quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Spoken like a genuine bona-fade authoritarian commie pinko Canadian. Constitutional government is based on the premise of limiting government interference, and assumes that the primary role of government is to prevent interference by other people or governments.

Haha, and this is such B/S too. Do you really believe it's in the government's best interest to limit their own power? [Re: emergency acts of government like the patriot act]. Such noble words of limiting their sphere of influence is just to dissuade the nieve from the the notion that they are not 'free' to do what they choose. The simple fact is, we are under the rule of a governing body, whether we want to admit it or not, they are interfering in our lives. Sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, but they are there to interfere. It's their job.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 The war on drugs is not just education but heavy handed laws to go with it.

fine. There are laws that go along with the war on drugs. It doesn't change my point on their education campaign, stop arguing semantics.

quote:

As i said, education is about as far as anyone should go government or otherwise and you completely missed my point that you should have control over your own behaviour when it only adversely affects yourself.

no, I got your point, but I've ignored it. Because I'm writing in this thread not to attack your position on the tax, I'm here attacking the way you've presented your argument. Vis-a-vis, the 'education is as far as it should go' statement.

The second the government assumes the role of educator is the second that they add their own bias to an issue at hand. To become educator is to take on another role of trust where those being 'educated' entrust the government to help shape their minds on an issue. The problem is by doing this, you take away the ability for the public to fight back, to question the choice the government has made for them. How long would it be before government 'education' would lead to public support of bills like this? Education is a slippery slope to further government control.

Or, one could argue the other side of the point about the economics of the situation, and say one dollar gained from a tax on soft drinks saves 10, or 15, down the line in health care costs. Whatever the case may be, there are a multitude of of different positions, each having their own strong and weak points of contention.

My problem is not the issue, but simply the way Jay has made a sweeping generalized statement about how far a government should go without any reasoning behind it in it's defense. So it's not that I question the tax for or against, it's I question the way Jay has presented his argument. Because at first read it came off with more than a little 'more righteous than thou' sentiment. And I don't think I'm alone in this.

___________________
Not Everyone Understands House Music, It's a Spiritual Thing, a Body Thing, a Soul Thing

quote:

Originally posted by Sly_Guy Haha, and this is such B/S too. Do you really believe it's in the government's best interest to limit their own power? [Re: emergency acts of government like the patriot act].

Of course it's not.

That's why we have a constitution, that the government MUST (or rather, is supposed to) adhere to.

That constitution is specifically designed to LIMIT the power that our government has over us.

Do you even understand how the system works? Or do you just run around staring blankly at walls until the government tells you what to do?

___________________
Captain Planet is gey.
Water, Fire, Earth, Wind, Heart???
These forces are supposed to combine to create Captain Planet?
Bullshit.
Those forces combine to create a soaking, boiling mudstorm on Valentine's Day.

___________________
http://soundcloud.com/andrewmcdonell

Obama isn't the first, and surely won't be the last.

quote:

Originally posted by Sly_Guy Haha, and this is such B/S too. Do you really believe it's in the government's best interest to limit their own power? [Re: emergency acts of government like the patriot act]. Such noble words of limiting their sphere of influence is just to dissuade the nieve from the the notion that they are not 'free' to do what they choose. The simple fact is, we are under the rule of a governing body, whether we want to admit it or not, they are interfering in our lives. Sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, but they are there to interfere. It's their job. fine. There are laws that go along with the war on drugs. It doesn't change my point on their education campaign, stop arguing semantics. no, I got your point, but I've ignored it. Because I'm writing in this thread not to attack your position on the tax, I'm here attacking the way you've presented your argument. Vis-a-vis, the 'education is as far as it should go' statement. The second the government assumes the role of educator is the second that they add their own bias to an issue at hand. To become educator is to take on another role of trust where those being 'educated' entrust the government to help shape their minds on an issue. The problem is by doing this, you take away the ability for the public to fight back, to question the choice the government has made for them. How long would it be before government 'education' would lead to public support of bills like this? Education is a slippery slope to further government control. Or, one could argue the other side of the point about the economics of the situation, and say one dollar gained from a tax on soft drinks saves 10, or 15, down the line in health care costs. Whatever the case may be, there are a multitude of of different positions, each having their own strong and weak points of contention. My problem is not the issue, but simply the way Jay has made a sweeping generalized statement about how far a government should go without any reasoning behind it in it's defense. So it's not that I question the tax for or against, it's I question the way Jay has presented his argument. Because at first read it came off with more than a little 'more righteous than thou' sentiment. And I don't think I'm alone in this.

So let me see if i get this straight. You think that PSAs and government sponsored education campaigns are brainwashing and a slippery slope to government control (which i agree with if not done properly) but think that the government should instead be modifying people's behaviour directly? You think that the role of government is to be a direct interference in our lives?

I have no problem with PSAs if they are based in fact and presented in a non partisan way. In fact i encourage it. Id love to see a world without smoking or ill health etc. But at the end of the day, people should be allowed to choose what they wish to consume without government intervention such as taxes and bans.

You want to smoke? Get the info first. Decide... then if u still want to smoke.. SMOKE YOUR BRAINS OUT! Same thing for pop.

And if using the socialized health system as an excuse to control people's behaviour as you have done, then id argue against socialized medicine.

We either help EVERYONE regardless of lifestyle choice or we dont help anyone. Simple.

quote:

Originally posted by Sly_Guy ... My problem is not the issue, but simply the way Jay has made a sweeping generalized statement about how far a government should go without any reasoning behind it in it's defense. So it's not that I question the tax for or against, it's I question the way Jay has presented his argument. Because at first read it came off with more than a little 'more righteous than thou' sentiment. And I don't think I'm alone in this.

thank you.