Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And there is the rub. Using your example; The boundary between someone who "eats fast food" and someone who eats fast food to the point at which point they begin to place a burden on the healthcare system that all of us (yes, even before Obamacare) pay for, is arbitrary. Move from the behavior of individuals to the behavior of entire populations, and the issue becomes that much more subjective.
Can you explain this?
Quote:
Having acknowledged that all such issues are necessarily complex, society still has an interest in balancing the freedom of the individual on one hand and the safety, security, stability and opportunity of the community on the other. In finding that balance, there will be errors on either side... some that favor the individual too much and some that favor the community too much. In a healthy society, those discussion are constantly revisited, generally in a sense of compromise But all such decisions are by definition compromises.
No. society exists to DEFEND individual liberty, not take it.
Quote:
All pragmatic achievement requires compromise. The loss of the capacity to compromise is debilitating to the functioning of any society.
No, compromise is the death of society.
Quote:
Cigarette use in a public place is a different issue - since smoke cannot be contained and it is objectionable (for health reasons) to people nearby.
I don't smoke. I hate cigarette smoke. And I still think people should be free to do as they want, including smoking in bars and restaurants, etc. The only place people should not be able to smoke, is places where nobody has a choice about being.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,428,613 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
Marriage is about an individual? Since when?
It's certainly the choice of an individual whom they choose to marry but conservatives would happily act to control the individual's choice, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
What? Explain.
I'd say the right's willingness to give corporations carte blanche to do as they please with no concern for how their actions affect individuals (pollution being a good example) is pretty self-explanatory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
I suspect that's what you'll answer, if I ask you serious questions.
It's certainly the choice of an individual whom they choose to marry but conservatives would happily act to control the individual's choice, eh?
I'm still confused. How is marriage about the individual? There has NEVER been ANY prohibition on marriage... Just a debate about who the state will give legal status. This argument is about who the state chooses to condone and who it doesn't. So, again, how this this about an individual?
Quote:
I'd say the right's willingness to give corporations carte blanche to do as they please with no concern for how their actions affect individuals (pollution being a good example) is pretty self-explanatory.
No, it's not self explanatory. Start explaining, in detail.
Quote:
I suspect you're incorrect
That's your doubt, not mine. I am always correct.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
