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.
This form of behavior by mobs is nothing new. The founders knew it and warned of it. As predicted as individual rights are eroding away to serve the self interest of the majority. They will destroy right after right proclaiming they can achieve that "perfect" society, but it won't be one of free will, rather a dictated ideal to which those in the majority will rewrite to fit their ever changing moods. This will go on until either civil conflict is severe or those freedoms are narrowed so far that it sets the stage for the dissolving of government to form a single power to which all will serve.
It will be at that time that these idiots who were complaining about every little thing that annoys them realize what they have done and they will have to then shed blood to obtain those freedoms they so easily threw away. Though it will not be them that must carry this burden, but their children.
When that day comes, may the children sully the graves of those who contributed to the chains that bound them.
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.
A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
Your sarcasm was not witty. The thread is about smoking! Smokers always try to bring everything else under the sun into the conversation to deflect away from talking about smoking.
Plus, it is in the TOS that posters are to stay ON TOPIC!
I am staying on topic. The topic was if an additional tax would cause smokers to quit, and if so, is it right to tax something (as a punishment) to get people to quit. Which corresponds to an argument of rights, government control, and examples of these from other realms, not just smoking.
Again, it's called analysis, my dear. If you don't like it, you're free to not participate. However, you'll probably try to ban it with the pattern I see here.
Well, ask yourself a question: why is your city set up in such a way that you NEED a car (or you are convinced you do)? Have you ever asked yourself that? Maybe because you got yourself into this mess asking the government to build more roads instead of rails and busses. Maybe because you spread out your urban areas to cause this. Maybe because YOU GOT ADDICTED TO THE CAR! Oh my, you got yourself addicted and now you're asking ME to pay for YOUR convenience even though I don't get that same convenience? I have to pay taxes to support your habit? I and the rest of the world have to suffer the negatives of your convenience/addiction? However, if someone smokes around you, they're affecting YOU and you need to ban them from smoking in public because it affects you? Hypocrisy at its finest, and you don't even realize it. As I said, let's ban those autos and restructure society to use mass-transit and walking. It might be hard at first, but you'll be better off for it and so will the rest of us not driving.
Dude, seriously, an awesome argument. Thank you! I have hit my forehead so many times when I hear about how more money is going towards roads & NOT towards mass transit. Today, I waited for half an hour for the bus to come, this was during PEAK commute time, at 4:30-5:00....in DOWNTOWN no less! I was more than pissed, to say the least. More needs to be given towards mass transit, I seriously can NOT understand the blacklash towards this. I guess if you live in very rural areas, then it doesn't make sense. But for larger cities like the one I live in? Yeah, it's imperative & for some reason, my state has their ass still in the Dark Ages...too afraid of change. It might huuuurrrrt them, chaaange is baaaad!
I just heard something on a local radio station this morning, the DJ's were talking to someone (have no idea who it was), & they were talking about using helmets w/motorcycles. Now, I happen to think it's a good idea to wear a helmet while riding, however their guest was mentioning how some doctors have stated "if that guy would've been wearing a helmet, he'd be dead right now" & also talking about the weight of a helmet in connection w/hitting the pavement & the angle that your head takes while using a helmet, thus causing a broken neck. He's got a good point, as some people like to talk about how sometimes not wearing a seatbelt could save your life in certain instances, but I have to say, I'd rather be wearing the helmet.
Yep, there are cases where in some situations the "required law" would have contributed to a fatality. It isn't common, but it seems like that "choice" or rather "freedom of choice" should be left to the person and not to some faction or mob to decide.
I just heard something on a local radio station this morning, the DJ's were talking to someone (have no idea who it was), & they were talking about using helmets w/motorcycles. Now, I happen to think it's a good idea to wear a helmet while riding, however their guest was mentioning how some doctors have stated "if that guy would've been wearing a helmet, he'd be dead right now" & also talking about the weight of a helmet in connection w/hitting the pavement & the angle that your head takes while using a helmet, thus causing a broken neck. He's got a good point, as some people like to talk about how sometimes not wearing a seatbelt could save your life in certain instances, but I have to say, I'd rather be wearing the helmet.
The majority of doctors believe in wearing helmets even when riding a bicycle. The arguments that radio guest presented against helmets are nonsense. So are most arguments against seat belts.
However, it does ease some of the masses out there. I don't want to take that from them. I mean, really, would you want to make smoking illegal, have a black market for it, bootlegging, gangsters declaring their "territory" on neighborhoods, etc. etc. on top of dealing with ex-smokers who are either a) so pompous about how they quit and everyone else is scum or b) extremely irritable? I've delt with b before when it was their choice... don't want to deal with it when it's not.
Again, mass transit does what you want with much less consequences. Sure, isn't AS GOOD as your car, but it does the job. Even in my city, Atlanta, where mass transit is lacking, I'm still able to use it for everyday life. I don't have a car in the "most auto-dependent city on earth." However, for YOUR convenience, you'd much rather take the car instead of the train or bus, even if it causes pollution and smog. Not for the benefit of society, but for YOUR benefit.
Well, ask yourself a question: why is your city set up in such a way that you NEED a car (or you are convinced you do)? Have you ever asked yourself that? Maybe because you got yourself into this mess asking the government to build more roads instead of rails and busses. Maybe because you spread out your urban areas to cause this. Maybe because YOU GOT ADDICTED TO THE CAR! Oh my, you got yourself addicted and now you're asking ME to pay for YOUR convenience even though I don't get that same convenience? I have to pay taxes to support your habit? I and the rest of the world have to suffer the negatives of your convenience/addiction? However, if someone smokes around you, they're affecting YOU and you need to ban them from smoking in public because it affects you? Hypocrisy at its finest, and you don't even realize it. As I said, let's ban those autos and restructure society to use mass-transit and walking. It might be hard at first, but you'll be better off for it and so will the rest of us not driving.
Do you drive a car? Answer honestly! As I said last night, cars would only be replaced with buses, which also pollute, so I don't get your point.
Yep, there are cases where in some situations the "required law" would have contributed to a fatality. It isn't common, but it seems like that "choice" or rather "freedom of choice" should be left to the person and not to some faction or mob to decide.
I guess where it should be considered a good thing to have it as law would be in terms of passengers, those who don't have a say. Kids, too.
Katiana, I don't know how you can debate with someone when you don't read what they have to say. Know thine opponent. You keep bringing up pollution from buses and cars, when I went into detail about the other consequences, be they political, environmental, cultural, or economic.
Now is smoking good for you? No. Is it someone's right to poison their body as they see fit? You betcha! Is it your right to leave an establishment that encourages smoking? DING DING DING! Is it your right to get a government to tell a restaurant how to run their establishment? I think not. Unfortunately, it's done under the guise of "Interstate Commerce." Also, if you have the right to drive a car, then a smoker has the right to pollute the air as well. Sorry, but the whole "one has more benefit on society" is bull****. The car's effect on American politics has caused a system of spread out metropoli through the building of freeways (bet you didn't know Ford and GM helped pass the Eisenhower Interstate Highway Act). This system has had a profound impact on keeping the poor poor, extreme urban decay and rising upkeep costs on expanded urban areas, our social interactions (in America, it's common for neighbors to fear neighbors and neighbors to knock on door before entering... in other countries, this is not so), limiting transportation options, and even on our foreign policy (we are considered allies with many middle eastern nations and oil rich nations, despite the fact that many of them are hostile towards us or have less-than-stellar human rights records). We've had wars over the oil used for our industrial and transportation needs (much of that oil is wasted due to congestion, another problem with the car-system of America). So, tell me, are you ready to ban cars so we can have better foreign policy, or does the benefit of convenience still outweigh the detrimental consequences?
Here it is in case you don't want to go back a few pages...
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.
