Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
You're still not getting this, sport, and I'm having trouble figuring out if you're being purposely obtuse about it or not.
|
Nah, I got it all the first time. The problem's on your side.
Quote:
|
If you're worried about feeding your family you sometimes do things that are detrimental to your own health because you have an asshole employer who insists on exposing you to dangerous conditions in the name of profit.
|
Such may very well be the cost of feeding your family in some cases. It's just too bad that the evil employer gave you a 'feeding your family' option that was far from perfect, it would've been much better if you had no 'feeding your family' option at all and your family died hungry and cancer-free - because there's no other employment option in this fantasy scenario of yours, right?
Quote:
|
It is the job of government to protect its citizens from conditions like that.
|
No, it isn't. For the government to protect its citizens from such choices - if they even exist, I'm skeptical in this day and age - is for the government to violate property rights. The government shouldn't do this unless there's a preexisting rights violation to justify it.
Quote:
People should not have to make the choice between eating and getting cancer. You are arguing that they should. That indicates a complete lack of concern for your fellow human beings. Fuck 'em all, as long as I get my nicotine. Well, some of us have evolved beyond such selfish attitudes.
I didn't pull a stupid and decide to start smoking. it's YOUR habit, YOUR addiction, and if YOU make idiotic choices despite knowing the risks, that's your lookout. Don't drag ME down with you.
|
Actually, this ad hominem attack doesn't even apply to me, as I am neither a business owner nor a smoker.
What I am saying is that I don't understand the idea that people have a right to jobs. They don't, unless they're under contract. The government may
act sometimes like there is such a right, but that hardly justifies the idea.
Quote:
|
The restaurant is not YOUR private property. It is a public place, whether you like it or not.
|
Absurd. Of course it's private property. It's also used by the public, but only because the owner allows the public to use it.
Quote:
|
Public places have to maintain certain healthy conditions. They don't get to serve you rotting meat, they don't get to mince up the rat with the hamburger, and they don't get to masturbate into the pasta. If they do, they're severely punished, even though it was the diner's choice to eat there.
|
Let me be clear here: I'm absolutely fine with a 'public place' - per your definition - serving rotting meat, making ratburgers, and jizzing up the pasta. It's none of the government's business if they conduct such business.
What
is the government's business is that the 'public place' isn't deceptive or significantly incomplete in portraying these things. The government's actual job should be enforcing honesty. Make the businesses explicitly and clearly advertize that they're not using alfredo sauce on the noodles.
A business that offers such blatantly disgusting food isn't likely to attract very much of the public anyway. (Unless it's fast food, of course - we should probably ban that stuff as well.)
But a fair amount of the population is willing to tolerate filthy filthy cigarette smoke in exchange for food or wages. The government has no business breaking up such a voluntary agreement.