Originally Posted By: Maven
I was thinking of laws that limit action in an attempt to 'save' citizens from themselves. Banning trans-fats from restaurants, for example, which implies that restaurants are to blame for the porcine rear-ends rather than the over-indulgant mouths feeding them.


If people demonstrate that they are generally inherently incapable of making decisions for themselves that will benefit them (such as not eating trans fats), then isn't law obliged to intervene? After all, the government ends up spending billions on people who's (whose?) health is failing after a lifetime of making such decisions.

Less federal intervention seems to work only if the people being governed have the ability to govern themselves. Our high rates if diabetes and heart disease speak for themselves; most Americans (I include myself in this assessment) seem incapable of making responsible decisions about what they put in their bodies.

I agree with you that it's ridiculous that we need such laws. But until we are a nation of educated, self-respecting, health and integrity oriented, law-abiding individuals (which will not happen so long as we continue to widen the abyss between those who have and those who have-not), I believe that we need laws like the one banning trans fats

For anyone who wishes to make my post more word-related, I'm sure that I made a conjunction-related mistake somewhere or misused a word.