unlike the inquitous seatbelt and crash helmet legislation for adults, where no third parties are involved
Of course not.
There are absolutely no extra financial or emotional costs to anybody else whatsoever when people are more seriously injured in road accidents than they would otherwise be, are there.
No more so than when people are more seriously injured than they would otherwise be because they were using a device forced upon them by government legislation which they would not otherwise have been using voluntarily.
Of course there are major collateral effects (financial, emotional or whatever) of injuries/deaths due to not wearing seatbelts or crash helmets - but no different from the collateral consequencies of injuries/deaths associated with smoking, drinking, over-eating, climbing mountains, doing DIY, jumping out of aircraft, gardening, crossing roads etc. etc. etc. - none of which have been outlawed by legistlation.
Precisely. If you start accepting legislation on the basis of such things, then there's practically no limit to how far that principle could be extended since almost every activity has some potential for injury, however small.
So would it also be the government's business to dictate what foods we eat and to mandate a specific diet because the government believes it's a health issue?
Possibly.
So you would actually not be against legislation being passed making it illegal to eat certain foods, or certain quantities of certain foods? You would be happy to see people being prosecuted for the offense of "unhealthy eating" then?
They already do make certain vaccinations compulsory, and rightly so.
Really? What vaccinations do you think are compulsory then?
Feel free to leave the country, you Tea Party nutcase.
Ah, no sensible response so we're back to throwing insults around. Or at least what you believe to be insults, since I have absolutely no problem defending the right of a person to be free from the government trying to force him to do something because, supposedly, it's for his own good.
And it may have the same occupier for the next 30 years. There was a recent thread on another forum about Part M and socket/switch heights, and this same argument was raised (in fact one proponent of Part M even went so far as to try and justify it with the ridiculous claim of "it's not really your house at all").
It's not. It's part of the housing stock of this country.
You're another one? If it's not really your house but belongs the country, then why isn't "the country" paying for its upkeep? If you've paid for it, then of course it's your house. Or do you not believe in property rights either?
I don't believe that what some future owner of the house may want is a valid argument for trying to force things upon the current owner.
I do.
So you think that anything a person does to his house should be done with what some future, as yet unknown, occupier might want? But then I suppose if you're the sort of Socialist who doesn't even think that a person owns a house he's paid for, that's just an extension of the principle.
If somebody thinking about buying that house at some point in the future doesn't like whatever provisions are there - be it the height of the sockets, the way a bathroom fan is controlled, or anything else - then he's perfectly at liberty to change it or to negotiate with the seller to allow for the changes he wants.
I'm sure that there's a cave for you somewhere in the US Mid West where you can hide behind your guns waiting for The Man to come and deprive you of something.
No sensible argument against the point I made then.
To prevent the actions of one person from directly harming another, and to prevent the actions of one person from violating the rights of another, yes. But never under the excuse of it being "for your own good."
Is that not precisely the view I've been expressing?
Yes, although I think you might perhaps put the dividing line between the two cases in a slightly different position than I would.
Do you believe that there should not be any regulation of safety-related matters in buildings? Do you, for example, think the owner of a property should be free to undertake structurally dangerous alterations?
If they do not pose any direct threat to anyone else who has no say in the matter, why not? After all, if a homeowner makes a hash of some basic structural issue in the house and it starts to fall down around him, then how, in basic principle, is that any different from if he doesn't provide proper ventilation and ends up with a condensation-riddled home? If both are considered to be health and safety issues, it's only a matter of degree, surely?
The government should intervene only to the extent necessary to protect the rights of others.
Whilst extractor fans are a piffling example, merely because something is the 'law' does not by default mean it is good, wise, sensible or needed.
Many things might seem to be, or start out as, piffling examples. But when thousands and thousands of such piffling examples of government interference are imposed over the years, we end up in the situation we have today where there are petty regulations trying to manage every aspect of our lives in the minutest detail. The result is just as oppressive as any government which openly declares itself to be a dictatorship.
But then I'm one of those gun-toting, Tea Party nutcases, of course, because I don't believe in the Nanny State trying to dictate everything. And I
have actually lived in the Mid-West.
.
