The way to show government should intervene into personal lives

[MadMojoMonkey]

Using your logic then, by not resisting, the Jews CHOSE to be exterminated by the germans.

SMH. No.
This is the same misunderstanding I just corrected. I wont do it again. You're not following my points, which means these questions are non-sequitur.

The flaw in your analysis is, again, that you're assuming something about democracy or popularity. I didn't say the Jews chose to be exterminated. I said the Germans chose to exterminate Germans (and to conquer other nations, making them Germans to potentially be exterminated, too).
For the record, Hitler was democratically elected, so your point about popularity and democracy is not well-made in this specific example.

Your injection of religious identity, while certainly correct as a motivation for whom was exterminated, has nothing to do with governance.

There is such a thing as evil. And identifying it is not really a matter of opinion.

I'm not saying you're wrong that there is evil, I'm saying that it's subjective what is evil. What is evil to you and me is not identical and there is no proof or test which can be made to show which of us is correct (or if either of us is).

Identifying it is absolutely a matter of opinion, or else everyone in the world would agree, or have a simple test/demonstration which would make it clear that they were in error.

It's easy to get caught up in group-think when you and many people near you agree about what is "obviously evil," but popularity doesn't make for a lack of moral evil, as your point about nazi's demonstrates.
I'd wager that the average nazi would argue that the obvious evil was the Jewish people, and the obvious good was to exterminate them. So again, what is good and evil is in the mind of the thinker, and while you and I agree that genocide (of humans) is evil, that doesn't make it so.

[BananaStand]

You're not following my points,

Ok...to be honest, I'm not sure how we got here.

I think the topic in the OP is asking how and when the gov't should meddle in people's personal lives. Your answer seems to be "Whenever people want them to, cuz governments purpose can change whenever people decide that it changes". That's bogus.

Maybe you could be right if you're strictly talking about the decisions made when forming a new government. Like "do we wanna be a democracy or dictatorship?". You would also be right if by "change" you mean "revolution".

However, I think the OP was asking about things in a more realistic and practical sense. Like, "Is it ok for the government to require you to wear a seatbelt?" And when it comes to those questions, we're talking about existing and established governments whose purpose has already been set out by an objective set of rules.

[wufwugy]

However, I think the OP was asking about things in a more realistic and practical sense. Like, "Is it ok for the government to require you to wear a seatbelt?"

Asking about when government requiring seatbelt use is right. It would be when the government setting this policy more efficiently addresses your safety than you do, which means that government setting the policy results in you being safer at the same cost or as safe as normal at a lower cost. A deeper way of saying this is that government setting the policy results in you having more of your preferences met than otherwise.

[BananaStand]

Asking about when government requiring seatbelt use is right. It would be when the government setting this policy more efficiently addresses your safety than you do, which means that government setting the policy results in you being safer at the same cost or as safe as normal at a lower cost. A deeper way of saying this is that government setting the policy results in you having more of your preferences met than otherwise.

I'm not sure I follow this, but if you're arguing FOR seatbelt laws...I disagree.

While it's true, a seatbelt law probably makes the population safer....so what? Why does that mean that the government is obligated to create and enforce that law? If the government outlawed driving altogether, then everyone would be even safer.....so why not do that? Do you see now how this could be dangerous when we start applying the same logic to issues more significant that seatbelts?

And what if I just find the seatbelt uncomfortable? Why can't I be free to weigh the risks of not wearing it vs. the discomfort of wearing it? Why would we let a government make those *subjective* decisions?

If we're making seat belt laws....why not laws about motorcycle helmets? But maybe I like riding without a helmet, and I consciously accept the risks.

The only reason seat belt laws exist is because lobbyists for various healthcare entities got into bed with lawmakers. The HC industry saves money because people get hurt less, and some of the savings finds its way into campaign contributions. Also, the gov't increases its revenue by creating another ticket-able offense. Sadly, that's how a lot of stuff gets done in government.

In the case of seatbelts, the logic of using them is so universally accepted, that a law requiring it goes easily unnoticed. Many people just think "oh, I wear my seatbelt anyway, so I don't care about the law". But what they don't realize is that their government has over-stepped it's bounds and been exploited by a special interest. That's bad. That's really really really really bad.

I'm somewhat proud to live in a state that has resisted this practice. We don't have seatbelt laws cause we don't need seatbelt laws. Our state motto is "Live Free or Die" and we mean it. We'd rather be dead than let a government decide what's best for us.

[boost]

Ah, I think your point was slightly different than I assumed, wuf. I think both of us were missing a variable, wouldn't you agree?