t like my cig second hand smoke?
Don’t breathe.
Ever seen the BBC Sherlock first episode?
“You can’t keep a smoking habit going in London anymore; bad for thinking.”
“But good for breathing!”
“Breathing! Breathing is boring.”
[…] Og says it better. “Freedom- or libertarianism, or whatever the fuck you want to call it is NOT ABOUT YOU HAVING THE FREEDOM TO DO AS YOU PLEASE. Freedom is about YOUR WORST ENEMY DOING SHIT THAT YOU HATE AND DOING IT DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF YOU. “ […]