What Personal behavior should the government regulate?

[BrentWil]

This question falls into two major areas with some overlap. SHould the government regulate a persons economic behavior? In other words, how much money he can make or pay someone, how much they can consume, and other such issues. The next is, should the government regulate moral behavior. In other words, should the government stop people from taking drugs, using prostitutes and other such issues.

How do you define where the government should regulate and where it shouldn't?

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Farting in elevators.

[scarletwoman]

21. Snapping chewing gum and cracking knuckles.

I really hate those. They should be illegal.

Now get off my lawn!

[woofless]

49. Ooh, Ooh I agree.

Farting in elevators should be required!

[Fumesucker]

2. The government should regulate personal behavior that I don't like..

If I don't like it then it's bad and should be stamped out.

[mediaman007]

3. This is a question that nails the issue.

[BrentWil]

6. I thought so.. NT

[Jackpine Radical]

4. Farting in elevators.

[taterguy]

5. If you're so opposed to elevator farts, get off your lazy ass and take the stairs

[awoke_in_2003]

23. that's ok...

I fart in stairwells- get a good echo effect that way :)

[hobbit709]

24. Beat me to it.

:rofl:

[Autumn]

7. Breast feeding in Olive Garden

is a big problem.

[dkofos]

39. That's why they serve all you can eat bread sticks.

[OHdem10]

8. Regulating Behavior????? Slippery slope.

[BrentWil]

15. We do it all the time...

I can't start a business and hire a worker for $2 an hour, for example..

[Honeycombe8]

9. Anything that encroaches on someone else's rights.

Smoking is banned in public in most places because it encroaches on others' right not to breathe the smoke. Yelling your political views on the street can be against the law, if it violates a noise or nuisance law. Etc.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Stuffing more than 46 tennis balls down one's toilet.

[pipi_k]

14. At the same time, or one by one? n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. The Supreme Court will have to rule on that.

[enlightenment]

11. I tend to believe in the old adage -

"The right of your fist ends at the tip of my nose".

In other words, if what you do does not negatively impact someone else, it should not be punitively regulated by the government.

Of course that 'negative impact' is hard to nail down; it's why people have struggled with the question for centuries.

[SmileyRose]

18. +1

Not only difficult to nail down but also changes with the culture and technology.

[Ozymanithrax]

12. The personal behavior of Murder should be regulated...

The benefits that might accrue from such behavior to an individual is caustic to the rest of society.

Slavery, the personal behavior systems that allows one person to own another should be reglated...
As above, the benefits to the individual do not outweigh the cost paid by others.

Minimum wage/living wage should be regulated, because in a society that relies on consumer activity for the majority of it's economy, providing individuals with the means to enjoy consumer society outweighs the cost to the individuals.

Corporations, being legal constructs and not individuals, should be heavily regulated to ensure that they do not trample on the rights of individuals. Individuals should have rights, corporations should not. Individual owners and investors should be able to act within their rights, but they should not excede the right of any other citizen.

I could go on.

[donco6]

13. +1, including "I could go on" n/t

[BrentWil]

16. Well, that doesn't really answer the question

THe question was more about where you draw the line. How do you determine if a behavior is to be regulated and to what degree?

[blondeatlast]

17. How 'bout, for once, you offer us YOUR opinion?

Just this once?

[BrentWil]

22. I think the government shouldn't regulate personnel behavior unless it falls under three cases:

1. You harm someone else (murder)
2. You endanger someone else or the society at large (Driving while under the influence, environmental laws)
3. There is a clear danger that would undermine the structure of our society. (1968 Civil Rights Law, Social Safety Net programs like social security, limited redistribution of wealth)

[donco6]

27. So, what doesn't fall into those categories?

From your perspective, I mean.

[BrentWil]

33. Alot of things.. for example

Drugs wouldn't.

However, it is a general way to look at it. Each policy should be look at to determine what is the pressing need. The most vague area is certainly the last. However, it does provide a frame of debate. If policy makers asked, does this behavior undermine the structure of our society, before regulating it, it would at least control the debate.

[blondeatlast]

35. So your contention is it should be on a case by case basis and therefore your

question is moot.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

48. Should government regulate moot points?

If so, what? :*

[blondeatlast]

53. Nah....

It's too much fun to mock them on the 'nets.

[BrentWil]

63. No it isn't. Just because I have an answer doesn't mean it will be the same as others.

Learning involves understanding what others think.

[ZombieHorde]

68. I don't think the question is moot. Complex systems require case by case examinations,

but having ethical and legal guidelines is extremely useful and helps to prevent unwanted biases.

[Ozymanithrax]

43. First, your rights can not cancel out might rights.

We both have freedom of speech. But if you tell me I have the right to say what I want, then set of a 500 decibile airhorn next to me every time I speak, you have successfully denied my freedom of speech. This applies to current legal fiction that free speech is equal to money and then giving free speech to corporations. They have vast resources of money to use that drown out my free speech. Therefor, limiting corporate free speech, especially in politics, is necessary.

Regulation must provide a benefit of some kind. Minimum wage and living wage provides enormous benefits to society by (1) allowing people to act within the economy and strengthening the economy that we all share in. (2) By setting a minimum level of wealth it acts to reduce crimes of poverty which is a benefit to everyone.

So, there are at least two tests for regulating personal behavior. (1) Your rights can cancel out mine. (2) Regulation needs to provide some benefit to society as a whole or imporove our collective existance.

I don't think an individual should be limited on the income an individual can make, but acruing wealth by a few individuals can not be at the expense of instituting deep poverty and misery form others.

I am a classic liberal, and the center piece of liberalism is individual rights. But those rights must be ballanced.

If you can make a million dollars sellling strawberry jam, good. But if you increase your profits by making Strawberry jam that has no strawberries in it, and call it strawberry jam, your bussiness should be shut down because you are lying to the plublic. Your right to make money does not outweigh my right to a factual represenaton of what you are selling. (There was a real case in the 20's where a company did that, which was on of the reasons the FDA was created.)

[BrentWil]

65. I think your standards are a very slippery slope

First, All regulation provides a "benefit". The real question is the cost of that benefit. For example, minimum wage provides the benefit of a better paying job for some people but at a cost of business or people not hiring as much labour because of cost. While I certainly agree with having a minimum wage, the level is important. Why not set the rate at $100 dollars an hour, for example?

Next, many rights impose a responsibility on another person. IF you have a right to a certain level of living, then someone has a responsibility to provide that. While I agree this is a legitimate trade off and important, there is a relationship between many things we refer to as "rights" and responsibilities.

[Ozymanithrax]

66. We are not solitary predators killing out meat on the Savannah and, occasionally,

coupling with another solitary predator so we can drop children and go about our isolated lives.

We live in the context of a society and rely on that society to aid in the protection of our rights. We are social animals.

This whole argument against regulating individual actions is a libertarian notion that Republicans have taken up so get that segment of the vote. I'm a liberal not a libertarian. The slope is anything but slippery.

[BrentWil]

67. As am I..

I just understand that we are putting responsibilities on people. That allows me to at least think about that aspect when I suggest we do that.

[REP]

69. I don't care if you murder or enslave yourself to YOURSELF

Your examples are not behavior that involve the person engaging in them.

[Odin2005]

19. The government has no right to regulate personal behavior.

The only exception is doing that behavior in public if it is a nuisance (2nd-hand smoke, a couple having sex in public, etc.)

[BrentWil]

26. What about hiring someone and paying them $1 an hour? NT

[Odin2005]

29. That is not personal behavior.

[BrentWil]

32. How so..

If I start a business, how is that not personnel behavior? It is how I am contracting with another person.

[Odin2005]

36. That is economic behavior.

personal behavior is things like sex, smoking, playing video games, eating fattening food, and other things moralistic puritans like to control. if money changes hands and there is a formal contract involved it is economic behavior and can be regulated.

[BrentWil]

64. Economic behavior and personal behavior are not exclusive

In fact, most economic behavior is personal behavior.

[Ikonoklast]

41. Because your unwillingness to pay a fair wage puts a burden on taxpayers.

The rest of us are forced into subsidizing your business because your employee must be supported by the social safety net we pay taxes for...food stamps, medical care, etc.

Why should you have an unfair competitive advantage subsidized by taxpayers?

[DireStrike]

58. Devil's advocate: It wouldn't be unfair if there were no minimum wage.

Only unfair to workers.

[Ikonoklast]

61. In a race to the bottom, everyone loses except the owners.

Eventually, you would lose all your paying customers, however, as no one could afford the product they helped build.

[Posteritatis]

37. Abuse behind closed doors would be alright by that definition. (nt)

[Odin2005]

50. You are infringing someone else's rights, so it's not OK.

[BlueIris]

20. Stuffing one's fat, ugly face full of junk food 24-7 and then expecting

society to foot the bill and like it.

:sarcasm:

[undeterred]

25. Handwriting, noseblowing, and picking up dog poop.

[Crunchy Frog]

30. They should definitely keep my neighbor from blasting his stereo at 2:00 in the morning.

[donco6]

38. Or, they should stop regulating murder.

But something's gotta give.

[Morning Dew]

31. Public Teabagging

[lunatica]

34. Government should regulate criminal behavior

only as per the law.

Outside of that government shouldn't regulate citizen behavior.

[Kablooie]

42. What about corporate citizen behavior?

[lunatica]

45. If we must live with corporate citizenship then they must abide by the laws

Was your question a gotcha one?

[Kablooie]

40. It depends on what crimes the person has committed.

[MH1]

44. Rule 1: if it's a native plant and I grow it in my backyard (or basement) and don't give it to kids

the government should stay the fuck out of it.

Rule #2: anything that happens in the privacy of my house that involves only myself and other consenting adults, the government should stay the fuck out of.


The question gets stickier when other people, or minors, are involved. But if we can't even agree that what happens in privacy between adults should be ignored by the government, then how will we ever agree on the more difficult stuff?

[Ozymanithrax]

51. Well that leaves out Marijuana. Hemp is native to central Asia.

So I guess they can regulate that.

Psilocybin mushroom is only native to parts of Texas and gulf coast, so those are out, unless you live in those regions.

Potatoes are native the Americas, as is corn. But apples, oranges, and most fruits are nonnative and they can be regulated. My son wouild love me if I did not give him apples from our apple tree. He hates fruit.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

46. Getting other people to write your term papers for you.

Not you personally I don't mean, natch. :*

[Iggo]

47. I think they should tax people who stand in water.

Oh.

[the redcoat]

52. It's simple

In my opinion, it should essentially be "the more people you affect, the more you should be regulated."

Regardless of what the Tea Party says, the purpose of our government is to collect taxes to help it's country, and to make laws with the purpose of providing as many people as possible with the ability to live their lives without fear. So therefore, huge industries and corporations should be kept under scrutiny because the amount of impact they have on the nation.

[cynatnite]

54. Didn't one of the founding fathers say "If it takes nothing from my pocket nor break my leg"...

Trying to remember this, but I'm not positive if it pertains to the OP either.

Anyone know?

[Obamanaut]

55. Posting questions on internet boards w/o providing one's own opinion re

that question.

[blondeatlast]

59. Yup, I'm good with that one for certain. nt

[Darth_Kitten]

56. What seniors do to egg cartons in any supermarket.

Stop fondling and removing the eggs! :(

[LWolf]

57. Behavior that harms others. nt

[rucky]

60. Carrots & Sticks (subsidies & taxes)

I think it's within the government's role to use these incentives - within reason - to promote a healthy economy & functional society.

Tax credits for energy upgrades. Taxes on cigarettes (though that's been abused, imo). We talk about taxing fatty foods, but forget that these foods are often subsidized as well - while the fruits & veggies should be subsidized more. In these cases the arguement can be made that the unwanted behavior costs society and the good behavior benefits society. I think there's general, reasonable consensus with these issues.

But I do see how this could be a slippery slope we should stay vigilant about, if a tax is proposed on say, birth control.

[Hepburn]

62. Protection of...

...the elderly, children and animals. Safety of food and drugs, interstate commerce.