- Status
Yes, there IS a REAL role for "public health" -- making vaccination MANDATORY as it always has been before, would be an excellent start. Insisting that anyone with any amount of fever stay home and NOT go spread it around their workplace or school would be another. Taking some snakeoil that makes the symptoms less annoying is no substitute for quarantining yourself.
But sticking their busybody noses and fingers into lifestyle choices... nope. No how, no way, they should be prohibited BY LAW from doing that.
Andria
Kent you're surprising me, you're touching Upton's ground.
It's Rand and libertarian ground - I understand how you see it as Upton ground, but there is more to that then just this matter - his socialism, just for an example :- ) For the same reason why Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders could co-sponsor a few bills, is why you're seeing some 'ground/agreement' but beyond certain issues, there is none - just as there were none with Paul and Sanders.
Rand was for no taxes, as am I. If there is true value in gov't's justice, police and military, then people would voluntarily pay for it. Won't be getting into the 'free rider' stuff here, but that isn't a problem when done right. It won't be done tomorrow or within the next decade - unless there's a revolution and even with that, there is no guarantee of the results. A fair or flat tax would be just a start of a steep climb out of the existing scene.
Hmmm... for indoor spaces, yes; even if every word they ever said about 2nd hand smoke is a total lie, tobacco smoke just stinks, and it sticks to everything, and the smell is nearly impossible to remove. Outdoors? Not a single one should stand; it's total nanny-fascism. And especially that crap about "it's our property, so you can't smoke on it." What total BS.
Andria
The problem is that Ayn couldn't figure out how to finance the government without taxes. Upton did (or at least he was able to change the name of taxes to something else), but he ran into a completely different set of problems.
So.... how about I convert you to skepticism?
P.S. I could argue that you are voluntarily paying your taxes. As you perceive value in not having men with guns coming to collect them
So.... how about I convert you to skepticism?
P.S. I could argue that you are voluntarily paying your taxes. As you perceive value in not having men with guns coming to collect them
Well I have to disagree. The total indoors ban can deprive 20% of the population of the use of spaces they paid and keep paying for. Or at least seriously inconvenience them in using them. From a business perspective, it deprives some business owners of 20% of potential customers (and arguably some of the most lucrative ones, see bars or lounges).
P.S. Kent is right, there is no "public" health, there's just individuals, and 20% of them are smoking.
P.P.S. The idea of "fitting" all these various individuals inside one-size-fits-all "public" policy is evocative of Procrustes.
Last edited:
I don't think you can make that case... but here is not the place.
Change the name? Like similar to - from science to 'interventional epidemiology'?
See - he is a socialist. You have to lie about what you're doing, in order to sell it.Hume is who allowed Kant, who in a sense, allowed Sinclair. If you don't understand that, you're not going to 'convert' me to anything.
I thought you meant public spaces. Naturally people should feel free to smoke in their own homes, if they wish to endure the stink -- particularly if it IS *their own home* and not rental property. No one is ever going to get away with telling me what I can and cannot do inside my own home.
Here in GA, anyplace which is forbidden to minors (bars), smoking is allowed -- you have to be 21 to drink, but you can be inside a bar at 18, and you can smoke there, too. Strikes me as a very sensible arrangement. And people think southerners are dumb just because we talk funny.
Andria
One has to wonder what WE could have done with our money
I consider the money OUR money more than most, because it's the money we are/were bullied out of by their phony attempts to get us to quit smoking.
OK, so those ARE public health issues. And vaccinations, and availability of medical care, and plenty of research would qualify, if not corrupted. I am in favor of government being involved in public health, but with a lot more honesty and transparency than what we have anywhere in the world.
Two things - it's the money they take to pay some of their salaries and it is also the money it costs us in the regulations they put on manufacturers and vendors. Some people like that, because they hate business in general, but the actual costs always fall on the consumers and workers. The last - either they're severely misguided or just ignorant of how the market works. Gov't public education both misguides and teaches ignorance of the market.
I think my parenthetical comments are being misread :- ) Quarantine (for the contagious) and inspection of imports so as to not allow diseases/pests into the country is one thing. Availability of medical care is not a gov't function per the constitution. IF any medical care actually harms someone - then it is a justice matter but not a regulatory matter. For as bad a job that gov't has done in all other areas - basically institutionalizing poverty, creating slums, stopping energy production on myths, etc. etc., the last thing I want is for them to involve themselves in medicine or education. They've already made a disaster of both.
As a true skeptic, I will refrain from asserting any claims
“Open Mind” and “Closed Mind”—Ayn Rand Lexicon
Failure or success depends on what you wanted to the results to be. If you wanted to "re-allocate" a whole bunch of money, it was a great success.
Oh, but you can bet that I will actively criticize your assertions....
I'm actually the lesser enemy. I just criticise without pushing any agenda. 'Cause none of Ayn, Upton, and Kropotkin have fully convinced me.
- Status
Similar threads
