No. The sad truth is that the high minded hypocrisy that fines and incarcerates people “for their own good” is the better demonstration of “an astonishing lack of character”.

You claim that these regulations will make us all safer, you cite statistics and attempt to justify sending people tumbling in this hamster wheel of court fees and legal trouble, you build the monster, and then you decry it when it uses the power that you insisted upon it having. You play both sides of this while claiming to serve humanity in the process, when all you’re doing is building more and more oppressive systems against non-violent people who are just pursuing happiness in their own lives.

It is better to leave these people alone, actually respecting their privacy, and in the process not build the Leviathan that you State-ists simultaneously love to impose and hate to see function. On top of it all, you have the audacity to claim that people like me, who would prefer to keep this power from the oppressive Leviathan, (respecting people enough to make their own decisions) lack character.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”? C.S. Lewis

A Carrollton mother is stunned after receiving a “warrant arrest notice” in the mail because of her tamales.

Dennise Cruz recently found a yellow postcard from the City of Carrollton stating she needed to call the court or she could find herself in cuffs.

“That has to be wrong. I don’t have any tickets under my name. That’s just my first reaction. Never would have I thought, tamales,” said Cruz. “To know that somebody can be arrested over that, that to me is unbelievable.”

A few months back, Cruz decided to whip up some masa, steam up some corn husks and post on Nextdoor she was selling tamales.

“It’s just so common. That’s why to me, I don’t understand why it’s such a big deal,” said Cruz.

But it was a big deal and carried $700 fine with the offense.

“When it hit me, I was like that is a lot of money,” said Cruz.

Is the State-ist position that because one cannot sequester negative outcomes, that all people should be subject to burdensome regulations potentially resulting in fines/incarceration?

As if there are never any “unintended consequences” of overreaching regulation…( http://tinyurl.com/znzhaef )

Keep appealing to emotion while driving people to jail and the poor house ( http://tinyurl.com/zdawz3l ) for everyone’s benefit.

Where are the answers to #23 questions A&B?

“… is that what you desire, constant oversight and surveillance?” No. (But you knew that.)

“… at some juncture, people have to suffer the consequences / reap the rewards of their own decisions.” And you will explain at length how it is possible to always so neatly sequester the consequences of other people’s bad decisions so that innocent bystanders are never affected? Nor will any family members of the people “suffering the consequences”? (Good luck with that last one.)

In the case of the fire in France, tell us how the bad decisions of the cafe owners did not impact the party goers who did not have anything to do with bad decision to install flammable carpets…

Then you can follow up with explaining how the spouses & children of the dead party-goers, who were even more innocent of “bad decisions” were not negatively affected by their deaths. Please, we’re waiting…

Are you going to start by claiming that the children of the dead party-goers made a bad decision to be born to those parents, and therefore are “suffering the consequences of their own decisions”? Really?

@24 It’s a sad story, but government regulation can’t protect people from accidents/tragedies like this one. Saving people is important, but saying that government should be able to fine/imprison us “for our own good” is inappropriate. Government can’t be everywhere at all times, keeping people safe (or is that what you desire, constant oversight and surveillance?), at some juncture, people have to suffer the consequences / reap the rewards of their own decisions.

“@21 Yes. Ban all flammable things, regulate candles on cakes! No Flammable flooring! You could have saved these people!”

Yes, those people could’ve been saved, which you seem to feel is unimportant.

NJ considering banning coffee as a distraction to driving…”public safety uber alles” (http://tinyurl.com/zsr2e6k) Thank you nanny state!

@19 Hyperbole? Try that thought experiment. What happens if the local DNR tickets Mr. Smith for not having/wearing your PFDs (personal flotation device)? Mr Smith refuse to pay the fine. How does that escalator run? At what point does the citizen’s refusal to comply become actionable by arrest / force? (Oh, sure, licenses would be revoked, perhaps liens placed on boats or Real Estate…
We don’t have debtors prisons, but if you owe the court 50 cents, consider the consequences.) When they refuse to come quietly, what happens? Hyperbole? When does the State look back at the original PFD offense and say that they’ve gone too far in enforcement of this?

A) Anyone want to address the Right to Privacy hypocrisy?

B) Anyone want to demonstrate where the State-ist limits government power instead of growing government power under the banner of “public safety”?

“C.S. Lewis would be so proud,”
There aren’t many people more irrelevant to what should be an intelligent conversation than C. S. Lewis.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-fire-idUSKCN10H04A

I’m sure they’d be happy to say that their lives are better for being free from government overreach and the “torment” of those who want to enforce rules made “for their own good”.

Well, that is, if they were still alive… and if those who are still alive are even able to speak still. But hey, no busybodies there to interfere!

C.S. Lewis would be so proud, wouldn’t he?