To protect health safety and public welfare

[Revoltingest]

"The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to
cover cutting the Fallopian tubes." Buck v bell (1927).

I'm unfamiliar with the justification for that.
I can imagine scenarios where that could be.

 

[February-Saturday]

While I appreciate the philosophical tone of your response, would this extend to say littering? In theory requiring a person to not litter is requiring some sacrifice of time, energy and resources of a person. Is this too something that should be outside government authority?

The government doesn't seem to really do much about littering. It seems to mostly be on the honor system here, which works out.

Although littering doesn't actually save any time here. It just means you wait to throw away your garbage. I'm not sure that that's really more of a sacrifice of time or energy to put it in the garbage can you walk passed rather than drop it at your feet, but if it was then I would say yes, it does extend to that.

Does that mean I support littering? No. I'd probably still volunteer to clean up my neighboring communities like I've done in the past, or even my own if it ever got that bad. I would also try to convince litterers to stop and work on incentivizing dropping the garbage off in the proper places. I would not, however, support manhandling a litterer and sending them to jail.

Maybe that's over-idealistic in the short-term, but I think eventually humanity will develop enough in their social and psychological understandings that this will become more common. The only way we can get to that point is for people like me to advocate for it and push us more in that direction. Society will accept the change I'm advocating for when it's ready, and we have better ways of convincing more people to not litter and easier ways of handling litter.

What I'm advocating for might take a long time for us to get to, but I think we can still strive to get closer to it in small steps. Maybe we can't just get rid of littering laws right now, but we can work on making a society where they're seen as less necessary by people that don't share my radically individualistic idealism.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I am curious if given both a global pandemic and time to think on the matter, what RFers opinions are about where the line ought to be regarding what a government has the authority to do to act in the for health, safety, and public welfare.

Many countries have seen restrictions of movement. A recent thread discussed the "civic duty" of getting vaccinated (but steered clear of whether a government could or ought to have the authority to force such vaccinations).

However, I would not like you to confine your answers to just your particular government's response to covid, instead i would prefer you try to state your opinions more broadly. For instance, also consider forced sterilization. A technically still good precedent case for this in the U.S. is Buck v. Bell wherein the Supreme Court upheld a forced sterilization statute. But see dicta in Skinner v. Oklahoma.

Governments are instituted largely to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens. But when, if ever, is action to do that a step too far?

I can't speak for other countries but it can certainly be said that you do not cross the line that lays past the Constitution.

Rest assured there are opportunists who will look at this as an opportunity to acquiesce more power and control and that must be stopped forthright.

 

[Curious George]

I'm unfamiliar with the justification for that.
I can imagine scenarios where that could be.

What scenarios?

 

[Curious George]

I can't speak for other countries but it can certainly be said that you do not cross the line that lays past the Constitution.

Rest assured there are opportunists who will look at this as an opportunity to acquiesce more power and control and that must be stopped forthright.

Where is the line that "lays past the constitution?"

 

[Revoltingest]

What scenarios?

Let's say that someone has horrible genetic disorders,
& has reproduced, spawning kids who soon die in agony.
To continue doing that is a greater wrong than forced
sterilization.

 

[Curious George]

Let's say that someone has horrible genetic disorders,
& has reproduced, spawning kids who soon die in agony.
To continue doing that is a greater wrong than forced
sterilization.

We can agree to disagree on that.

 

[Curious George]

@February-Saturday

Interesting and points for consistency. While it sounds like a libertarian utopia, I think too many people and corporations have shown their willingness and ability to disregard the health and safety of others to erase all government authority. Otherwise we wouldn't have companies polluting lakes or drinking water: We wouldn't have lawsuit after lawsuit of grossly negligent behavior of both individuals and corporations.

I would agree that the majority of people do not need a law to tell them to pick up their trash, clean up the mess, etc. But, there are enough who don't and wouldn't that we need some sort of remedy for those situations.

 

[Revoltingest]

Interesting and points for consistency. While it sounds like a libertarian utopia....

I'm a pragmatist, not a seeker of utopias.
And to "erase all government authority"....that's
a dream for (some) anarchists, not libertarians.
Where are you getting that stuff?
We're minarchists, ie, small government types.

 

[Curious George]

I'm a pragmatist, not a seeker of utopias.
And to "erase all government authority"....that's
a dream for (some) anarchists, not libertarians.
Where are you getting that stuff?
We're minarchists, ie, small government types.

Hmm, i forgot to quote the user.

Yes, I would agree that most Libertarians are not looking for a libertarian utopia. As to whether you are pragmatic? Well, i think you can be pragmatic, that doesn't always mean you are.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, i think you can be pragmatic, that doesn't always mean you are.

That is a truism.
Here's another....
You might not claim to be a violent fanatic, but it's possible you are.

See the problem with such claims?
It could give an impression of seeking to bicker over mistaken &
hypothetical personal traits. Of course, you'd never pick such nits.
Mind the optics.

 

[Curious George]

That is a truism.
Here's another....
You might not claim to be a violent fanatic, but it's possible you are.

See the problem with such claims?
It could give an impression of seeking to bicker over mistaken &
hypothetical personal traits. Of course, you'd never pick such nits.
Mind the optics.

Lol, i am happy to explore whether i am a violent fanatic.

But no, that is not what i was suggesting. It would be on the lines of suggesting that i a agree you often are not cranky when you are hungry, yet i can remember some times when you were exactly that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Lol, i am happy to explore whether i am a violent fanatic.

No doubt.
But I'll pass.

But no, that is not what i was suggesting. It would be on the lines of suggesting that i a agree you often are not cranky when you are hungry, yet i can remember some times when you were exactly that.

I speculate that you have neither an anger or a hunger detector.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I am curious if given both a global pandemic and time to think on the matter, what RFers opinions are about where the line ought to be regarding what a government has the authority to do to act in the for health, safety, and public welfare.

Many countries have seen restrictions of movement. A recent thread discussed the "civic duty" of getting vaccinated (but steered clear of whether a government could or ought to have the authority to force such vaccinations).

However, I would not like you to confine your answers to just your particular government's response to covid, instead i would prefer you try to state your opinions more broadly. For instance, also consider forced sterilization. A technically still good precedent case for this in the U.S. is Buck v. Bell wherein the Supreme Court upheld a forced sterilization statute. But see dicta in Skinner v. Oklahoma.

Governments are instituted largely to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens. But when, if ever, is action to do that a step too far?

When they take away the right to vote for candidates of our choice.

 

[Curious George]

No doubt.
But I'll pass.

I speculate that you have neither an anger or a hunger detector.

That is correct, but i have an excellent pragmatism detector.

 

[Curious George]

When they take away the right to vote for candidates of our choice.

So forced sterilization is not too far?

 

[Revoltingest]

That is correct, but i have an excellent pragmatism detector.

I looked.
Its thermogleastic overthruster is out-dated.
And its prefamulated amulite housing has a defective marzal vane.
So there's a strong possibility that your judgement is less cromulent than you believe.

 

[Curious George]

I looked.
Its thermogleastic overthruster is out-dated.
And its prefamulated amulite housing has a defective marzal vane.
So there's a strong possibility that your judgement is less cromulent than you believe.

Lol, like i would show an engineer the real thing without an NDA