Do we allow governments to over regulate our private lives?

P_1

Not too sure where the best place to put this is as it is a bit of a hybrid between politics, political theory and philosophy but I'll plop it down here.

Right so, one of the main assumptions of 'modern society' is that we allow some form of higher authority (usually a government) to have some sort of a say into how we live our lives. My main question is if they have too much of a say these days?

Shouldn't we be allowed to make our own mistakes provided that we don't complain about the consequences?

Chips Lovell

Well, on one level government has less of a say in how we live our lives these days. You can use contraception, get a divorce, be in a same sex relationship and, possibly soon, have a same sex marriage. What we're seeing is a pattern of the state drawing back from interfering in people's private lives, the idea being that as long as you're not harming anyone else, you should be free to do whatever you want to do.

Which leads me to the fact that where you're seeing a greater level of state intervention is in areas where your actions do have an impact on other people, such as environmental law, road traffic law etc.

How much of a "say" the government has though is really up to us. We can elect an extreme libertarian style government if we want to, but going by the voting patterns of the Irish electorate, most of us seem to want a regulated society.

P_1

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Well, on one level government has less of a say in how we live our lives these days. You can use contraception, get a divorce, be in a same sex relationship and, possibly soon, have a same sex marriage. What we're seeing is a pattern of the state drawing back from interfering in people's private lives, the idea being that as long as you're not harming anyone else, you should be free to do whatever you want to do.

Which leads me to the fact that where you're seeing a greater level of state intervention is in areas where your actions do have an impact on other people, such as environmental law, road traffic law etc.

How much of a "say" the government has though is really up to us. We can elect an extreme libertarian style government if we want to, but going by the voting patterns of the Irish electorate, most of us seem to want a regulated society.

Fair point, I guess there's an element of protectionist policies coming out these days WRT smoking and eating that seem to be a bit 'nanny statish' (a term which I despise) and interfering with individual liberties.

Oneiric 3

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

How much of a "say" the government has though is really up to us. We can elect an extreme libertarian style government if we want to, but going by the voting patterns of the Irish electorate, most of us seem to want a regulated society.

I wonder if this is really the case though or is it more that we have only have the freedom to choose from a very limited choice that is put before us?

P_1

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I wonder if this is really the case though or is it more that we have only have the freedom to choose from a very limited choice that is put before us?

Its a bit of a chicken and egg situation that though, I'd imagine that most libertarians would be cynical at best in terms of getting involved with Irish politics.

Scofflaw

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I wonder if this is really the case though or is it more that we have only have the freedom to choose from a very limited choice that is put before us?

I think it's reasonably unusual for votes to be "left on the table" in a democratic system. If there are sufficient votes to be gained from acting a particular way, someone will usually act that way to try to win those votes.

The problem for minority views such as libertarians is that while they might have enough interest across the whole country to elect a candidate - the threshold in that sense is only 0.6% of the population - they're scattered hither and yon about the various constituencies in penny packets, so it's not worth any constituency politician appealing to their vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

P_1

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think it's reasonably unusual for votes to be "left on the table" in a democratic system. If there are sufficient votes to be gained from acting a particular way, someone will usually act that way to try to win those votes.

The problem for minority views such as libertarians is that while they might have enough interest across the whole country to elect a candidate - the threshold in that sense is only 0.6% of the population - they're scattered hither and yon about the various constituencies in penny packets, so it's not worth any constituency politician appealing to their vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Reasonable point once I think about it. Slightly surprising but I suppose the majority of people would only become libertarian once a particular issue crops up that impacts on them.

Irish Steve

In some areas, the Government, via regulators are sticking their noses in way too far.

If the Commision for Energy Regulation gets it's way, if I replace a defective 13A socket in my hallway, I could be lioable to 3 Years imprisonment or a 15000 Euro fine, as I'm not a registered electrical contractor,

If my daughter paye me to fit a battery in her wireless alarm sensor, she could be liable for a 3000 Euro fine for using an unlicensed contractor.

the same is true for CCTV systems, and Access control systems as would be fitted on electric gates and the like.

The same is true for gas, and is likely shortly to also be true for oil,.

Not so much of an issue with gas, as there have been too many issues with bad work on that, but replacing a socket is dangerous? I don't think so.

There are a lot of these sorts of things that are being ignored in certain areas, partly because the costs for a small trader to register with all of these bodies, and maintain all the specialist equipment that's needed, along with the costs for recurrent training and the like are astronomic, to the point that for a small trader, they are prohibitive, as the extra charge that would have to be added to every job would make it impossible to get the work.

There MAY be a case for regulating people working in these areas for others, but in their own home, or for family members? Why should I be forced to use a registered electrician to do a job that I've been doing for close on 40 years?

Our freedoms are being eroded in so many areas, by regulations being produced in many cases by people with no practical experience in the area they are regulating.

G Power

in a word, yes

p1akuw47h5r3it

I'd say yes, although it could obviously be much much worse.

Gay people not being able to marry, no access to abortion, can't buy alcohol after 10pm in an off-license, off-license and pubs being forced to close on certain days, establishments being forced to close before 2:30/3am, not being allowed to smoke in pubs, there are calls to ban smoking in cars afaik are just a few I can think of.

Obviously bar the first two the other aren't HUGE issues although it still is nanny statism in action. We have our main freedoms in Ireland but we could do better imo.

Hotblack Desiato

P_1 wrote: »

Fair point, I guess there's an element of protectionist policies coming out these days WRT smoking and eating that seem to be a bit 'nanny statish' (a term which I despise) and interfering with individual liberties.

Nobody has the right to force others to breathe their smoke though.

P_1

ninja900 wrote: »

Nobody has the right to force others to breathe their smoke though.

Yes that is true, however nobody has the right to force people not to smoke though, or to force them to only smoke in a certain manner.

Just to bog ourselves down on the one issue.

UDP

P_1 wrote: »

Yes that is true, however nobody has the right to force people not to smoke though, or to force them to only smoke in a certain manner.

Just to bog ourselves down on the one issue.

who is forcing people not to smoke or smoke in a certain manner?

p1akuw47h5r3it

ninja900 wrote: »

Nobody has the right to force others to breathe their smoke though.

Private Establishments could have smoking and non smoking areas if they wished, meaning if you didn't want to breathe other pols smoke you would not have to.

If there was demand for, for example, a non smoking pub then one would be set up and hopefully prosper.

P_1

UDP wrote: »

who is forcing people not to smoke or smoke in a certain manner?

Flavoured tobacco - banned
Snus - banned
Electronic cigarettes - attempting to ban them

All thanks to those lovely gents in the EU and by extension, our government.

hfallada

In many ways the government over regulates and doesn't regulate at all when I should.

Ireland has a very capitalistic economy for an European country. The government should have regulate banks better like most countries do. But choose not to. The government unlike some cities choose not to regulate rents resulting in rents going up 6-10% in a year. When I comes to the economy the government isn't bothered inferring and regulating. Over tax system is one of the simplest in the world 2 bands of taxes when there is like 7 in the us. Also Ireland is one of the easiest countries to set up a company in.

However when I comes to private lives of people they interfere too much. Regulates that have no benefit but to this set up a quango to create a few jobs but make life so much harder. Regulating Gas and electricity markets putting up prices for consumers. Endless paper work for something so simple. Although some of them make sense. A majority of rules and regulations is as results of few individuals and now everyone must face the consequences

UDP

P_1 wrote: »

Flavoured tobacco - banned
Snus - banned
Electronic cigarettes - attempting to ban them

All thanks to those lovely gents in the EU and by extension, our government.

I see you meant people telling you what you can smoke/ingest.

You forgot smoking marijuana, crack and meth etc are banned also.

Dave!

Isn't there an argument to be made that since the State (and therefore everyone) ends up paying for people's personal choices in terms of healthcare and other areas, that they have a responsibility to try and reduce the burden?

carpejugulum

The problem is that half the adult population is dependant on welfare so they vote in people who ensure that money is taken from the other half.

Chuck Stone

Dave! wrote: »

Isn't there an argument to be made that since the State (and therefore everyone) ends up paying for people's personal choices in terms of healthcare and other areas, that they have a responsibility to try and reduce the burden?

Yes but there is disagreement on how to reduce the burden (prohibition versus harm reduction) and double standards i.e. agents of the state will kick down your door and throw you into prison because you've a couple of marijuana plants growing in your greenhouse while the guy next door making home brew remains unmolested.

It's truly bizarre when you think about it.

P_1

UDP wrote: »

I see you meant people telling you what you can smoke/ingest.

You forgot smoking marijuana, crack and meth etc are banned also.

Well I believe that so long as what I imbibe doesn't impact on anybody else in a negative manner then nobody should have the right to tell me what I can and can't imbibe.

Dave! wrote: »

Isn't there an argument to be made that since the State (and therefore everyone) ends up paying for people's personal choices in terms of healthcare and other areas, that they have a responsibility to try and reduce the burden?

True but where do we draw the line? People who injure themselves by playing sport place a burden on healthcare, people who eat certain foods in too high a quantity also place a burden on healthcare.

Collectively our taxes pay for healthcare which in theory covers our collective health needs.

Hotblack Desiato

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Private Establishments could have smoking and non smoking areas if they wished, meaning if you didn't want to breathe other pols smoke you would not have to.

But people have to work there, and it's illegal for an employer to submit their employees to known carcinogens (even if on their own time they're smokers themselves.)

If there was demand for, for example, a non smoking pub then one would be set up and hopefully prosper.

That old chestnut. As pre-ban non-smokers all know, it only took one moaning smoker to ensure that the whole party couldn't go anywhere non-smoking.

p1akuw47h5r3it

ninja900 wrote: »

But people have to work there, and it's illegal for an employer to submit their employees to known carcinogens (even if on their own time they're smokers themselves.)



That old chestnut. As pre-ban non-smokers all know, it only took one moaning smoker to ensure that the whole party couldn't go anywhere non-smoking.

Diesel exhaust smoke is also a known carcinogen yet people are allowed to work around or with diesel engines

And as for your second point youse all should've grown a pair of balls and said no we're going to a non-smoking place.

Hotblack Desiato

Will half of people working with diesel engines die from diesel fume related illnesses? - hardly. But half of smokers will.

No doubt the relevant employers will be forced to better protect their workers over time from diesel fumes, even though the risk is smaller than tobacco smoke, and the emissions themselves are and will continue to be ever more tightly regulated.

There are known health risks in many jobs e.g. working at height. It's not possible to eliminate all risk, but where a significant risk such as environmental tobacco smoke can reasonably be eliminated, it's hard to make a case that staff should continue to be exposed to it to earn a living.

As for the smoker in the group of non-smokers, it was the reason that the (very small) number of non-smoking pubs failed commercially. Once the ban came in, the vast majority of people either preferred a smoke-free atmosphere, or were willing to bear the minor inconveniece of popping outside for a smoke. Some smokers actually prefer it, I'm told it's a good way of hooking up with someone who won't object to one's habit

P_1

ninja900 wrote: »

Will half of people working with diesel engines die from diesel fume related illnesses? - hardly. But half of smokers will.

No doubt the relevant employers will be forced to better protect their workers over time from diesel fumes, even though the risk is smaller than tobacco smoke, and the emissions themselves are and will continue to be ever more tightly regulated.

There are known health risks in many jobs e.g. working at height. It's not possible to eliminate all risk, but where a significant risk such as environmental tobacco smoke can reasonably be eliminated, it's hard to make a case that staff should continue to be exposed to it to earn a living.

As for the smoker in the group of non-smokers, it was the reason that the (very small) number of non-smoking pubs failed commercially. Once the ban came in, the vast majority of people either preferred a smoke-free atmosphere, or were willing to bear the minor inconveniece of popping outside for a smoke. Some smokers actually prefer it, I'm told it's a good way of hooking up with someone who won't object to one's habit

There is a risk to one's health from virtually all facets of life these days.

Should the government step in to eliminate these risks or is it the right of each individual to be allowed to consider the risks involved with the actions that they take before they take them?

p1akuw47h5r3it

ninja900 wrote: »

Will half of people working with diesel engines die from diesel fume related illnesses? - hardly. But half of smokers will.

No doubt the relevant employers will be forced to better protect their workers over time from diesel fumes, even though the risk is smaller than tobacco smoke, and the emissions themselves are and will continue to be ever more tightly regulated.

There are known health risks in many jobs e.g. working at height. It's not possible to eliminate all risk, but where a significant risk such as environmental tobacco smoke can reasonably be eliminated, it's hard to make a case that staff should continue to be exposed to it to earn a living.

As for the smoker in the group of non-smokers, it was the reason that the (very small) number of non-smoking pubs failed commercially. Once the ban came in, the vast majority of people either preferred a smoke-free atmosphere, or were willing to bear the minor inconveniece of popping outside for a smoke. Some smokers actually prefer it, I'm told it's a good way of hooking up with someone who won't object to one's habit

The risk is regarded as greater:

Dr. Silverman said her research indicated that occupational diesel exposure was a far greater lung cancer risk than passive cigarette smoking,

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/health/diesel-fumes-cause-lung-cancer-who-says.html?_r=0

I'd also point out that it's not the employers subjecting the staff to smoke but the customers (this obviously a very pedantic point but maybe in a court of Law it could be argued?")

And yes as a non-smoker I've been known to suddenly become one to try and get stuck in:pac:

Hotblack Desiato

Your link requires a login. Got another reference?

p1akuw47h5r3it

ninja900 wrote: »

Your link requires a login. Got another reference?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-13/diesel-fumes-carcinogenic/4068414

Are you sure you have to login because I don't have a sub to The NY Times

Hotblack Desiato

But he says although his workplace may be more exposed to exhaust than most - his workers' general health is fine.

"It's not as if we actively breathe in exhaust fumes. When we are testing vehicles, we tend to try and avoid it [and have] an open-air area to do that," he said.

Mr Bourne says the WHO's announcement is a good reminder.

"Perhaps we might be more aware. We already do take measures to protect ourselves from those fumes," he said.

"We direct exhaust fumes outside of our building through piping from the exhaust. Perhaps with these findings we might be a little more careful with making sure that we evacuate that gas more actively."

Like any workplace risk, it needs to be managed. Running diesel engines outside is the equivalent of making smokers go outside to light up.

The NYT probably requires a cookie which my browser is set to reject. Probably because they use a paywall and need to set a cookie to limit free viewing of stories.

p1akuw47h5r3it

ninja900 wrote: »

Like any workplace risk, it needs to be managed. Running diesel engines outside is the equivalent of making smokers go outside to light up.

The NYT probably requires a cookie which my browser is set to reject. Probably because they use a paywall and need to set a cookie to limit free viewing of stories.

No it isn't. If the Government was so concerned for the staff's health they could have forced business' to install ventilation system's pump the smoke out.

They could've allowed a staff member who did not want to work in a smoke environment not have to.

Instead they went for the nuclear option and banned it altogether!

Hotblack Desiato

How come the smoking ban is seen as excessive regulation by some, but the forced expenditure of tens of thousands of euro on ventilation systems is not? That position makes no sense at all. If you want to force employees to breathe in carcinogens, just say so.

p1akuw47h5r3it

ninja900 wrote: »

How come the smoking ban is seen as excessive regulation by some, but the forced expenditure of tens of thousands of euro on ventilation systems is not? That position makes no sense at all. If you want to force employees to breathe in carcinogens, just say so.

I don't want them to be forced to breathe in carcinogens. As I said if they don't want to work in a smoking bar they don't have to. Nobody will force them to.

Hotblack Desiato

So the employees can just like it or lump it then?

Bullseye1

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

How much of a "say" the government has though is really up to us. We can elect an extreme libertarian style government if we want to, but going by the voting patterns of the Irish electorate, most of us seem to want a regulated society.

None of the existing political parties remotely resemble a libertarian style party. Even if one was to be established tomorrow it would take a generation at least to get established as a mainstream party and probably up to 4-5 general elections before they are a leading party in government. I'd love to see less interference but the EU is not set up for less, it's set up for more interference/regulation.

p1akuw47h5r3it

ninja900 wrote: »

So the employees can just like it or lump it then?

No they can choose to work in a smoke enviroment or not.

Hotblack Desiato

Right. How about noise in the workplace? People could choose to take up a quieter job if they don't like it. Except by the time they notice the damage, it'll be much too late. Kinda like lungs and cigarette smoke...
It's long been accepted in developed societies that it is wrong to expect people to put their health at risk just to earn a living. Telling them to get another job doesn't cut it.

p1akuw47h5r3it

ninja900 wrote: »

Right. How about noise in the workplace? People could choose to take up a quieter job if they don't like it. Except by the time they notice the damage, it'll be much too late. Kinda like lungs and cigarette smoke...
It's long been accepted in developed societies that it is wrong to expect people to put their health at risk just to earn a living. Telling them to get another job doesn't cut it.

Lots of people put their lives to risk in order to earn their living. Doctors, firemen, ambulance crews, people in the army, navy, policemen, and their are numerous dangers involved in working on building sites/farms, electricians take risks where mistakes could end their life. There are risks associated with lots of jobs.

And with regard noise, are you telling me that people who work in very noisy environments don't realise they are doing damage? They could wear ear protectors anyway.

Hotblack Desiato

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Lots of people put their lives to risk in order to earn their living. Doctors, firemen, ambulance crews, people in the army, navy, policemen, and their are numerous dangers involved in working on building sites/farms, electricians take risks where mistakes could end their life. There are risks associated with lots of jobs.

And you'll find that every single one of those jobs has procedures to minimise risk as far as reasonably possible.

And with regard noise, are you telling me that people who work in very noisy environments don't realise they are doing damage? They could wear ear protectors anyway.

They could, but might choose not to and their employers might choose not to provide them in the first place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc_YEZkvZLM

Unless they were legally obliged to, as they now are.
Sometimes you do have to legislate for people's own good. Especially when the risks are serious but very long-term.

p1akuw47h5r3it

ninja900 wrote: »

And you'll find that every single one of those jobs has procedures to minimise risk as far as reasonably possible.



They could, but might choose not to and their employers might choose not to provide them in the first place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc_YEZkvZLM

Unless they were legally obliged to, as they now are.
Sometimes you do have to legislate for people's own good. Especially when the risks are serious but very long-term.

And procedures could be taken to minimize the risk to workers in pubs/restaurants etc.!

oscarBravo

DanDan6592 wrote: »

And procedures could be taken to minimize the risk to workers in pubs/restaurants etc.!

They have been. Smoking has been banned, which is the only effective way to protect those workers from other people's cigarette smoke.

Chuck Stone

ninja900 wrote: »

Right. How about noise in the workplace?

Haven't you heard of ear protectors?

They're pretty common in industry and workers would be well aware of the protection they offer.

oscarBravo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Haven't you heard of ear protectors?

They're pretty common in industry and workers would be well aware of the protection they offer.

And employers are required by law to provide them to workers who would otherwise be at risk of hearing damage. Which is an example of the "over-regulation" this thread is complaining about.

P_1

The smoking ban is fine by me, nobody should force others to inhale their 2nd hand smoke, want to smoke, fine just make sure you and only you inhale the smoke.

Noise protection is fine by me, nobody should force others to damage their hearing, want to listen to loud things, fine just make sure you and only you listen to them.

p1akuw47h5r3it

oscarBravo wrote: »

And employers are required by law to provide them to workers who would otherwise be at risk of hearing damage. Which is an example of the "over-regulation" this thread is complaining about.

The pubs could install ventilation systems, the employees could wear a face mask if they want. And they could choose to not work in a smoke environment.

oscarBravo

DanDan6592 wrote: »

The pubs could install ventilation systems, the employees could wear a face mask if they want. And they could choose to not work in a smoke environment.

Out of curiosity, have you ever read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle?

p1akuw47h5r3it

oscarBravo wrote: »

Out of curiosity, have you ever read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle?

No I'm currently trying to get through Atlas Shrugged (and don't jump to conclusions I had my views around this before I read Ayn Rand:) ). 1984 is next.

What is it about?

oscarBravo

DanDan6592 wrote: »

What is it about?

The meatpacking industry in Chicago at the start of the 20th century. It was an extremely dangerous working environment - but people could decide not to work there, so I guess that's OK.

Having read both Rand and Sinclair, I have my agreements and disagreements with both, but on balance I think The Jungle struck a stronger chord with me than Atlas Shrugged (and don't get me started on The Fountainhead, what a dreadful book). A story based on the perceived persecution of industrialists by the nasty proletariat just isn't quite as convincing as one about the very real persecution of immigrant workers by industrialists - and I'm a business owner and employer.

p1akuw47h5r3it

oscarBravo wrote: »

The meatpacking industry in Chicago at the start of the 20th century. It was an extremely dangerous working environment - but people could decide not to work there, so I guess that's OK.

Having read both Rand and Sinclair, I have my agreements and disagreements with both, but on balance I think The Jungle struck a stronger chord with me than Atlas Shrugged (and don't get me started on The Fountainhead, what a dreadful book). A story based on the perceived persecution of industrialists by the nasty proletariat just isn't quite as convincing as one about the very real persecution of immigrant workers by industrialists - and I'm a business owner and employer.

Well I'm reading more for pleasure and the bias is very clear. I think it's enjoyable though. I'll probs give that book a read.

Though I would say it's not the 20th century anymore, and yes some of the reason we have move forward is due to regulation. However I have already stated that I'd rather the government tell owners of bars/restaurants to install ventilation systems instead of banning it altogether.

oscarBravo

DanDan6592 wrote: »

However I have already stated that I'd rather the government tell owners of bars/restaurants to install ventilation systems instead of banning it altogether.

Leaving aside the incredibly onerous cost burden you would be lumping the business owners with, it wouldn't be an effective solution, and it would be near impossible to police.

The smoking ban is cheap and effective. It hasn't required huge capital outlays for business owners. It has created a much cleaner and healthier environment for employees and customers alike. As examples of crushing and burdensome regulation go, it's a pretty poor one.

As for the argument that if workers feel the need to use hearing protection and other PPE, that's just shifting the financial burden for the provision of a safe working environment onto the employee, which forces them to choose between the cost of protecting their hearing versus the potential cost of hearing loss; between the price of a good pair of safety boots versus the risk of losing toes.

If I as an employer require my employees to use noisy equipment as part of their job, it's not unreasonable that I should compensate for the risks involved with risk mitigation measures. I really don't see why that should be seen as an onerous burden on me.

p1akuw47h5r3it

oscarBravo wrote: »

Leaving aside the incredibly onerous cost burden you would be lumping the business owners with, it wouldn't be an effective solution, and it would be near impossible to police.

The smoking ban is cheap and effective. It hasn't required huge capital outlays for business owners. It has created a much cleaner and healthier environment for employees and customers alike. As examples of crushing and burdensome regulation go, it's a pretty poor one.

As for the argument that if workers feel the need to use hearing protection and other PPE, that's just shifting the financial burden for the provision of a safe working environment onto the employee, which forces them to choose between the cost of protecting their hearing versus the potential cost of hearing loss; between the price of a good pair of safety boots versus the risk of losing toes.

If I as an employer require my employees to use noisy equipment as part of their job, it's not unreasonable that I should compensate for the risks involved with risk mitigation measures. I really don't see why that should be seen as an onerous burden on me.

Ok I obviously wasn't clear about this so apologies but as the smoking ban would be repelled if a company didn't view it in their interest to install a ventilation system they would legally not be able allow people people to smoke inside.

I didn't mean that they would be forced to install this and if couldn't would be forced to close.

EDIT: Also I never said it was a crushing regulation (read my first post in the thread).

oscarBravo

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Ok I obviously wasn't clear about this so apologies but as the smoking ban would be repelled if a company didn't view it in their interest to install a ventilation system they would legally not be able allow people people to smoke inside.

I didn't mean that they would be forced to install this and if couldn't would be forced to close.

Honestly? That just sounds like a more complicated, less workable hash of what we have now. You can't have self-enforcement, where some cowboy sticks an Xpelair in a window and says "alright lads, we have a ventilation system - smoke away!" - so you have minimum standards for ventilation, which have to be independently evaluated, creating a bureaucratic mess.

Does the government over-regulate? Sure, in some areas. But pick your battles. You're not going to get a lot of sympathy for your "nanny state" criticisms if you're arguing against clean and safe working environments.