His point about how ridiculously unfair the current system can be is well taken, and it's very frustrating. But, the paternalistic state exists because people cry out for it. There are efforts to ban completely ridiculous offenses, like your pants (url, http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/17/baggy.pants.ap/index.html )"There should be a law preventing that." When it comes to things like medicine, the current overbearing system seems necessary because people at large seem nearly incapable of rejecting obviously false medical treatments ("smart" water, echinacea, magnet therapy, colon cleansing, Kinoki foot pads).
And the other problem... Having faith that people will do "the right thing?" People often don't, especially when it comes to even slightly complex things. Homeopathic remedies are a massive industry, but they've been definitively shown over and over to have no discernible effect. Religious cults still flourish in every civilized nation, despite their policy of taking everything from their members and leaving them as broken, one-dimensional caricatures. Chemical and drug abuse (as opposed to recreational use) is rampant, and our laws cannot differentiate between the two. People even deny proven science because they don't like the implications, stifling scientific progress that could help sick and dying people.
It's not a new dilemma, but it's getting more complex and urgent as our population grows. On the one hand, some people make the world better. On the other? Some people make it worse, sometimes simply through their ignorance. Distinguishing between them and giving the helpers the latitude to improve without giving the destructive forces latitude to destroy is the fundamental dilemma of any society.
I don't expect people to do the 'right thing.' For starters, because we don't know what the 'right thing' is.
Look at it this way: 99% of everything men have ever know has been wrong. All scientific theories (except the current ones) have been proven wrong. And, at every point in history, men who thought the current theories were wrong were labeled heretics or morons. There were men who wouldn't let themselves be 'bled' 200 years ago and men who won't undergo chemo today. And that is their choice.
I think a lot of people make stupid choices, but if it only harms themselves, I say let them. Hell, I would have thought some of Bill Gates' decisions early in Microsoft's history were wrong, but that goes to show what I know.
Every person should be allowed to make their own decisions (and live with the consequences of thereof).
If someone believes in homeopathy or the new age panacea du jour over real medicine, let them. If they die because they made the wrong choice, it's a shame, but at least they died free men.
But many of these choices lead to things which are destructive to others. For example, lots of people are resisting vaccination despite overwhelming scientific evidence that there is no link between autism and vaccination. These people let their children rely on the herd immunity of the first world.
If everyone followed this strategy, many people would die as a consequence of even a relatively small segment of the population's choice. At some point, your freedom ends and another's begins. Drawing that line is really hard, especially when some people are frantically trying to give it up and others are frantically taking it for personal gain.
Whereas other people examine the studies and testimonies and see overwhelming evidence that there is a link.
This is the problem with a government one size fits all system. There isn't necessarily one right answer. And in a system like ours where what government does is influenced most by big pharmaceutical agriculture corporations who have a business interest in sick people and sick animals, well you're likely not to get the right answer at all.
Many vaccines sadly aren't 100% effective. The reason they work so well is because if _everyone_ is vaccinated the immunities of the group reduce exposure to the group, a kind of self-reinforcement.
And the more a vaccinated person is exposed to a disease, the more permutations of that disease get thrown at the vaccinated population. If one takes, then we have the whole problem of the disease all over again. One consequence of the short life of bacteria and the mutation of viruses is that they're basically brute-forcing our immunities of every population they're in contact with.
This is why it's _so important_ that people follow vaccination programs. Eventually we'll have to deal with new diseases, but if we aggressively and correctly vaccinate, we can stave off that day for a lot longer than if we half-ass it.
Sounds good in theory. In practice, there have been disease outbreaks in communities with 100% vaccination rates against that disease. Most vaccines don't even cover all the known strains, forget the new mutations.
IMO, vaccination is no replacement for promoting a strong natural immunity and preventative medicine. Both of which are virtually thrown out the window in modern medicine.
I'm for any medicine that can be proven to work through the techniques espoused by modern medical science. If you can prove it works in a placebo-controlled double-(or dare-i-dream-triple?)-blind study, then I'm all for it.
> If they die because they made the wrong choice, it's a shame, but at least they died free men
I agree with you if you are talking about adults. But what about their children? Should a child die just because their parents decided that a prayer would cure them?
Most regulations aren't there to protect what people do to themselves, but to limit what they can do to others.
A responsible child can probably carry a gun to school, but do you trust all children?
The author would probably kill his cattle in a humane way, but can we count on everyone to do so?
> A responsible child can probably carry a gun to school, but do you trust all children?
Less than 50 years ago, they carried their rifles to school on the bus every day, and kept them in their lockers. They also took gun safety courses in school. I don't find it at all surprising that kids are less responsible with guns now: when I work with kids, I find they live up (or down) to the level of your expectations.
> The author would probably kill his cattle in a humane way, but can we count on everyone to do so?
From everything I've seen, many/most farms still don't, so the USDA is more of a nuisance for those that want to do it right, than a way to force the bad ones to improve. The government is made up of people, too: you can't just sprinkle farms with the magic pixie dust of "government regulation" and have everything magically work out.
Yes, exactly. Too many people think society should be designed exclusively for them. They don't realize that what's good for them is not necessarily good for the world.
That works both ways. I might find its ok to drive drunk and I might not want to keep my meat packing plant up to "code" but I might object to you build a hazardous waste next to my house. When it comes down to it a lot of people taking minor risks is why 10’s of thousands of people are murdered every year in 100% preventable car “accidents”.
The point of regulation is collectively managing risk. Driving with old tires might seem a reasonable thing to do but your risking other people’s lives. And the average farmer knows nothing about the overall risks of animal to human disease mutation, but people still pays the price every time such incompetence creates a new disease strain.
PS: Farming is one of the most polluting industries in the world but the lack of smoke stacks seems to give people the warm fuzziest.
And the other problem... Having faith that people will do "the right thing?" People often don't, especially when it comes to even slightly complex things. Homeopathic remedies are a massive industry, but they've been definitively shown over and over to have no discernible effect. Religious cults still flourish in every civilized nation, despite their policy of taking everything from their members and leaving them as broken, one-dimensional caricatures. Chemical and drug abuse (as opposed to recreational use) is rampant, and our laws cannot differentiate between the two. People even deny proven science because they don't like the implications, stifling scientific progress that could help sick and dying people.
It's not a new dilemma, but it's getting more complex and urgent as our population grows. On the one hand, some people make the world better. On the other? Some people make it worse, sometimes simply through their ignorance. Distinguishing between them and giving the helpers the latitude to improve without giving the destructive forces latitude to destroy is the fundamental dilemma of any society.