If I had a friend doing the tanning thing, I'd probably not make disapproving noises once informedness was established - but would mention that the habit made me sad on a purely selfish level, because the it meant I was likely to enjoy her company in this life for less time. (This is what I do for, eg, the thankfully-few friends of mine who smoke.)
Speeding laws and no-talking-on-cellphone laws and inspection laws I'm all fine with, because if some risk-taker loses control on the road, they're not the only one who'll be hurt. Seatbelt laws... sit on an uncomfortable border for me. Wearing a seatbelt doesn't decrease anyone else's injury risk. But it does decrease the risk that someone else will have to live with having killed you. Is that enough of a basis to mandate government interference?
In lots of given instances, I often lean towards accepting limitations on my own choices if statistically speaking, lives are going to be saved.
Yeah. When I look at things in microscale, I completely understand, but in the large, I find that sort of leaning incredibly dangerous. Where does one stop with "for your own good" laws?
However, under the single-payer system, although I think your concern about the argument being brought up is valid, I don't think that argument itself is logical.
My fear is that it would be invoked for the most "obviously risky" behaviors first, then slowly expand in scope. But the long-life-costs-more argument is a good point. And thanks for the link!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-04-16 07:36 pm (UTC)Speeding laws and no-talking-on-cellphone laws and inspection laws I'm all fine with, because if some risk-taker loses control on the road, they're not the only one who'll be hurt. Seatbelt laws... sit on an uncomfortable border for me. Wearing a seatbelt doesn't decrease anyone else's injury risk. But it does decrease the risk that someone else will have to live with having killed you. Is that enough of a basis to mandate government interference?
In lots of given instances, I often lean towards accepting limitations on my own choices if statistically speaking, lives are going to be saved.
Yeah. When I look at things in microscale, I completely understand, but in the large, I find that sort of leaning incredibly dangerous. Where does one stop with "for your own good" laws?
However, under the single-payer system, although I think your concern about the argument being brought up is valid, I don't think that argument itself is logical.
My fear is that it would be invoked for the most "obviously risky" behaviors first, then slowly expand in scope. But the long-life-costs-more argument is a good point. And thanks for the link!