The role of the government - a poll

Politics and religion
21

Speed limits originally had nothing to do with safety.

They were enacted as part of energy policy; gasoline consumption goes up sharply at higher speeds.

22

Seat belts: Yes.
Car seats: Yes.
Hard drugs: No.
Marijuana: No.
Cigarettes: Yes.
Motorcycle helmets: No. I feel conflicted about that one, but the only downside is the healthcare issue that others mentioned. And the reason I think seatbelts should be mandated but not motorcycle helmets is simple - an unbelted car crash victim COULD theoretically fly out of the car and hit someone else (eg in a head to head collision they could eject and smash into a front seat passenger in the other car, sustaining injuries to another).
Speed limits: No.
Pharmaceuticals: Yes
FCC: Yes, but what Jason said.
Junk food: Yes
More tobacco restrictions: Yes. The same restrictions and oversight would also be placed on hard drugs and marijuana in my fantasy world.

23

No. We’ll evolve faster if we let people die from the stupid.

24

I know in specific cases speed limits are just a way to generate revenue, but it doesn’t sound like Phil was talking about that.

Speed limits did exist before the 1970s oil crisis - see here. I think using them as a energy policy is stupid, but that doesn’t make all speed limits stupid.

25

I’m not sure of what you are saying. Paragraph number one of your post (quoted above) is what I was saying.

26
  1. Mandate seat belt usage for adults? Yes.
  2. Mandate car seat usage for kids below a certain age? Yes.
  3. Criminalize hard drugs (Heroin, Cocaine/Crack/Meth)? No. Obviously there should be heavy regulation, though.
  4. Criminalize Marijuana? No.
  5. Tax cigarettes and other tobacco products heavily (i.e. as things now are - cigarettes typically much more heavily taxed than say, candy)? Yes.
  6. Mandate motorcycle helmet usage? Maybe.
  7. Set speed limits on roads at levels low enough so that ~half or more of motorists routinely speed by 5-10 mph or more? No, but that’s a loaded question. In general, there shouldn’t be any laws that routinely go unenforced, because it confuses people’s expectations with respect to the law and it breeds contempt for order.
  8. Impose strict controls on pharmaceuticals? (i.e. roughly the current regime, which emphasizes safety and efficacy at a cost of slowing deployment of new drugs, and adding development costs) Yes.
  9. Impose roughly the current regime of FCC regulation of over-the-air broadcasting? (i.e. attempting to limit profanity and the like) No.
  10. Impose much stricter advertising restrictions on junk food for kids? There should be stricter advertising restrictions, period. Ads should be subject to review for good faith, honesty, non-obnoxiousness, and so on. In the long run, harsh regulations on what you can and can’t do in an ad would help everyone except entities which are attempting to sell inferior products through superior advertising.
  11. Impose more severe tobacco restrictions? (higher taxes, greater limits on packaging, point of sale displays and the like) Yes. That shit causes cancer in people who just happen to be unlucky enough to be NEAR users. As far as I’m concerned, tobacco is uniquely suited to eradicatory regulation. The only reason not to forbid it outright is lack of effectiveness.
    Bonus: 12) Improve public transportation: Yes.
27

1 - Seat Belts? Yes
2 - Car Seats? Yes
3 - Hard Drugs? Yes
4 - Marijuana? No
5 - High Tobacco Taxes? No
6 - Motorcycle Helmets? Yes
7 - Speed Limits? No
8 - FDA/Pharmaceuticals? No
9 - FCC/Profanity? Fuck No
10 - Junk Food Ads (Kids)? Yes, hell throw in non-diet soft drinks as well.
11 - Tougher Tobacco? No

28

No.
None of the above.
The government was not formed for ANY of the above purposes.

29

Taxation and law? Please explain.

30
  1. No
  2. No
  3. No
  4. No
  5. No
  6. No
  7. Yes
  8. No
  9. No
  10. No
  11. No
31

Looks like Ron Paul wouldn’t dissolve the Highway Patrol!

32

1 - Seat Belts? Yes, because unsecured motorists pose a danger to other, more responsible people in the form of projectiles.

2 - Car Seats? Yes, because the person being protected is not able to make decisions for him or herself.

3 - Hard Drugs? Certainly not to the degree we do currently. Maybe make it legal under certain circumstances. Definitely make it susceptible to DUI laws though.

4 - Marijuana? No, but susceptible to DUI laws once again.

5 - High Tobacco Taxes? I don’t have strong feelings either way on sin taxes.

6 - Motorcycle Helmets? If we assume the public is going to bear the cost of some or all of the injuries resulting from motorcycle accidents, then yes. If not, it’s purely a personal matter.

7 - Speed Limits? I don’t think the number on the speed limit has much bearing on how many people are going to speed. That is to say, I think you could raise highway speed limits from 70 to 90 and people would now be driving 95 instead of 75.

8 - FDA/Pharmaceuticals? I think the FDA does a pretty good job at present. I probably wouldn’t mess with it much either way. Maybe make it a bit laxer, but not too much.

9 - FCC/Profanity? Should definitely be looser. One idea might be to sell broadcast licenses at multiple tiers, with higher cost of licensing granting more latitude on content.

10 - Junk Food Ads (Kids)? I don’t know whether it would do much good, but I’m inclined to say yes on the same principle as #2. Marketing to children is potentially ethically dubious, no matter the product.

11 - Tougher Tobacco? Once again, I don’t care particularly. I don’t think society has an obligation to protect the livelihood of people who make a harmful product.

33

1 - No
2- Yes, but then not much. It’s one person affecting another’s life ( ie the childs ) but its a parent issue and the car seat thing isn’t cut and paste about what is safest. Maybe a parent can remonstrate me for this opinion.
3 - Yes
4- No
5 - Yes, Government needs money. You chose the stupid sticks that make you less healthy and you can’t stop using. No one’s a worse person morally for smoking, but some things get taxed and they’re far from prohibited at the moment.
6 - No, save children.
7 - Hell no.
8 - Yes
9 - Can’t Decide
10 - No, just keep it out of the schools. It’s a parent’s responsibility, and too complex to be governmentally regulated, ie whats not healthy enough. I simply think there’s something wrong with sending a kid to a public institution and having school supported advertising there in the first place. This has no reflection on all those free Pizza Hut pizzas I got from the reading club in first grade. Those were awesome.
11 - No, but no idea. Maybe they get taxed heavily, but there’s no need to essentially outlaw them or something of the sort.