Discuss the above statement, free choice of opinions welcome. Some context.

http://truth11.com/2009/04/09/quote-tool-its-not-a-war-on-drugs-its-a-war-on-personal-freedom-its-what-it-is-ok-keep-that-in-mind-at-all-times-thank-you/

“Its not a war on drugs, its a war on personal freedom its what it is ok. Keep that in mind at all times. Thank you.”

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/09/13/bloombergs-war-on-individual-freedom-soda-ban-obesity/

Today New York City’s Board of Health approved a ban on the sale of large sodas and sugary drinks in many establishments. It is, as the New York Times pointed out, the first such law enacted in the country. The intent of this initiative pursued by Mayor Michael Bloomberg is to combat the epidemic of obesity in this country. But good intentions have always paved the road to hell or, more important, the path to tyranny. Bloomberg is right to say that New Yorkers ought to be watching their diets. He’s dead wrong in attempting to use the ubiquitous power of the state to impose his ideas about what they should be eating and drinking on them.


http://www.examiner.com/article/the-war-on-salt-and-personal-freedom-heats-up

The dark forces of big government may have won the first round, with H. J. Heinz Company's capitulation to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's demands to cut the salt in its world-famous ketchup. The war, however, is just getting started.

Food giant Cargill has mounted a massive information campaign intended to educate the public on the grim realities of saltless or significantly salt-reduced food. For the campaign, which has been dubbed Salt 101, the company has enlisted the services of Food Network celebrity cook Alton Brown, who in a video describes salt as "a pretty amazing compound.”


http://lettingfreedomring.com/2012/02/25/obamas-war-on-individual-liberty/

The mandate drafted under Obamacare which forces church organizations to purchase health-care policies that provide for contraceptives and sterilization and abortifacient pills is just one small step toward Barack Obama’s hard-left goal of establishing a centrally planned society. The effect of the health-care mandates is more far-reaching than even critics first reported.




Edited by wamackie: 2/1/2014 02:49:56 AM

I don't think that's quite what he was referring to. In fact I think he'd probably ridicule you for quoting him in reference to fucking soda.

Bit harsh Afro :lol:

My view of the issue is that if you are unable to make responsible choices for your own health, someone should have the ability to step in and make them for you.

To the contrary, that philosophy contradicts the entire premise of darwinism and survival of the fittest.

Besides, placing limitations on the size of soda servings is the very definition of a nanny state.

Great topic and there are dozens of examples where the State intervenes 'for the better good'. Many instances they make a significant impact with limited to no inconvenience on the individual... then there are just as many where intervention causes more harm than good.

Individualism vs Universalism... neither shall be perfect and the middle ground varies from person to person (Government to Government). It's fair to say we are more regulated than we've ever been but we also have access to more freedoms than we ever have too. Though they may be taxed more these freedoms generally exist more for people with greater dispensable income. Essentially the less money you have the more the Government will wish to dictate how you live... just ask our friends in Northern Territory where Government Intervention extends to almost every facet of their life...

Could someone run a poll on individualism vs universalism here?

Obviously I'm very much in the individualist camp.

I don't think you understand the concept of natural selection if you are using this as an example. What a shocker.

I don't think you understand the concept of natural selection if you are of the opinion it doesn't apply to people.

If you wish to be part of society, you are expected to adhere to societies rules, the notion of 'freedom' be it freedom of speech or otherwise is a myth

What's Obamacare ever done for ME!?

Natural selection isn't solely about the traits of individuals, though. It also relies on the group to pull each other through so that there is a selection at the end.

My family have genes similar enough to be almost identical to mine. From a natural selection point of view it is logical that I help them survive to have the highest possible chance of reproducing so that in the future, if I don't reproduce, there are as many of those genes as possible.

In this case to me it can go both ways. Controlling individuals to make sure they have the greatest chance of reproducing is logical in a species view of natural selection until the point humans become too successful at reproducing and cause a catastrophic demise due to overpopulation.

In this circumstance though these people are simply the slowest buffalo in the herd. Futhermore it controls population growth.

Wake Up Australia! The very example on why I set this thread up (good responses so far too, by the way!) is right in front of us, how is the below example not infringing on our personal rights and liberties? You guy sin Vic are half asleep! (which is true all the time, but especially more this time)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/police-want-courts-to-ban-soccer-louts/story-e6frg6n6-1226794601223

POLICE will push for court-ordered red cards for soccer hooligans in Victoria after the game's governing body introduced unprecedented new penalties for clubs that fail to control feral fans.

Victorian courts will be asked to use their powers to ban convicted A-League troublemakers from all major sports events, in addition to nationwide soccer bans issued by Football Federation Australia.

Insp Geoff Colsell said officers would be instructed to put together briefs of evidence against troublemakers and ask magistrates to impose prohibition conditions with their sentences.

He said prosecutors would seek five-year bans from attending matches.

The Full article:




Edited by wamackie: 4/1/2014 04:45:30 PM

Victoria seems to be the State for silently updating Laws, my god, you guys are asleep down there!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/vic-principals-to-get-more-expulsion-power/story-fn3dxiwe-1226794814934

VICTORIAN school principals will be given more discretion to suspend and expel misbehaving students, the state government says.

Education Minister Martin Dixon said a new ministerial order would simplify the process for suspension and expulsion, as well as creating an expert group to help principals where needed.

New grounds for suspension and expulsion - including bringing weapons to school and dangerous behaviour - have been added to the guidelines.

The new regulations mean a meeting between the student, a parent and the school must take place before an expulsion can take place, Mr Dixon said.

"Suspensions and expulsions are the absolute last resort when it comes to a schools disciplinary tools," he said on Saturday.

"The new ministerial order simplifies the process and gives school principals, who know their students best and who are accountable to their parents and the local community, the ability to make the decisions themselves."

Don't really mind if it kicks the shitheads (who won't use their subsidized education in the future) out of school.

Ehhhh I hate the American attitude of "it's my right to.... (insert whatever American person wants to do)". So pig headed and narrow minded.
It's almost as repulsive as 'multiple truths'.


Facism is harshly done by these days.

Why are the people who want to legalise marijuana the same kind of people who want to restrict the sale of fast food products?

For the same reason people who complain about 'big government' dicating to them and then complain there should be law against homosexuality and whatnot.

I kind of understand this but would like to elaborate...

Freedom exists within the limitations and expectations of your environment. This begins at childhood. Your parents set expectations upon you as a youngster which determines how much personal freedom you enjoy in the home/family unit. Some may enjoy more freedom others less but those restrictions are a literal example of paternalism... and most would agree with it as a principle as nobody would suggest that a 6 year old even a 10-year old should be able to write their own rules. What then for an adult living under your parents roof... no doubt there is still an expectation to follow certain 'rules'.

Schools, Workplaces, Sports Clubs etc all have their expectations so as to both maintain standards but to also (some might say primarily) to maintain order. In each of these institutions just as in broader society there needs to be a mechanism for people to challenge these expectations... much like a teenager challenges their parents (in various ways).

Where I have a problem with universalism/paternalism is when a Government/institution not only clamps down on the capacity to negotiate agreed rules/expectations but increases their penalty (generally financial but not always) for contravening these rules without negotiation. I am further infuriated when the expectation (or even the penalty) are not standard across sectors of the community - a nod once more to my comments earlier regarding the NT intervention.

As a member of a society we should have the capacity to challenge, to create the society that reflects the rules that enable us to live our lives without onerous intervention. For some this means they want increased Gov't punishment (you often hear calls for capital punishment for certain crimes) ironically its often the same people that decry our nanny state...

It's not simple enough to say an individual should have full control of their own destiny but the opposite (in my opinion) is worse - George Orwell's 1984 explores this brilliantly.

Freedom is a myth. There's no such thing as freedom. You're always governed by some kind of constraints. So it comes down to your own definition of freedom. And often people's definition of freedom is either impossible or absurd.

You guys are still asleep. wake up!

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/proposal-people-tattoos-go-police-register/1855284/

TATTOOED Queenslanders would have to register their ink with the State Government under a radical proposal from a Gold Coast MP to crack down on bikie gang money-laundering operations.

However, a leading civil libertarian has already raised concerns about the plan, saying it would unfairly label people as criminals.

Mermaid Beach MP Ray Stevens said bikie gangs were using tattoo parlours as a front to launder their ill-gotten gains, and a form of tattoo register would stop them using fake names and inflated tattoo prices to do this.

Mr Stevens said fake names were used at bikie-affiliated parlours, with cash payments of thousands of dollars for bogus tattoo work.

"Under the Health Act there should be a register of people getting tattoos so that we can identify those people getting tattoos rather than have John Smith, Bill Brown and all the other fake names of people who are paying $5000 or $10,000 for tattoos. This is a way for these bikie clubs to clean their money," he said.

Government is using legislation like this to crack down on your freedoms. Wake up Australia. Ina city of 4.5 mill, you're bound to get a few morons. Live with it. Do't legislate against it.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/no-more-drinks-after-3am-as-barry-ofarrell-introduces-crackdown/story-fni0cx4q-1226806663289

No more drinks after 3am as Barry O'Farrell introduces crackdown
ANDREW CLENNELL STATE POLITICAL EDITOR THE DAILY TELEGRAPH JANUARY 21, 2014 11:56AM

Lockouts in CBD and King's Cross from 1.30am, pubs to shut by 3am
While some will oppose measures, 'tough action is needed'
Small bars will be exempt from measures
Mandatory 8-year minimum sentences for 'coward punches'
Massive victory for Daily Telegraph campaign

Lockouts will be put in place across the central business district and Kings Cross at 1.30am - with pubs to shut at 3am - under measures announced by
Premier Barry O'Farrell this morning.

New measures: Barry O'Farrell

The Premier said many would oppose the action but "tough action is needed".

As foreshadowed in The Daily Telegraph today, those guilty of coward punches causing death who are affected by drugs or alcohol will receive a mandatory minimum sentence of eight years with a maximum penalty of 25 years.

Small bars will be exempt from the lockouts.

Responsible service of alcohol online training will be suspended and voluntary intoxication will be removed as a mitigating factor in sentencing.

The maximum sentence for the illegal supply and possession of steroids will be increased from two years to 25 years to bring it in line with Victoria.

Assault occasioning bodily harm where drugs and alcohol are involved will carry a two year mandatory minimum penalty, with reckless wounding in company containing a mandatory minimum of four years' jail.
Sexual assault will have a mandatory minimum of five years and affray four years if alcohol or drugs are involved.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF O'FARRELL'S CRACKDOWN? DID HE GO TOO FAR OR NOT FAR ENOUGH?

LET US KNOW BELOW

Assault causing bodily harm in company will contain a mandatory minimum of three years and assault against police officers in the execution of duty will contain a two year mandatory minimum sentence.

Police will be empowered to conduct drug and alcohol testing where police suspect an offender has committed an alcohol or drug fuelled violent assault.

Mr O'Farrell has been under pressure to introduce mandatory minimums for "coward punch" offences and to bring in Newcastle-style 1am lockouts to stem the violence in Sydney particularly in Kings Cross.

Yesterday Mr O'Farrell held one of the longest cabinet meetings in his time in office - about five hours - to deal with the issue. He said he was "confident the package being taken to cabinet addresses community concerns and will make a difference".



Edited by wamackie: 21/1/2014 01:37:15 PM

Ah, reactionary, populist legislation that does nothing to fix the actual problem but gets headlines and inconveniences millions of innocent people. Business as usual.

Small bars will be exempt from lock-outs, venues with 24 hour licences will be exempt because they're essentially untouchable, and any other venue is going to be forced to shut at 3am when their licence ends anyway. So that's nothing new.

The lock-outs didn't work in Melbourne, they won't work in Sydney either.

Let's lock out all the drunk people out on the street away from security cameras and bouncers with no public transport to get home, what could possibly go wrong?

Governments actually think like this.

Not quite. What they're thinking is "ALCOHOL IS THE PROBLEM! STOP THEM FROM HAVING MORE ALCOHOL!!" assuming that will force them to go home even though there's no way for them to get there.

This is legislation being made by people who have never been out after 11pm on a Saturday night and have absolutely no understanding of how nightlife, nightclub culture and the general public works.

This. "I have a diseeeease!"


A beer never punched anyone in the head.



This too. They also never worked a late or nightshift to find they don't have access to a knockoff beer.

Best part about all this legislation is how little it will really do. Of the top 25 most violent pubs and clubs in NSW, only 3 will be affected by this legislation.

Just personally, it is because of government intervention that I have as much freedom as I do. I wouldn't have the freedom to choose what degree I wanted to enrol in if it wasn't for government subsidies. Being able to get into the career of my choice instead of being forced into the first job I could get just to get by is something I appreciate. Hell I wouldn't have as great a freedom of movement if it was not for public transport, where I travel 5 hours a day travelling to uni and back.

I understand government action inhibits freedoms a lot of the time, but when they strive to achieve the goal of providing equality of opportunity for all they can increase the freedom for those who are not privileged.