Page 8 of 13
Re: Food should be regulated like tobacco
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 8:44 pm
by nitz
scspkr99 wrote:nitz wrote:There is much libertarianism in this thread. One of their core key concepts is the freedom the live in the way they want with very little regulation, in the worlds the Nozick himself " A nighwatch state". Thus, by advocating my food choice and lifestyle choice is mine and mine alone hits a key connect of libertarianism. Do you do not want people telling them what to do how to to do it. Whereas, consequentialism consider the consequence of a said act. e.g you smoke, it cost, your family suffers when you die, you have 2 brothers and 2 parents, who have now lost you. End result was not worth it. Unless i got one of the spelling terms wrongs, this is pretty much core values; i did a disso in legal justice .
Not in the sense that you are using libertarianism. The fact you've quoted Nozick confirms this. I am a consequentialist who agrees with classic defences of liberty.
You've created a false dichotomy between consequentialism and libertarianism. Consider that J.S. Mill wrote both Utilitarianism and On Liberty. Utilitarianism is the de facto consequentialist ethical framework and On Liberty starts the conversation of what authority the state is able to exercise over it's people.
These are not mutually exclusive frameworks, we can consider a persons agency over herself apriori until the exercise of such liberty infringes on others where it becomes necessary to suppress a greater harm to society. I start from a defence of personal liberty and end with an evaluation of the cost, so consequences, to society.
I can defend smoking, drinking and eating badly on consequentialist
and libertarian grounds. I can contend, and would, that the suppression of such freedoms as allowing people to choose what to eat, or smoke or drink have worse consequences than allowing people the freedom to choose and some of them choosing badly.
I'm also okay with punitively taxing those activities, we do with smoking and drinking, and I'm pretty sure this isn't consistent with modern libertarianism.
Mill was a odd one out to be honest for the exact reason you stated, he's sitting in the middle. I've always found it hard to read and fully understand his work. Altho they are indeed not mutually exclusive many theists after Mill and betham have constructed more solid theories.
Well in relation to smoking. If you at the Hedonism approach then surely smoking should be allowed to max all pleasure of all smokers. But then if you look at from it the overall outsell of utilitarianism, then it would seem not, because max pleasure for max people (unity) but at the same time not to cause suffering. They want a win win first, before a win lost situation. So back to smoking, if one smokers dies the suffering of the entire family would be far greater than his single own pleasure. It's a trickily complex area of law theory. If you add Rawls to the problem (abeit its a justice question then) its an completely different world
Also remember the point of taxing in libertarianism - Nozick when as far as to say it;s slavry! When use you the word modern how modern exactly. libertarianism in general, especially in the classical sence, do not like the taxing of them and disutautive justice for that matter as well! So giving money from the rich to the poor via tax. Again, each author has there own take - there is not wrong or right answer. Hence why can say X supported by said author, whilst i can at Y supported by said author. The beauty of legal theory.
Re: Food should be regulated like tobacco
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 8:48 pm
by nitz
Muncey wrote:nitz wrote:I'm not even going to reply to that. You're reading a different thread. Allow it. I merely trimmed it down the terms, you have no idea how complex it is. Fact and option LOL almost fell of my chair when i read that. I have no interest in countiuieng this conv. I didn't say i was a master at the topic, i wrote i did a disso in legal justice, and thus this basic terms i wrote give or take is a reflection what legal theist.
So what was your dumb "consequence" example about and where is all this libertarianism? You said the core concept is that they want the right to live the way they want with no regulation. Key part of that,
no regulation. At what point has anybody said they should have the freedom to choose whether they want to smoke/eat loads with no regulation whatsoever? Nobody has claimed they should be allowed to have the choice to smoke, to smoke in public places, at the age of 5 and/or any other ridiculous non-restriction you can think of.
What? The above thee guy said let me live my life and if i wish to smoke i will. Government always turn to reduce smoking e.g images of cigarette box etc. Come on seriously man! And what they mean by regulations is not morality, they mean regulations of free choice and will. No decent human would smoke in front of a hospital full of babies for example.
Re: Food should be regulated like tobacco
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 8:58 pm
by Muncey
nitz wrote:The above thee guy said let me live my life and if i wish to smoke i will. Government always turn to reduce smoking e.g images of cigarette box etc. Come on seriously man! And what they mean by regulations is not morality, they mean regulations of free choice and will. No decent human would smoke in front of a hospital full of babies for example.
But how does "if I want to smoke let me smoke" = "i'm definitely going to smoke and smoke however the fuck I like"? Most smokers are probably okay with being taxed for it, maybe not as much as they liked but they're okay with it. Thats regulation and apparently in your eyes something that is against the libertarian view?
Also just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you're going to do it.
I just don't get how you've come to the conclusion of the social damage is enough to take away a persons freedom to choice? You seriously can't think smoking is
that unhealthy that families are losing their 20 year old son because he had a pack of 20? My grandads been smoking since he was 13 and only about 10 years ago quit when he was like 70.. If he dies soon I don't think any of us are going to be going "cigarettes should be banned it took our father/granddad/great granddad away from us at the young age of 82".
Re: Food should be regulated like tobacco
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 9:06 pm
by nitz
Muncey wrote:nitz wrote:The above thee guy said let me live my life and if i wish to smoke i will. Government always turn to reduce smoking e.g images of cigarette box etc. Come on seriously man! And what they mean by regulations is not morality, they mean regulations of free choice and will. No decent human would smoke in front of a hospital full of babies for example.
But how does "if I want to smoke let me smoke" = "i'm definitely going to smoke and smoke however the fuck I like"? Most smokers are probably okay with being taxed for it, maybe not as much as they liked but they're okay with it. Thats regulation and apparently in your eyes something that is against the libertarian view?
Also just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you're going to do it.
I just don't get how you've come to the conclusion of the social damage is enough to take away a persons freedom to choice? You seriously can't think smoking is
that unhealthy that families are losing their 20 year old son because he had a pack of 20? My grandads been smoking since he was 13 and only about 10 years ago quit when he was like 70.. If he dies soon I don't think any of us are going to be going "cigarettes should be banned it took our father/granddad/great granddad away from us at the young age of 82".
You're speaking as if i've said NOBODY should smoke from this day one, liberty removed bye bye. This is why I should really stop taking. People are taking one word and changing its meaning. Please find me where i said we should take the liberty of smoking from people away. Please go ahead… The original point was if obesity is bashed why should smoking not be bashed too, and not just putting images on cigarette packets.
Now how you EARTH have you come to the conlussion i said we should remove people's liberty from smoking? damm man Please stop re intpreuting my words to suit you, read them as they are! I don't sugar cover I say it as it is
"So let me sum all of this up, in a few concise sentences. You can choose to live your own life however you want; that's your prerogative. People should understand the health issues for example of obesity tho. Education is key. However, when your life style causes bad affect on others, and institutions generally then your free choice is out the window. It's that simply. "
E.g
I liked the legislation where smoking was ban inside, because if i when to the pub as a no smoker no enjoy a nice pint and everyone is smoking in there, how is that fair? Where is the balnce of interest of smokers and none smokers if they rule is we can smoke as we please. public health act was a good legislation.
End of conv i have no more to say.
Re: Food should be regulated like tobacco
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 9:12 pm
by Muncey
Lol I'm reinterpreting it because you've completely reinterpreted everybody else as being libertarian because they think they should be allowed the choice to smoke or eat unhealthy. We should be allowed to smoke = libertarian.. I'm clearly against these views and far from libertarian. How else do you expect to be interpreted?
nitz wrote:DJoe wrote:dont know if this has been said. only skimmed through but
would heavy taxation on certain food products or components that are related to causing obesity work?
the companies using producing these products would have to increase the price through using expensive food components due to this taxation
that way people are free to make their own choices but nudged in the right direction
also money spent on this food is redirected to the public through taxation into the NHS for example
accordingly to some of these libertarian in this thread they would object; my life eat what i want, no one can stop me. Blah blah, getting sick of reading and writing that.
Which country in just put down a a certain junk food ban, big up.
Couldn't articulate yourself into a fight.
Re: Food should be regulated like tobacco
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 9:16 pm
by nitz
Muncey wrote:Lol I'm reinterpreting it because you've completely reinterpreted everybody else as being libertarian because they think they should be allowed the choice to smoke or eat unhealthy. We should be allowed to smoke = libertarian.. I'm clearly against these views and far from libertarian. How else do you expect to be interpreted?
nitz wrote:DJoe wrote:dont know if this has been said. only skimmed through but
would heavy taxation on certain food products or components that are related to causing obesity work?
the companies using producing these products would have to increase the price through using expensive food components due to this taxation
that way people are free to make their own choices but nudged in the right direction
also money spent on this food is redirected to the public through taxation into the NHS for example
accordingly to some of these libertarian in this thread they would object; my life eat what i want, no one can stop me. Blah blah, getting sick of reading and writing that.
Which country in just put down a a certain junk food ban, big up.
Couldn't articulate yourself into a fight.
Is that not a libertarian view tho to smoke as they please for example? I surely think it is.
In regards to the country that to a tax of junk food yes i think that is A good measure amongst other, i the case of obesity, to help reduce it. cigarettes are taxed are they not? Why no junk food
P.s it was a slight overstamtent - yes guilty as charged on that fact. Reading that back - it was not the most ingeniglent, or correct assertion to say. But i still say it's a libertarian view to do as their please, including smoking. Whereas, other looks at the point in general, what is the end result if your smoking for example, can it be helped, reduced stopped? NOT BANNED
Re: Food should be regulated like tobacco
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 9:22 pm
by nowaysj
Agent 47 wrote:the united states government are the largest manufacturer of illegal drugs?
what do you mean
I meant that the united states government is the largest manufacturer of illegal drugs.
Re: Food should be regulated like tobacco
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 9:33 pm
by ezza
any youtube recommendations on this? sounds interesting/entertaining
Re: Food should be regulated like tobacco
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 9:35 pm
by nowaysj
Naw man, it is a secret, nobody knows about it.
Re: Food should be regulated like tobacco
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 9:38 pm
by Muncey
nitz wrote:Is that not a libertarian view tho to smoke as they please for example? I surely think it is.
Again, it really depends how you're interpreting "smoke as they please".. free to smoke at the age of 10, free to smoke in public places, free to smoke near hospitals.. that could be libertarian. Free, as an adult, to go to the shop and buy cigarettes then smoke alone in the comfort of your own home.. no that certainly is not libertarian. Nobody has suggested the former, everybody the latter.. if the latter, which i reiterate is what most people have been claiming as "free to choose to smoke", is something you object to how have I misinterpreted what you've said?
nitz wrote:In regards to the country that to a tax of junk food yes i think that is A good measure amongst other, i the case of obesity, to help reduce it. cigarettes are taxed are they not? Why no junk food
garethom wrote:DJoe wrote:would heavy taxation on certain food products or components that are related to causing obesity work?
Basically all food.
nitz wrote:But i still say it's a libertarian view to do as their please, including smoking. Whereas, other looks at the point in general, what is the end result if your smoking for example, can it be helped, reduced stopped? NOT BANNED?
But again, if you're a libertarian in thinking you should have the free choice to smoke (within the current law) how do you oppose this if you don't want them banned? I genuinely get your points of helping and reducing ect. but if you don't want them banned what suggestions can you suggest that mean you don't hold the view of freedom to choose to smoke? Is there some grey area between freedom to choose to smoke and banning them that I'm not getting?
Re: Food should be regulated like tobacco
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 9:40 pm
by ezza
nowaysj wrote:Naw man, it is a secret, nobody knows about it.
Re: Food should be regulated like tobacco
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 9:43 pm
by Genevieve
The libertarian view isn't 'do as you please', it's 'don't innitiate force against others'. You can still meddle with other people and be active in social change for as long as you don't force it on other people coercively. Campaign, inform, be active, boycott all you want. :v
Assuming the N.A.P. wing of libertarianism.
Re: Food should be regulated like tobacco
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 10:02 pm
by ultraspatial
wow everybody flexing their "i took a modern political theories course in my 2nd year at college" muscles in this thread
Re: Food should be regulated like tobacco
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 10:16 pm
by nitz
Muncey wrote:nitz wrote:Is that not a libertarian view tho to smoke as they please for example? I surely think it is.
Again, it really depends how you're interpreting "smoke as they please".. free to smoke at the age of 10, free to smoke in public places, free to smoke near hospitals.. that could be libertarian. Free, as an adult, to go to the shop and buy cigarettes then smoke alone in the comfort of your own home.. no that certainly is not libertarian. Nobody has suggested the former, everybody the latter.. if the latter, which i reiterate is what most people have been claiming as "free to choose to smoke", is something you object to how have I misinterpreted what you've said?
nitz wrote:In regards to the country that to a tax of junk food yes i think that is A good measure amongst other, i the case of obesity, to help reduce it. cigarettes are taxed are they not? Why no junk food
garethom wrote:DJoe wrote:would heavy taxation on certain food products or components that are related to causing obesity work?
Basically all food.
nitz wrote:But i still say it's a libertarian view to do as their please, including smoking. Whereas, other looks at the point in general, what is the end result if your smoking for example, can it be helped, reduced stopped? NOT BANNED?
But again, if you're a libertarian in thinking you should have the free choice to smoke (within the current law) how do you oppose this if you don't want them banned? I genuinely get your points of helping and reducing ect. but if you don't want them banned what suggestions can you suggest that mean you don't hold the view of freedom to choose to smoke? Is there some grey area between freedom to choose to smoke and banning them that I'm not getting?
Just to be clear I am nor for libertarian or consequentialism or for it's most known form, utilitarianism because i accept and appericate all of them, but equally they are all flawed in one way or another. Hence why this classical debates mostly are only theoretical.
The liberty of smoking simply means the freedom to smoke, within one's own conform. Smoking at age 10 etc is a moral question and is for a different area of law theory; not really to be mixed in.
Ok, so at least you've understand that i do no wish to ban people from smoking but rather helping them. Yes, is it's like the modern theories in where some theist to some extract accept some of the points of their oppoinsg party. The mid way here I was suggest is that smoke as you plea, but if help is offered and you refuse, but then later get ill, the institution should not automatically given you treatment as a RIGHT per say. Constant this with someone who broke is legs whilst paying football, you have a auto RIGHT to be treatment as the hospital. Its grey area because there is not 100%, and there may never be. This dissucion will to a large part is only theoretical. The UK anytime soon will not ban smoking in the UK, nor will the UK actively refuse treatment to paitens who do to take NHS advice and treatment seriously. They are commonly do - if i go to my dr with fucked up asthma and he say's have you smoked and I say yes, he'll merely give you a steroid pill and not refer to to an clinic because it was your fault per se
Is that clear?
Re: Food should be regulated like tobacco
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 10:18 pm
by nitz
Genevieve wrote:The libertarian view isn't 'do as you please', it's 'don't innitiate force against others'. You can still meddle with other people and be active in social change for as long as you don't force it on other people coercively. Campaign, inform, be active, boycott all you want. :v
Assuming the N.A.P. wing of libertarianism.
No first come the liberty to live a free life without constant from the government - key gaol. and then without the need for force. "as you please" is merely the wording, perhaps not the best wording. Currently cigarettes are heavily taxed. Most if not all classical liberteistm would object to this because it is a restriction. Morden theist… 50/50 its not the end of the world
Re: Food should be regulated like tobacco
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 10:27 pm
by Muncey
Right yeah, got ya. It didn't come across that way at all though, the way you labelled everybody a libertarian based on something you ultimately agree on (the right to choose to smoke) sorta gave the impression you were against it.. certainly not in agreement with it.
Ironically at the start of this thread I basically said the same thing, that there should be some limit on free public health for repeat offenders and people refusing help (such as an alcoholic on their 3rd liver).
Re: Food should be regulated like tobacco
Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 10:28 pm
by NickUndercover
Re: Food should be regulated like tobacco
Posted: Thu May 22, 2014 5:31 am
by scspkr99
ultraspatial wrote:wow everybody flexing their "i took a modern political theories course in my 2nd year at college" muscles in this thread
some should probably have gone the lectures rather than the union bar
Re: Food should be regulated like tobacco
Posted: Thu May 22, 2014 6:32 am
by Sexual_Chocolate
Agent 47 wrote:nowaysj wrote:Naw man, it is a secret, nobody knows about it.
Re: Food should be regulated like tobacco
Posted: Thu May 22, 2014 6:46 am
by nowaysj
Two quality photos over that one. I should be flip more often.
--
Just read of a working group within the UN that is preparing a report that club music around the world has lead to an epidemic of early onset hearing loss in young people, a permanent life long disability. Venues that play live or recorded music are going to be required to limit volume to 80 db's, meaning the music will be loud, but you can still carry on a conversation over the music, and shows are to last only a maximum of 2 hours. It is expected that when all of the industrialized nations as well as nations that see a significant amount of party tourism sign on to the treaty with these sensible restrictions, millions of young people will retain their hearing thus preventing an epidemic of easily avoidable permanent disability.