h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Casinos.
Cannabis.
Seat-belts and lifejackets.
...

>... government.... save us... <




Like they, and the multinational corporations which finance them, really care


Our society is ed

Unfortunately, governments are, also

To the same extent that they fund welfare and healthcare through taxation.


I'm not sure on the casino front mainly because it is not clear why GB has changed tack. As for the other two they are clear examples of successful lifesaving measures.

turvy

I dunno, I had an argument with a mate once when I was incredulous that there was a proposal to ban gold top milk. Reason? The chance of food poisoning was higher because it wasn't pasteurised or otherwise sterilised.* He seemed to think that this was perfectly reasonable case for government intervention to protect us.

So is this a reasonable case then, as my mate thought. Is this a reasonable extent of governmental protection?

* for non UKers gold top milk is the stuff that comes straight from the cow.

Not at all reasonable. Especially when contrasted with the simple health warnings added to the packaging of tobacco.

The government has a *responsibility* to save us from ourselves. Some of are (whisper it) not that smart. Some of us are so stupid we inhale carcinogenic chemicals deliberately. Some of us are so stupid we pay out many pounds a week to play a game where the odds of winning are slimmer than the odds of dying before the game is played.

Without government intervention, people would drive cars which were unsafe, uninsured, too fast. We'd then have to pay out to scrape these people off the side of trees, etc.

So yes, it doesn't just have the right, it has a responsibility. Where that ends is a moot point. I'd say it ends at the point where your choice to do something doesn't affect anyone else in any way. Try that principle on for size...

SoRB

So you must have good brakes, but must you wear a seatbelt?

but is it a responsibility that it can ever meet?

Currently trying to think of a decision or action of mine which does not affect anyone else in anyway. And I ain;t doing to well at the moment.

The government often at our request acts on the ones with the most broadly applicable and strongest in negative effects.

The rules governing our lives have allegedly got worse, more onerous under the EU but have they really? I think it would be terrible to live in a country where you could be locked up by the powers tht be for practising an unauthorised religion. Druidry never affected me, well it makes me laugh sometimes, but other than that it hasn't hurt me. We no longer urge the government for a wholesale ban on this personal habit and even if we did the EU coourt would proabably over rule anything like that. Infact since the EU came into power the government has had to do things to ensure personal freedoms for people in ways which it never had to before.

"but is it a responsibility that it can ever meet?
We do seem to like the government acting to attempt to prevent people smoking in public buildings and carrying handguns. They are not 100% percent successful but just like with a baby going through potty training you do appreciate the effort and really like it when they do get it right.

one love

So you'd see this posited responsibility to stop us doing stupid things as an ideal the govt. should aspire to but not one it can ever really fully meet?

I await an alcohol ban with interest.

Been tried already
The remedy had worse side-effects than the problem

I don't believe the government has the right to save us from ourselves. I smoke and drink and that is not something the government should ban. Then again they have a duty to protect others from me so I have no problems with the smoking ban or drink driving laws.

Also I don't believe the government should be encouraging foolish behaviour by running a lottery.