In Defense of 300-Pound Third Graders
It’s time for a quick, angry rant. Even though I’m a big fan of former President Clinton, and indeed, wish he could be president again, I was extremely disappointed in his decision to take on a prominent role in the so-called War on Obesity [I prefer to call it the Assault on Bodily Sovereignty]. Last week, the beverage industry announced that it will voluntarily remove high-calorie sodas from all schools, under a deal with anti-obesity groups [read: groups that wish to intrude into your life]. This is just another case of freedom being sacrificed for the alleged greater good, that being a healthier and slimmer citizenry.
Here’s the news: Freedom is its own positive consequence. Nothing is more important than freedom: not security, health, comfort, stability or order. I’m pro-choice in the broadest sense of the word; that is, give everybody maximum choices, and let them set their own course. Indeed, I’m so fervently pro-choice that I have no objection to bringing healthy foods into the country’s public schools. Bring in your carrot sticks, skim milk and salads. Then, next to that area, bring in a vending machine with soda, cookies and candy bars. Let the students exercise CHOICE. If they eat healthily, they might lead longer, healthier lives. If they eat unhealthily, they might become obese and cut short their lives. And you know what – that’s fine. I never said freedom was utilitarian; with freedom, some children are left behind.
In the name of bodily sovereignty, I make the following strong suggestions:
1. Return junk food to the schools.
2. End the War on Drugs.
3. Legalize prostitution.
4. Eliminate all laws regulating private, consensual, adult sexual behavior.
5. Eliminate seatbelt and helmet laws, except for individuals younger than 13.
I have no question making these changes would do a bit to destabilize society. Obesity might continue to rise. Drug use might increase a bit. STD transmission might be a bit elevated (though that’s certainly questionable, since in
Still not convinced freedom is good? Still think stability and safety matter more? Perhaps my point will be better proven if I raise the specter of taking presently held freedoms away. The country certainly would be healthier if smoking were illegal. The roads certainly would be safer if alcohol were banned again. The rising tide of obesity certainly would be halted if unhealthy foods were made illegal. Car-accident deaths would probably decrease dramatically if drivers were forced to wear helmets and a padded vest. Think those ideas sound like horrible intrusions into personal freedom? Well, now you know how I feel whenever I hear about the War on Drugs or see somebody being pulled over for exercising the right not to wear a seatbelt.
Freedom might be expensive, but there’s nothing more important.
posted by The Jolly Nihilist at 11:02:00 PM
41 Comments:
"Liberty is its own reward"
What kind of vacuous statement is that?
The kind that's true.
A proposed policy needs no further justification than the promotion of liberty. The only meaningful consequence of ending the war on drugs is the promotion of liberty. The only meaningful consequence to legalizing prostitution is the promotion of liberty.
The fact that it promotes liberty is enough to justify nearly any proposal.
That is liberatian nonsense.
Indeed. I'm a libertarian.
I completely agree frances, I'm a libertarian as well, so I don't believe that governments should decide the ends for the self.
Exactly. Government has very, very, very few legitimate purposes. Most assuredly, one of those purposes is NOT to watch the citizenry's waistlines. Put simply: "The government may not infringe on an individual's bodily sovereignty, unless that individual is incarcerated."
Like everyone before me, I agree as well. A lot of that stuff (especially the seatbelts and helmets) seems common sense to me, and if the person doesn't have enough common sense to wear a seatbely without a law telling him to do so, that's just Natural Selection.
Like everyone before me, I agree as well. A lot of that stuff (especially the seatbelts and helmets) seems common sense to me, and if the person doesn't have enough common sense to wear a seatbely without a law telling him to do so, that's just Natural Selection.
In truth, I see things precisely that way. I will always wear my seatbelt, regardless. I just oppose government coercion. The government ought not protect me from myself.
Frances - I'm very interested in your libertarian views. Personally, I have questioned the value of applying Libertarian ideology to things like, the DMV, or the Justice Department etc. How/where the lines of government and no government are drawn are of considerable interest to me.
What role do you see the government taking in society? In particular, think with respect to poverty, education, military, etc.
Thanks for the interesting question.
I definitely believe government has some legitimate purposes. National defense is one of them, as are criminal justice and infrastructure. I also support a strong public education system, since a functional democracy is entirely dependent upon an educated citizenry.
I don't think the government has much of a role to play in poverty or healthcare. I don't support welfare, and I don't support public health spending. In particular, I oppose public health spending because it gives the government a real incentive to interfere in people's private health choices.
Then we get into personal choice issues like abortion, drug use, prostitution, euthanasia, seatbelts/helmets, etc. Government has no place here. Government must never try to do the following two things:
1. Enact laws "for my own good."
2. Enact laws "to protect me from myself."
In a free country, people must be allowed to make self-destructive choices. If, in the process, some people self-destruct...that's the cost of freedom.
Generally speaking, government has 3 legitimate roles:
1. Protect me from you.
2. Protect you from me.
3. Protect us from foreign aggressors.
Not much else is legitimate. Government should never be omnipresent and overpowering. As is said in the movie V for Vendetta, "People shouldn't fear their governments. Governments should fear their people." Now that's a profound truth.
hmmm... well i see your point in suggesting that liberty is its own reward. But how does one distinguish between anarchy, and freedom?
In an anarchy, justice is often determined through via the strong over the weak. Don't you think that the rights of the weak justify infringing on the liberty of the strong?
I guess that depends upon what you consider the rights of the weak to be. I don't consider welfare a right, nor healthcare. Government's job isn't to promote equality in terms of results, but rather equality in terms of opportunity. As long as everybody has an equal shot, rights-wise, the government has no responsibility to ensure riches are distributed equitably.
That's why I support anti-discrimination laws, contrary to most libertarians. I think libertarianism is dependent upon every individual having an equal shot, at least in terms of rights. Then, if some percentage of the people blows it, the government can't be made the scapegoat.
In truth, I see things precisely that way. I will always wear my seatbelt, regardless. I just oppose government coercion. The government ought not protect me from myself.
Then the government or an insurance provider ought not pay medical bills for someone who lays a comatose vegetable after bouncing their coconut across the pavement while choosing not to wear their bicycle helmet or their seatbelt.
The individual and individual rights only exist in the context of a society. It is only the collective agreement and cooperation that allow individual rights.
So the collective necessarily has its say in how society should be organized. It is not infringing any sort of natural right to free choice to say that sugary soda cannot be sold in schools.
Obesity costs the collectivity a lot of money in medical care. Costs that could be avoided with a little prevention. Remember, an once of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
In a libertarian society, maybe some people will refuse vaccination, thus causing an epidemic. Would polio have been irradicated if there hadn't been a compulsory vaccination program? Or do people have the right to get polio?
Let's privatize the fire department. Everyone has to subscribe to private insurance to make use of the fire department. Unfortunately, some people may have had enough money to buy their house, but now they have lost their job, say, and can't pay the insurance.
So there is a fire at their house and the fire department doesn't come. Other, insured, houses are hit and then the fire department comes.
Today there are some even very rich groups that don't pay their insurance, called taxes, and still get public benefits like fire protection. They are called churches.
I'll talk about the necessity of taxes and appropriate tax schedules another time.
While I agree with your post, I think your position is a little contradictory. You say that seatbelt laws should be eliminated, except for people under 13. To me this seems to imply that you believe that individuals under 13 aren't educated enough about the situation and thereby must be protected. This would apply to most students in schools, especially the 3rd grader in the title of your post. It makes sense that if they can't choose whether or not they can wear a seatbelt because of their ignorance they shouldn't be able to choose to eat candy to death either.
Personally, I wouldn't be against these anti-obesity kind of things applying to young children who don't know better. When I have kids I don't want them going off to school with their lunch money and having to worry about them thinking "damn, I can buy 5 snickers with this. I'll eat 4 now and same the other for creationism class!"
But for adults, yes, get rid of all laws that restrict personal freedoms. No one has the right to tell anyone else how to live their life. With small children this doesn't apply because small children have no real concept of the future and are very easily manipulated by advertising.
Eliminate seatbelt and helmet laws, except for individuals younger than 13.
Either everyone has the right to make poor decisions, or nobody does. Your "younger than 13" wish makes an exception to the rule. If mere lack of education or age forces infringements on freedom, then your rant sounds a bit ageists. I'm guessing that in your heart of hearts, you realize that there are people who do need security over liberty, and supervision and restrictions over freedom. The mentally ill, children, and others who do not understand the full implications of their actions need people to clarify the circumstances, teach them what could happen, and care for them. The old, young, and incompetent need protection. That is progressive. Our government should be progressive, not nonexistent.
Yes, we should legalize prostitution, end the War on Drugs, and allow people to screw who they want, but there are even limits to this. I do see myself as a vehement libertarian, but even then I realize that there are boundaries to freedom. Polygamists, such as FLDS (Fundamentalist Mormons), regularly take multiple wives who are under the legal age in all 50 states. These children, 13 years of age at times, have grown up in a society that preaches the superiority of man over woman. These children are not allowed to choose their future. If children must be protected with a seatbelt because they may not know the results of their actions when jumping in the back of a speeding car, why aren't these same children of the same developmental and actual age protected from the violating dicks of their uncles or fathers or grandfathers? Should these actions be allowed to occur? I hope not.
Please clarify your position. I'd really like to hear your thoughts. Either it's anarchy or we restrict some freedoms. Your choice.
Then the government or an insurance provider ought not pay medical bills for someone who lays a comatose vegetable after bouncing their coconut across the pavement while choosing not to wear their bicycle helmet or their seatbelt.
That's right. I oppose public health spending. Also, I have no problem with an insurance company including a clause in the policy that states no money will be paid if the driver of the car isn't wearing a seatbelt. That's a private agreement, where coercion is more acceptable.
It is not infringing any sort of natural right to free choice to say that sugary soda cannot be sold in schools.
I would say it very blatantly violates the right to bodily sovereignty.
Obesity costs the collectivity a lot of money in medical care. Costs that could be avoided with a little prevention. Remember, an once of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
That's why medical care should be an entirely private responsibility, on the shoulders of the individual and private-sector insurance.
In a libertarian society, maybe some people will refuse vaccination, thus causing an epidemic. Would polio have been irradicated if there hadn't been a compulsory vaccination program? Or do people have the right to get polio?
People have a right to refuse vaccination. And, if they contract the illness, and subsequently die, that's the result of their free choice. Freedom has costs. Those who are irresponsible and irrational likely will not survive in a free society.
Let's privatize the fire department. Everyone has to subscribe to private insurance to make use of the fire department. Unfortunately, some people may have had enough money to buy their house, but now they have lost their job, say, and can't pay the insurance.
Police and fire should be publicly funded through taxes, as is done at present. I do not advocate complete privatization. Government has a few legitimate purposes.
While I agree with your post, I think your position is a little contradictory. You say that seatbelt laws should be eliminated, except for people under 13. To me this seems to imply that you believe that individuals under 13 aren't educated enough about the situation and thereby must be protected. This would apply to most students in schools, especially the 3rd grader in the title of your post. It makes sense that if they can't choose whether or not they can wear a seatbelt because of their ignorance they shouldn't be able to choose to eat candy to death either.
Here's the distinction, in my mind. It only takes one car trip without a seatbelt to result in fatality. The one time a child doesn't wear a seatbelt could be the time the child is hurled through the windshield and scraped off the pavement. That's unquestionably not the case with candy. To become unhealthily obese, one must repeatedly overeat and repeatedly shun exercise. The immediacy of the danger inherent to not wearing a seatbelt makes me tolerate freedom abridgement for children in that case, but not for candy/soda machines.
Also, looking after a child's nutrition is primarily the parents' duty, not the school's. The school is only responsible for protecting the child's safety in the most general sense (i.e., not allow the child to fall from the roof or chew on test tubes).
I do believe small children need protection, but I would say it's the parents' responsibility. Charging the government with child-rearing is extremely dangerous and probably ill-advised.
Polygamists, such as FLDS (Fundamentalist Mormons), regularly take multiple wives who are under the legal age in all 50 states. These children, 13 years of age at times, have grown up in a society that preaches the superiority of man over woman. These children are not allowed to choose their future. If children must be protected with a seatbelt because they may not know the results of their actions when jumping in the back of a speeding car, why aren't these same children of the same developmental and actual age protected from the violating dicks of their uncles or fathers or grandfathers? Should these actions be allowed to occur? I hope not.
I have no objection to polygamy in general. Monogamy is a social construction that isn't intrinsically better or worse than polygamy. That said, I do believe in enforcing age of consent laws. Although I think 18 is too strict, I also think 13 is too lenient. I think a National Age of Consent might be a good idea, and I'd place it somewhere around 15. By the age of 15, one realizes what the implications are of saying "Yes." And, if they don't, chances are they wouldn't by ages 16 or 17 either.
Laws can't be based upon the stupidest and most irresponsible of us; they should be based upon the average person. If we spent too much time catering to the stupid people, we'd have many fewer freedoms and much more government.
So, to answer your question: Yes, there should be age of consent laws. But they should also be more lenient than they are at present, with respect to age.
By the age of 15, one realizes what the implications are of saying "Yes." And, if they don't, chances are they wouldn't by ages 16 or 17 either.
Your theory presumes a good deal about the development of the human mind. Too bad science doesn't back you up on this one. By 15, 16, 17, children are hardly developed. As a teenager, did you feel developmentally and physically different when you were 17 versus 15? I sure did. I'm only 17, but I'd consider the me from two years ago fairly inexperienced and foolish, and I’m sure in a few year’s time I’ll consider the current me pretty naive.
Laws can't be based upon the stupidest and most irresponsible of us; they should be based upon the average person.
Far from stupid or irresponsible, I'd consider any father fucking his 13-year-old daughter a sociopath. That action is not stupid. That act is on the same level as rape or murder. It is taking away the power and autonomy of an individual, be it their life or body in the most intrusive way imaginable. It is invasive and unwanted intrusion into the individual's body, life, and mind. I should hope our laws remove those convicted of these crimes from society for as long as possible.
I do think that polygamy should be legal, just between 3 to 6 people who are of consenting age. [Otherwise, outside of that, we'd have a commune.] Do I personally think polygamy is moral? It is primarily used by loony religious nuts in the backwaters of America to suppress children. It sure doesn't sound like a libertarian philosophy to allow a group of people to oppress another weaker group, and then to violate their bodies at a young age. To allow this to happen sounds like condoning a fascist system.
I’m not sure, but I don’t think you answered by questions. I implied them in a vague manner in my earlier post, but I'll state them again: (1) Should the mentally ill, children, and old people have protection provided by the government, private citizens, or at all? (2) Should older people, as you imply, be allowed to do some things while younger people cannot? (3) And finally, should the government allow a father to rape his daughter?
If the government allows this to occur, we have allowed anarchy to replace democracy. If this right is curtailed, then the government then institutes progressive policies to protect the individual.
Welcome, Comment Pimpette!
Yes, I completely agree with you. I'm working on getting a bible class going as a credit course at our local public high school. You wouldn't believe the government bullshit I have to deal with ;-)
I've always been a strong supporter of high school-level Bible courses. Here's one of my propositions: "How The Bible Has Contributed To Millions of Killings 101." Another is "How The Bible Has Undermined Science, History And Logic 101." For some reason, Bible thumpers aren't getting behind me. It's inexplicable.
Drunken Tune,
Your theory presumes a good deal about the development of the human mind. Too bad science doesn't back you up on this one. By 15, 16, 17, children are hardly developed. As a teenager, did you feel developmentally and physically different when you were 17 versus 15? I sure did. I'm only 17, but I'd consider the me from two years ago fairly inexperienced and foolish, and I’m sure in a few year’s time I’ll consider the current me pretty naive.
That might be true, but I reject all the baggage attached to sex in our society. Sex, quite simply, is a social behavior. That's it. As such, I see no reason to regulate it to excess.
(1) Should the mentally ill, children, and old people have protection provided by the government, private citizens, or at all?
I view the government as a maker of restrictions. As evidenced by my seatbelt/helmet position, I do condone some government protection for the young. The same cannot be said for the mentally ill or the elderly. Of course, I support private efforts to protect such individuals, but I do not endorse regulations and laws aimed at protecting them. For, such laws would infringe the rest of us. Laws must be made with the capable majority in mind, rather than the susceptible minority.
(2) Should older people, as you imply, be allowed to do some things while younger people cannot?
Sure. Adults should be allowed to use recreational drugs. Adults should be allowed to drink alcohol. Adults should be allowed to smoke and enroll in the military. Those 13 and older should be allowed to refuse to wear seatbelts and helmets. However, young children do demand some government protection in the form of laws. I recognize, accept and agree with that.
(3) And finally, should the government allow a father to rape his daughter?
No. Rape is wrong in every case. But I have no objection to a consenting, adult relationship in that context. Frankly, it would be none of my business, and not my place to judge it. And especially not the government's place to judge it.
"But I have no objection to a consenting, adult relationship in that context. Frankly, it would be none of my business, and not my place to judge it. And especially not the government's place to judge it."
Recently in Germany a man was sentenced to life for killing a man and eating him. He claimed that the man was consenting and wanted to be killed and eaten. Is that a consenting adult relationship?
Recently in Germany a man was sentenced to life for killing a man and eating him. He claimed that the man was consenting and wanted to be killed and eaten. Is that a consenting adult relationship?
Yup.
The problem, of course, is proof. The burden of proof is on the killer/eater. Perhaps if there was a videotape, in which the "victim" expressed his desire to be cannibalized? Perhaps if it were done before witnesses, who could attest to the "victim's" desire to be cannibalized? It's tough to prove any statement of desire wasn't made under duress.
But, apart from the legal implications, speaking solely with respect to philosophy, I have no objection to a consenting adult relationship of that sort.
Libertarian enough for you?
Well, Frances thank you for the warm welcom and I was working on "The Bible, your replacement to the Science book 101 ;-)"
Sounds like a great class for Kirk Cameron to teach over at Bob Jones U.
"Libertarian enough for you?"
As you know, I am not a libertarian, and yes, that does correspond to what I would expect from one.
It is consistent with the other nonsensical libertarian beliefs.
As you know, I am not a libertarian, and yes, that does correspond to what I would expect from one.
It is consistent with the other nonsensical libertarian beliefs.
Why should the government interfere with an individual being cannibalized, if the individual wanted to be eaten? I strongly oppose the government "protecting me from myself." It's that "for your own good" crap that has no place in adult society.
Thanks for the tip Frances. The guy we got now is a little wierd, he's requested hundreds of Bananas to be available on a daily basis.
Bananas, huh?
Well, it is Comfort food.
"Obesity most commonly begins in childhood between the ages of 5 and 6, and during adolescence. Studies have shown that a child who is obese between the ages of 10 and 13 has an 80 percent chance of becoming an obese adult."
http://www.aacap.org/publications/factsfam/79.htm
Are those ages where individuals can make informed decisions?
"About 15.6% of American children between 12 and 19 were obese in 2002, up from 6.1% in 1974, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-03-24-childrens-health_x.htm
Gee, I wonder why the rate more than doubled in thirty years? Other studies show an even more dramatic increase. Did children freely decide that they wanted to be fat?
"Obesity is not a simple condition of eating too much. It is now recognized that obesity is a serious, chronic disease. No human condition — not race, religion, gender, ethnicity or disease state — compares to obesity in prevalence and prejudice, mortality and morbidity, sickness and stigma."
http://www.obesity.org/
Shouldn't obesity be treated as other diseases are?
Are those ages where individuals can make informed decisions?
No, but it's also not a case where it's appropriate for the school to be playing parent. Parents are responsible for keeping their young children healthy. Schools are responsible for reading, writing and math.
Gee, I wonder why the rate more than doubled in thirty years? Other studies show an even more dramatic increase. Did children freely decide that they wanted to be fat?
Apparently, teens decided they want to enjoy junk food. Obesity might be a direct result of that choice. And that's legitimate. I'd rather have a generation of obese teens than a generation who had their choices taken away by the nutrition police. To eat KFC 24/7 is a legitimate choice for a 16-year-old, in my view.
"To eat KFC 24/7 is a legitimate choice for a 16-year-old, in my view."
Not really. You are ignoring the publicity propaganda for junk food tht they have received from a very early age. Studies at the sites I gave show that children who watch more tv are more obese.
They are a sort of captive audience. Sure you can say, well it's their parents fault for not controlling their viewing. But that is often difficult or even impossible in poorer families where both parents or the single parent has to work long hours to survive.
Tv commericials for junk food are often on series and soaps that show slim good-looking actors, so children can be implicitly lead to believe that the sugary empty-calories products don't have any incidence on getting obese.
It is not only on tv; food giant companies provide "teaching material" for elementary schools that is laced with advertizing.
Then there is the general cultural environment. Fast food junk outlets and junk food shelves in the supermarkets are ubiquitous. An unhealthy nutritional environment has been deliberately created. Other studies have shown that immigrants to the U.S. are affected by this. They arrive with good health and body weight and in a few years become overweight or obese.
The idea that one has an independent choice is just a corollary of the religious idea of free will. But there is no such thing as free will. Behavior, thus choice, is conditioned by the surroundings. Our society has created a generally nocive environment which makes it difficult for people to make healthy "choices".
We could have created a different environment, but we didn't. Maybe we can change the one we have, but it will be difficult because of the now established economic interests which work to keep us unhealthy.
As one of the sites I cited said, obesity is now considered a disease. It is not in the interest of society or the individual to promote disease. There are public campaigns against the spread of HIV and other epidemic vectors. Vaccination is virtually universally practiced and the government would allow people to intentionally infect themselves dangerous viruses or bacteria. Government, society, and individuals all have an interest in reducing the extent of the disease of obesity.
Not really. You are ignoring the publicity propaganda for junk food tht they have received from a very early age. Studies at the sites I gave show that children who watch more tv are more obese.
I'm not surprised. That means the ads are effective. And, I wouldn't dream of infringing Free Expression by regulating junk food ads. And, I wouldn't dream of diminishing free choice by regulating junk food itself.
Tv commericials for junk food are often on series and soaps that show slim good-looking actors, so children can be implicitly lead to believe that the sugary empty-calories products don't have any incidence on getting obese.
That might be so. But, who wants the government enacting policies to protect us from our own bad decisions? In a free country, individuals are allowed to make self-destructive and unhealthy decisions. If somebody makes a connection between commercials and sexy soap stars, they've exercised poor judgment. In a free country, the government doesn't correct you. Rather, you rise or fall on your own decisions.
The idea that one has an independent choice is just a corollary of the religious idea of free will. But there is no such thing as free will. Behavior, thus choice, is conditioned by the surroundings. Our society has created a generally nocive environment which makes it difficult for people to make healthy "choices".
Difficult, but hardly impossible. Look around, there are myriad healthy people who shun junk food and sugary soda. It CAN be done. There's always a choice, since nobody has his mouth held open and sugary soda poured down his throat.
In the end, we have one basic disagreement. I value personal choice over the citizenry's health. You value the citizenry's health over personal choice.
"In the end, we have one basic disagreement. I value personal choice over the citizenry's health. You value the citizenry's health over personal choice."
Inexact. I don't believe there is such a thing as personal choice. As I said, it is a corollary of the myth of free will.
May I suggest you look up Spinoza on the subject. A good place to start is the summary at wikipedia or answers.com.
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=spinoza&gwp=8
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Just recently I overheard that in Sweden or one of the other countries in the EU [perhaps Switzerland? I'm pretty sure it was an "S" country.], commercials must advertise for a viable product. If the commercial is for Cialis® or Viagra®, then the commercial must explicitly state what the product is for, not show a bunch of happy people holding hands in bathtubs or throwing footballs through tire swing-sets. I see nothing wrong with this action taken by the government of S-country. It regulates a company's purposeful attempt to misinform the public, and is another way a system of checks is put in place in order to keep the growing plutocracy’s power in check from infringing in our lives. Another case in point: in ancient Mayan houses, the state would provide wall murals that portrayed the state as an end to all means - in other words, propaganda designed to keep the population subdued and complacent. This, hopefully, we can agree on. I see no difference between a television and the mural.
What bothers me too often about hard-line libertarians, such as yourself, francesthemagnificent, is that they fail to recognize the danger of power in any hands. It must all be decentralized if we are to have a free life. Otherwise, we are substituting one form of control for another. Here’s a small rant on it here. Otherwise, I think you're right. We just need to go much, much further in that direction.
"Let the students exercise choice" seems to me more an ideological position than a seriously thought out one. Yours seems to be the ideology of hating the state (because the state is this loathsome creature that hides in the shadows, waiting to rob us of our precious, inviolable liberties at the first chance it gets). I'm quite partial to this way of thinking, but everything has its limits, including what individuals should and shouldn't be allowed to do. Without the state liberty wouldn't exist. Of course the state should have no say in what goes on in the bedroom (except when children are involved or people are being abused, obviously) and of course the state shouldn't nanny us in everything we do. But there are vulnerable people who do need to be constrained in what they do, for (shock, horror) their own good.
Besides that, there is the fact that the medical system is going to be clogged with people who failed to make viable health-related decisions. Why should I, for example, choose to underwrite the selfish and disgusting habit of smoking by paying more in taxes for hospitals, just so people can exercise "choice" and so that corporations can make a profit? Personally, I don't care one wit about the "right" of tobacco companies to make a profit. It seems clear to me that you can't have it both ways: if you don't want to constrain people from doing what they want, then at least make sure that the consequences of what they don't spill over onto third parties. Sure, smokers have the "right" to smoke, (in their own homes away from the kids, and away from me. I didn't choose to be exposed to their poison) but no one can tell me that the decisions of smokers don't affect me in bad ways.
Untrammelled liberty is actually an encroachment on liberty in the final analysis, because what you're doing is externalising the costs of what your doing and dumping them on outside parties who didn't consent to being party to the transaction. This is corporate ideology. Corporations want us to live in an economy instead of a society. (that's what someone once said about the Australian prime minister John Howard) Hardline libertarians only end up advocating the thing they hate, which is to enforce obligation. And it's the state that ends up enforcing it, because it's the only organ in society entrusted to write laws. Or undo them. Believe it or not, the latter can be effectively more coercive than the first. It's state sanctioned corporate dictatorship, with the name of "liberty".
Personally, I believe that decent health care is a human right, not a privilege. Call me a statist, but I make no apology for thinking that there are things that shouldn't be in the hands of any other organ in society. I simply can't reconcile myself to the idea that anyone should be left to the elements just because they can't afford private cover. That's not a world I would want to live in, and it's not one that anyone should have to live in. Not only is it immoral, it feeds problems like crime, destitution and cynicism. Then comes the second irony: the state (and therefore the tax payer) has to clean up the mess. Libertarians won’t like it because it gives the state more power (and that necessarily has to be bad, according to some). But if it's not fixed (or constrained) then the problem gets worse, and it's the people who end up paying anyway. Healthcare is one of the types of things that the state is fully entitled to provide. (I have no problem with independent oversight) AT LEAST these things. In fact, libertarians might want to consider this as it does more to preserve a free, healthy society than does a dog-eat-dog existence with rampant crime and other ills.
Now back to the obese kids. There are things that kids AREN'T entitled to do. They aren't entitled to have sex. They aren't entitled to vote. If we want to protect them from religious indoctrination, why not also protect them from corporate propaganda? A corporation is legally required to maximise its shareholder value. As such, it's a pathological organisation with no imperative to look after the public good (which I implore you to consider does exist, and it isn't just about being free to do what you want) except when doing so (or pretending to do so) gives it something in return. Being "free" doesn't mean trading one false ideology for another. Kids aren't "fully capable of making their own decisions" in the same sense that an adult is. They are more vulnerable to suggestion and manipulation, and this will have far-reaching consequences for EVERYONE when they're adults. Again, I care not one wit about the "right" of Cadbury or Coca-Cola to make a profit. If they want to make a profit, let them do so in a way that takes into consideration these human factors. There have to be limits for society to function. There has to be a point where the rights of society as a whole to function properly are taken into consideration, and override those of the individual where a very good case can be made in favour of doing so.
Apart form all that, I like your blog. Don't think I'm being abusive or anything. I'm just urgent that people not overlook these things, and if in fact I'm the one who's wrong, then all the worse for my erroneous ideas.
First of all, I don't understand how anyone can accept evolution...the chances of particles coming together in the exact order that they are in is impossible...it takes MORE faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creationism. Also, I am a living, breathing miracle...I was not even supposed to live past my first two years of life due to a hole in my heart that could not be fixed with surgery b/c i had only a 10% chance of living...also, the doctors didn't want it to heal on its own b/c there'd be too much scar tissue...it did heal on its own and there is absolutely NO scar tissue! also, what about people who just "happen" to survive an almost fatal accident b/c it missed their vital organs by a fraction of a centimeter?! for you to say that miracles don't exist is only a statement for the complete ignorant to make. also, the beauty of God/Christ is that the laws of nature can be defied...if God wants to change the laws of nature completely, He could do that do...ANYTHING is possible with God...also, you need to get your facts straight…there is PLENTY of historical and sensible evidence regarding the existence of Christ and His resurrection, so for people to make the argument that it didn’t happen didn’t do their research! You speak so steadfast about the laws of nature, yet you strongly support gay marriage…that’s an oxymoron if you ask me (guys were meant to fit with girls…yes, guys can make it work, but girls DEFINITELY don’t fit with girls…) if gay marriage/relationships are practiced, nature has made it pretty clear that it doesn’t like it (sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many people with STD’s are in a relationship with someone of the same sex)…as for the afterlife issue…I won’t try to convince you that there is one, but it seems to me that you’d want to believe in one (especially heaven), unless you’re afraid that hell is real (and it is) and that because of your anti-religious views will place you there…at one point, you say, “Readers, please ask yourselves: Based upon what hard, scientific evidence do I accept God?”…that’s just the point, there IS no scientific evidence for God because we are supposed to believe by FAITH…apparently you don’t understand that word…actually, you do, because your crazy theories take more faith to believe in than God and creationism itself. Please do yourself a favor and get your facts straight before you go bashing Christianity and the idea of God…
Dear oh dear, more religionist nonsense. I'll take you through it step by step.
"First of all, I don't understand how anyone can accept evolution...the chances of particles coming together in the exact order that they are in is impossible...it takes MORE faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creationism."
You've just demonstrated what can only be called barbaric ignorance of what evolution is all about. You don’t understand how anyone can accept evolution? Well that’s too bad, because if you don’t understand that, then you don’t understand anything about genetics, the fossil record, the dating of rocks, ecology, comparative anatomy, or biogeography. Natural selection is NON-random. I’ll say it again. Natural selection is NON-RANDOM. What you’ve described is something that every scientst in the world knows; it’s old news that we’ll never get organisms just by jumbling up some atoms. NO ONE says that this can happen. In other words, your “argument” is worthless, because it’s a strawman against evolutionary theory, a crude caricature that falls apart when you actually bother to investigate what scientists ARE actually saying. What they are saying, is that evolution is a CUMULATIVE process. It preserves random mutations that happen to confer some sort of advantage on an organism. The mutations are random; most of them are either neutral or harmful. Occasionally, however, a beneficial mutation will appear, and on average it will tend to be preserved in the population for precisely that reason: it gives the organism an advantage compared to its contemporaries. If people got that through their heads, then all this bullshit about evolution being all about “chance” would quietly dissipate. But of course, propagandists still flog this dead horse, safe in the knowledge that it will be music to the ears of people like you, who allow yourselves to be taken for a ride simply because you so desperately need someone to tell you what you want to hear. I suggest you do some actual research instead of letting yourself be taken in by creationist propaganda. It's you, my friend, who needs faith to believe in what you believe, not evolutionists.
"Also, I am a living, breathing miracle...I was not even supposed to live past my first two years of life due to a hole in my heart that could not be fixed with surgery b/c i had only a 10% chance of living...also, the doctors didn't want it to heal on its own b/c there'd be too much scar tissue...it did heal on its own and there is absolutely NO scar tissue! also, what about people who just "happen" to survive an almost fatal accident b/c it missed their vital organs by a fraction of a centimeter?!
Neither of these events qualify as a "miracle". You obviously have a very poor grasp of statistics and what qualifies as miraculous. The person who wins the lottery can't say "this is a miracle!" just because the odds of them wining it are 1 in a hundred million or whatever. The point is that these things, like making a full recovery from a seemingly intractable illness or objects missing vital organs by a fraction of a centimetre don't happen often, but they do happen in a large enough population. The chances that any PARTICULAR person will experience them is close to nil, but the chances that SOMEONE will eventually experience them, given all the permutations of events and causes criss-crossing our world, is almost certain. It’s the law of big numbers.
"for you to say that miracles don't exist is only a statement for the complete ignorant to make."
For you to make the statement that "I'm a living miracle" is an arrogant boast by someone with no idea what they're actually talking about.
" also, the beauty of God/Christ is that the laws of nature can be defied..."
No, that's not "beautiful", it's ridiculous. Let me ask you something. Do you honestly believe that if God exists, he would have had to VIOLATE the laws of physics he established in order to produce us? Are you saying, in fact, that God isn't a subtle enough engineer to establish laws of physics that would eventually lead to our evolution? Does he have to step and do the dirty work himself, instead of just allowing the process he established play itself out? If you do, then I’d say you don’t hold God in very high regard, as you a) don’t think he’s very clever, and b) you hold him up to ridicule by having him contradict everything that that the best science has to say.
"if God wants to change the laws of nature completely, He could do that do...ANYTHING is possible with God...also, you need to get your facts straight…there is PLENTY of historical and sensible evidence regarding the existence of Christ and His resurrection, so for people to make the argument that it didn’t happen didn’t do their research!"
Few deny that Jesus existed as a person, but that doesn't mean he was the son of God. Anyone can claim to be anything; there are people today who claim to be gods themselves. As for the "plenty of evidence" for his resurrection, I'd love to see it. I'd also love to see why you're so certain that the Koran, for example, isn't the word of God. (and don’t say something stupid like “because it says so in the Bible!”) Muslims make similarly striking claims about their prophet. Why shouldn't we believe their take on things? They, too, have “plenty of evidence” to “prove” their case.
" You speak so steadfast about the laws of nature, yet you strongly support gay marriage…"
No offence, but you need to stop thinking at the level of an 8 year old child. In case you don't know this, there are many, MANY instances of homosexual behaviour in nature, from ducks to bonobo chimpanzees. The bonobo (and this is fact, whether you find it offensive or not; frankly, I don't care) is known for its wildly promiscuous sexual behaviour; females rub their clitorises together, males give each other oral sex. In other words, for evolution to be "false", this means that God had to have invented homosexuality and engineered it into nature by his own hand. That's right: your God is a pervert! He DIRECTLY created bonobos and countless other examples of homosexuality in nature! Obviously that’s not what I believe; it’s what you believe. Or at least, it’s what you have to believe if you know anything about bonobos!
"that’s an oxymoron if you ask me (guys were meant to fit with girls…yes, guys can make it work, but girls DEFINITELY don’t fit with girls…) "
The problem with people like you is that you think you're entitled to completely ignore anything science has to say on a topic because you have religious beliefs, and that somehow reality is meant to mould itself to your prejudices and misconceptions. Perhaps if you actually grounded yourself in reality to begin with, you'd quickly discover that there's a much more complex, amazing world out there than your small-minded horseshit allows for.
"if gay marriage/relationships are practiced, nature has made it pretty clear that it doesn’t like it (sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many people with STD’s are in a relationship with someone of the same sex)…"
Soooooooooooooooooooooooo many women in Africa suffer from STDs after being raped in war zones. Perhaps nature hates women? (it certainly doesn't "hate" homosexuality, as I clearly showed above. Besides, what does it mean to say that nature hates something? Nature doesn't have a conscience with which to judge anything. I think the word you’re looking for is “God”) Religious doctrine certainly does; no wonder women have been subjugated for millennia, forced to endure the whim of their husbands and the authorities. The Bible has some pretty horrific stuff concerning women, starting with God punishing womenfolk for Eve’s sin.
"as for the afterlife issue…I won’t try to convince you that there is one, but it seems to me that you’d want to believe in one (especially heaven), unless you’re afraid that hell is real (and it is) and that because of your anti-religious views will place you there…at one point, you say, “Readers, please ask yourselves: Based upon what hard, scientific evidence do I accept God?”…that’s just the point, there IS no scientific evidence for God because we are supposed to believe by FAITH…"
What the fucking fuck does that mean? Is this some sort of stupid joke? Faith is the antithesis of science, you dimwit. Faith is believing in something in the ABSENCE of evidence. At least have the decency to consult a dictionary before throwing shit at other people. On another note, do you honestly think that God sends people to Hell to be tortured for all eternity just for believing in something that doesn't happen to be right? I might be wrong or I might be right, but do I deserve to SUFFER for it either way?
"apparently you don’t understand that word…actually, you do, because your crazy theories take more faith to believe in than God and creationism itself."
Creationism is complete flim-flam. It's bullshit, totally and utterly. If it weren’t, you'd have no need to bring up issues of morality in what's meant to be a purely SCIENTIFIC discussion. Yet you introduce simplistic moral platitudes as if they meant anything in science, as if something has to be true just because it's "morally right". Catch a clue: there's LOTS of bad stuff in this world. Wishing for it to be otherwise doesn't make it untrue. The universe doesn't care about human-centric notions of justice or morality. If there’s no afterlife, that might be “bad” for us, but it’s still true. If we evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees, that might “offend” you, but evolution doesn’t care about your sensibilities. Gene lineages have no reason to stop evolving just because you don’t want to believe they do.
" Please do yourself a favor and get your facts straight before you go bashing Christianity and the idea of God…"
Please do EVERYONE, and most importantly, yourself, a favour by getting your facts straight instead of bashing atheism and anyone who doesn't agree with you ideas and hurling bullshit, embarrassing yourself in the process. Specifically, do some actual reading about what evolution is instead of listening to some creationist know-nothing preacher spouting nonsense. You obviously have no conception whatsoever about how evolution is meant to work; (anyone who claims that evolution is all about chance is either ignorant or a liar) you obviously have no conception whatsoever about what the scientific method entails, or of the overwhelming evidence that all converges together to agree with the theory of evolution; you have no conception whatsoever about the fact that homosexuality is widespread and "rampant" in nature; you obviously have no conception of how creationism is actually an INSULT to God's abilities as it implies that he wasn't good enough a cosmic engineer to create us through a subtle process and instead had to trample on the laws of physics he established. Once you’ve addressed these things but quietly going away and thinking for yourself, THEN you should lay out your concerns. In the meantime, you’re not fooling anyone.
First of all, I CLEARLY SAID that science had nothing to do with proving the existence of God because believing in God is done purely by faith because there IS no evidence! You need to read back over that...and you'll be happy to know that I don't like to use the Bible as support because people like you will say "duh, it says that in the book YOU take to be true..." I know winning the lottery isn't a miracle, but miracles do exist...I mean, if something remotely similar happened to you that happened to me or anyone else in a similar position, would you SERIOUSLY say "well, it was just chance that I survived..." I don't think you'd quite want to look at it that way! And the fossil record, by the way, is incomplete! I've done research, also, that says that as we are 99% related to a chimp, we also have the same relation to a pea and a chicken! Also, the first several fossils have been proven to be all MONKEY and the last few have been proven to be ALL human! and another thing, if creationism is "bullcrap" because I have to defend it so highly, don't you think your pitiful excuse for how the world got here is just as "crapish" because you have to defend yours just as hard!" God didn't HAVE to violate His own laws of nature, but if He had never done anything divine, people would never believe in Him or anything He did...also, you obviously believe in evolution, but here's a question for you (and don't say something stupid like "i'm atheist, there is no God, and therefore, this has to be true because...)---WHY would anyone WANT to believe that the world came together by chance or that we all evolved from MONKEYS? i personally wouldn't want to look at an animal who is that ugly and has the worst habits ever and go "oohh, look, that's what I came from..." God's not a pervert...and animals don't have the same moral sense of values that humans have either...we have the right and the ability to choose what is right and what is wrong...animals also go around licking their butts, but as humans (although we're not physically able to), it does not mean that we should follow the example of animals who have no possible way of knowing that is gross and weird. ya know, sometimes i think ignorant people like you actually come from monkeys (and hopefully you don't actually think i mean that b/c clearly i don't)...or wait, maybe you come from our other close relative, the pea---because you have a pea brain!
More nonsense, just as I expected. You seem utterly incapable of formulating any sort of argument. Your appeal to emotion and our wants - as if they meant ANYTHING to questions of science - is truly pitiful. Again, I will take you through your mistakes.
"I don't think you'd quite want to look at it that way!"
How I'd WANT to look at it has no bearing whatsoever on what it actually IS. You say, "miracles do happen". Well, what's your definition of a miracle? Because what you explained wasn't a miracle by any stretch of the imagination, regardless of how much you'd like it to be.
"And the fossil record, by the way, is incomplete!"
This is no problem at all for evolutionary theory. The reason the overwhelming majority of scientists accept it is that the evidence from the natural world all CONVERGES towards the same conclusion: that life evolved and continues to evolve. We find things in the fossil record, the genome, in comparative anatomy, biogeography, and other fields, that all point to the same thing. Things that we would EXPECT to be the case if evolution is true. OF COURSE the fossil record is incomplete, but even without it, we would STILL be justifed in regarding evolution as the process of life. The fossil record is actually big trouble for creationism: it contains numerous transitional forms, including those in our own lineage. For evolution to be false, God would have had to directly create species like Australopithecus afarensis, then later species like Homo erectus For what?
"I've done research, also, that says that as we are 99% related to a chimp, we also have the same relation to a pea and a chicken!"
I have absolutely no idea what you just said there. Your so-called research obviously didn't touch upon genetics. By counting the number of differences in two genomes, we can tell how far apart they are genetically and hence how related they are - in other words, their divergence point on the family tree. If we share nearly all our genes with chimpanzees, then we share nearly all our genes with chimpanzees, and that's all there is to it. It matter not one iota whether anyone finds this "offensive" or "uncomfortable"; nature doesn't stop to check whether what it's doing is in line with our prejudices. Nature is indifferent to our sensibilities.
"and another thing, if creationism is "bullcrap" because I have to defend it so highly, don't you think your pitiful excuse for how the world got here is just as "crapish" because you have to defend yours just as hard!"
Rubbish. The only reason you defend creationism so hard is because you're ignorant of how evolution is meant to work. (your idea of evolution as being purely about chance is testimony to that, and is a dead give-away that you have no conception at all of how it's even supposed to work. Hence, your argument against it isn't, in a sense, even wrong. It's not an argument against evolution because you get evolution completely and totally wrong to begin with, hence what you're arguing against is a crude caricature with no basis! Youre arguing against a straw-man that no evolutionist really believes in) If I "argue just as hard", it's only to inform you of your errors. (and also because it annoys me when people bag evolution as if they know what they were talking about when actually they haven't got a clue what they're talking about) Just because two ideas are being argued for with equal rigour doesn't mean they are both on an equal footing. Nazism was passionately defended by its adherents, but it was all rubbish. You can passionately argue for anything; It doesn't make it any more true. The point is to convey real information, not something dressed up as information.
"God didn't HAVE to violate His own laws of nature, but if He had never done anything divine, people would never believe in Him or anything He did"
He would have had to if evolution is false. How else would he have CREATED anything? If the universe is incapable of assembling us through a process, then God would have had to have done so DIRECTLY, and thereby CIRCUMVENT the laws of phsycis and chemistry he established. The only other method of creation would have been through an evolutionary process consistent with the laws of phsycis and chemistry. (it has the added benefit of having all the evidence in its favour, so you might like to consider it)
"...also, you obviously believe in evolution, but here's a question for you (and don't say something stupid like "i'm atheist, there is no God, and therefore, this has to be true because...)---WHY would anyone WANT to believe that the world came together by chance or that we all evolved from MONKEYS?"
Is that meant as a scientific question? Because, you know, evolution is a scientific theory. So why are you bringing up how people FEEL, as if that has any brearing on the truth of the issue? What does it matter whether we like it or not that we're related to apes? I might hate the idea that we evolved, but does that mean that "therefore" evolution didn't happen? There are many "bad" things in this world; wishing for them to be otherwise won't make it so. If we evolved from primates, then all the worse for those who don't like that. But the EVIDENCE is all there, and it's not going to change just because of how we feel. You can either reject all of chemistry, genetics and comparative anatomy - in other words, everything that forms the BASIS upon which evolution rests and has proven so successful at explainly seemingly disparate features of the living world - and believe in creationism, or you can face the reality.
"i personally wouldn't want to look at an animal who is that ugly and has the worst habits ever and go "oohh, look, that's what I came from..."
Completely irrelevant, because like it or not, these animals (the bonobo and the common chimpanzee) ARE our closest living relatives.
"God's not a pervert...and animals don't have the same moral sense of values that humans have either...we have the right and the ability to choose what is right and what is wrong...animals also go around licking their butts, but as humans (although we're not physically able to), it does not mean that we should follow the example of animals who have no possible way of knowing that is gross and weird."
I agree with you almost wholeheartedly here, except that I never said we should follow the example of animals. Just because we came from animals doesn't mean we're obliged to act like them. Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory, not a moral framework that tells us how to live. We might as well look to Newtonian phsycis for moral guidance. A modern definition of evolution is "a change in the frequency of genes in a population." Nothing about how we should live in there.
"ya know, sometimes i think ignorant people like you actually come from monkeys (and hopefully you don't actually think i mean that b/c clearly i don't)...or wait, maybe you come from our other close relative, the pea---because you have a pea brain!"
It's funny, actually. Those who deny we come from monkeys tend to think at the intellectual level of monkeys. They think that somehow the only purpose of science is to confirm their backward, primitive beliefs. No wonder they have no respect at all for science. They can't even bothered to know what it is that the scientists are actually saying before they shoot their mouths off. By the way, the pea ISN'T our close relative. (and anyone who says it is is a bloody idiot) It's not even in the same phylum as us. A bit of basic biology instead of cheap diatribe might go a long way in helping you see things more clearly.
Males have nipples because we begin as females in the womb.
Women are the template, not men.
More likely that god took a rib from woman and made man ;)
"Males have nipples because we begin as females in the womb. Women are the template, not men."
True that. But of course these facts are irrelevant to those with no respect for reality.
Actually, you do, because your crazy theories take more faith to believe in than God and creationism itself. Please do yourself a favor and get your facts straight before you go bashing Christianity and the idea of God…
Identify my "crazy theories."
Post a Comment
<< Home