| Hooray for libertarian sentiment, I guess? |
[Mar. 21st, 2007|02:32 pm] |
Associated Press feeds us an opinion piece (not even thinly veiled) regarding the recent trend in banning things; trans fats, cellphones while driving, and headphones in crosswalks are given as examples. In the closing paragraph, a capital-L Libertarian is not-quite-quoted as seeing the validity of a ban one-handed driving, which is hazardous to others, but thoroughly disapproving of a ban on unhealthy foods, as it should be his decision whether he wants to trade donuts for years.
Here is the #1 reason I can't bear to associate myself with the Libertarians, despite holding strongly libertarian views myself: there is an omnipresent underlying assumption that it is the sole responsibility of individuals to educate themselves. This is contrary to human nature. We learn from the culture that surrounds us, even if we are never formally taught anything. Many of us learn that self-education is a valuable and worthwhile pursuit, but it must be strongly emphasized that this, too, is a learned behavior!
It is simply wrong to suggest that anyone who doesn't know that fried chicken can clog their arteries is getting what they deserve for being ignorant. I understand well the frustration that can come from trying to educate (or even work around) the willfully ignorant: those who refuse to be educated at all, or to let go of false ideas that block useful ones from being absorbed. Taking out this frustration on the merely uneducated is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. To further invest this paragraph in proverbs, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." But if you don't do the leading, guys, you're negligent on your end.
I cannot stress enough that I believe any law which attempts to protect one from one's own behavior is absolutely wrong. However, this must not be generalized beyond a certain point. People place their trust in food providers; in the name of cheap manufacture and pseudo-addictive products, that trust is often violated, and this is not exclusively the consumer's fault. The point of structured society, after all, is so that we don't all have to watch our asses from every angle 24/7. Trust should be possible.
( Suggestions specific to the food issue )
Jumping back to the full scope of the original article, here's my take on certain categories of ban laws: ( Read more... ) |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jan. 31st, 2007|12:27 pm] |
Outraged by the detainment of inmates at Guantanamo without a fair trial or even meaningful evidence, American jurors set out to prove that we can do it inside our borders, too.
Life without parole for "inappropriate grieving," folks. Twelve angry [wo]men. This is why a well-funded and effective educational system is of the utmost priority, and well worth paying taxes into, even if you have no children of your own. |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
dour's journal
infuriated