Should smoking be illegal?

Ironic given your gullible belief in fake science studies.

 

It is also about freedom and respect for individual liberty. Law on the basis of fallacious utilitarianism is at plague proportions in this nation.

 

Western nations aren't liberal democracies anymore, their legislatures have been taken over by executive power in the form of an all powerful bureaucracy.

 

Put huge taxes on cigarettes then spend the money on everything but health care and research.

 

No less BS than paying cigarette taxes gets 7% interest per year.

 

Very True. Gov't power is supposed to be limited. Almost everyone agrees that it should be limited. When you ask these folks ... OK "What then should this power be limited to" ... what are the limits to Gov't power as per the principles on which this nation was founded ... you get a "deer in headlights" look.

12 years of school and we manage not to teach the basic principles on which this nation was founded.

The reason individual liberty was put "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't was to prevent Gov't from getting too much power. Gov't is not supposed to be able to make any laws - of its own volition - messing with essential liberty.

Enter "Utilitarianism" Justification for law on the basis of "what will increase happiness for the collective". This justification completely ignores individual liberty - as such it allows for an end run around the founding principles.

Example: "If it saves one life" "Harm Reduction" as justification for law.

The problem with this justification is that it sounds good on the surface - "who does not want to save one life" ?

Dig deeper and this is an evil totalitarian justification. If "if it saves one life" is valid justification for law - should we not then ban skiing (or mountain climbing as you pointed out) tomorrow ? Would this not save one life ?

What about boating - that is really dangerous - one could drown. Driving a car? forget it. In fact one should probably not rise from bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck.

In a free society one has the freedom to risk a reasonable amount of harm to oneself. Full Stop.

 

We do thru higher health insurance premiums.

 

For sure ... and the right as well. The Establishment (which is both red and blue) loves big Gov't and big Gov't spending. If they had put the interest from SS back into SS - instead of into general revenue - that program would be self sustaining.

Up unto 3 or 4 years ago the program was in the black. Now with the baby boomers hitting retirement this program will eat into revenue and this eating will increase over the next decade.

 

What are you talking about ... your sentence makes no sense.

 

If the government stopped the $20+ Billion in fraud in Medicare and the additional $20+ billion fraud in Medicaid there would be plenty of money to take better care of folks. It's money wasted and we still supply the care anyway, so we're paying double. We must end the notion that stealing from the Government is a victimless crime.

 

It is the Gov't that is doing the stealing.

 

7% is a realistic rate of return ... what part of this do you not understand ?

 

I think that having one big jurisdiction with our view of freedom is never going to work. This is why I support local autonomy and sovereignty closer to communities.

The problem we are facing is simple: consolidation. The left and right both touch on this in different ways.

The left sees corporations consolidating power, and they're right. I feel this is due to collusion with the state, but that's another story.

The right sees governments consolidating and becoming more centralised. This takes power away from local communities and individuals.

This is the issue of our epoch. Since 1787. It's only going to accelerate.

 

I call it the "Oligopoly-Bureaucracy Fusion Monster" and am writing a book on the topic. Extreme Capitalism and extreme Socialism (totalitarian communism for example) meet at the far end of the spectrum. In both cases you have a few elite owning most resources and means of production.

Somehow we have managed to take some of the worst of both and combine them into an ugly monster - but I digress.

Regardless of whether it is the Federal, State, or Municipal Gov't - all are supposed to respect the founding principle - 1) "individual liberty is ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't. The Gov't is not supposed to make law outside its legitimate purview .. that purview is protection from direct harm - one person on another - rape, murder, theft and so on.

2) the authority of Gov't comes from "we the people/consent of the governed" as opposed to divine right/God as was the case in the past.

50+1 / Simple majority mandate is NOT sufficient to make law. This was termed in both Classical Liberalism and Republicanism as "Tyranny of the Majority". If SSM was sufficient - there would be no point in putting individual liberty "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't. It is this principle which defines a constitutional republic.

If Gov't wants to make law messing with essential liberty it must appeal to change the social contract - construct by which authority is given to Gov't. The bar is "overwhelming majority" .. at least 2/3rds. In the case of a constitutional change 75% of states is required.

This is the overriding principle on which law is supposed to be made in this nation. It is not that Gov't has to go to the people to make every law .. in some cases overwhelming majority can be assumed. How many people think Murder should be legal ? How many think pedophilia or beastiality should be legal ?

Look at the case of Pot vs Meth. Good luck getting an overwhelming majority to agree that Pot is such a threat to society that the Gov't must be given power to punish - use physical violence to stop people from engaging in that activity.

In the case of Meth - a different story. I think 2/3rds would be an easy bar to hit.

Regardless .. be it murder, rape or Pot, the bar is no different. If Gov't thinks some action is such a threat of harm to society .. then it should have no problem getting an overwhelming majority to agree.

 

Why can't Nevada have legal pot and Arizona have 20 years prison? One size fits all central policy is the issue.

There's no reason why people everywhere can't be happy. I don't understand the impulse to crush as many people as possible into a single state.

Citizens of New York can have their tobacco bans and sin taxes, citizens of Nevada can have their smoking in bars and casinos.

Local autonomy is (almost) all that matters. A decentralised system can handle a few Hitlers or Stalins here or there. A centralised system cannot.

 

Theoretically they could but - this would be a pretty obvious violation of the Rule of Law - punishment is supposed to fit the crime.

I agree in general with your point. The natural tendency of Gov't is to increased its power. The founders set up a system that was supposed to prevent this from happening. For 200 years Gov't has been trying to get power back .. and it has succeeded.

 

Well DUH! All insurance premiums subsidize risk and losses. Always have and always will. It is the foundation of insurance.

 

The founders set up such a system and then 10 years later abolished it and created a Federal state with considerably stronger unitary powers.

 

Are you referring to the time between the signing of the declaration of independence and the constitution ?

 

Yes.

 

With Medicare and Medicaid there is $20+ BILLION EACH in provider fraud every year. The Hobbs Act put the skids on bandits like Pretty Boy Floyd, John Dillenger and Baby Face Nelson, it made what they did a MANDATORY 30 year prison sentence. We need to do the same for Medicare/Medicaid fraud, if a person is caught and convicted, a mandatory 45 year sentence is in order. Send 5 or 10 fraudsters up the river for 45 highly publicize years and watch the fraud drop like a brick.

 

Then you agree people who engage in high risk behavior should pay higher premiums?

 

I agree but, this was not the intent of the founders. All the time I hear people claiming "the Constitution this, the Constitution that". The Constitution never was intended to include all laws and cover all things.

The constitution and law are supposed to be interpreted on the basis of the founding principles - given in the Declaration of Independence (DOI).

By definition a "constitutional republic" is a system where the Constitution - and the founding principles/ individual liberty are above the legitimate authority of Gov't. It is supposed to be a built in mechanism to control the power of Gov't.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=cons...7j35i39j0l4.6630j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

As was trotted out previously - Both Classical Liberalism and Republicanism are in firm agreement in relation to "Tyranny of the Majority" = 50+1/ Simple Majority Mandate (SMM)

Simply put - If SMM is enough for Gov't to make law that messes with essential liberty - we no longer have a Constitutional Republic ... FULL STOP.

Yet - here we are The question is how our Judicial system managed to become so perverted. It is not like every constitutional scholar does not realize this. What happened IMO - is that Judges were appointed on the basis of their willingness to "overlook" the founding principles or that the political conditions were such that at some points in time SCOTUS consisted of people that - just as a function of their own personal beliefs - were willing to overlook these principles.

However it happened - it happened. These Justices then made rulings that while in violation of the founding principles - became precedent. Then .. instead of referring back to the founding principles ... later justices referred to bad precedent and thus the plague spread. More bad law on the basis of bad law.

How many times do we hear Politicians speak on the basis of having "a mandate". "The people have spoken" This sentence alone is a violation of the oath they are sworn to protect .. to uphold the constitution/ which includes the founding principles.

Since - through 12 years of school we no longer manage to teach kids the basic principles on which our Gov't was founded. The raging masses do not know any better.

12 years of school and we manage not to teach the basics of Philosophy - Logic, Logical Fallacy, What constitutes a valid argument, critical thinking - as is so evident via the posts of so many on PF.

Without these basic tools - how is the average voter supposed to wade through the cacophony of fallacy and bad argument raining down on them on a daily basis from Politicians and the MSM ?

Without an understanding of the "BASIC" principles ... not talking getting in deep - just the basics- and without a basic understanding of the Philosophical topics mentioned above there is no such thing as a functional democratic process in keeping with a constitutional republic.

 

They can, move to states where what makes them happy is allowed.