On the Nature of Things | Forum

Folks,

We have discussed this topic before, but there may be use in further analysis and debate.

This time I'm inspired to pen by the sudden change in drink driving rules by the Scottish parliament.
Why do they have to do this? Yesterday a person could drink one glass of low alcohol wine with a meal and drive home from the restaurant; today they would be committing a criminal act.

The particular law mentioned here is not the point, it is the taking away of a persons right to manage their own behaviour. Governments all over the world poke their noses into people's private lives, into the way people drink, smoke, eat, bring up their children, handle their dogs, drive their cars, post on the internet, email and phone.

I cannot remember a government announcement on the radio which was about less rules and regulations governing our private lives. It is always more rules and regulations!

When is it going to end? Is there any limit to this interference?

Alex.

manolo wrote:Folks,

We have discussed this topic before, but there may be use in further analysis and debate.

This time I'm inspired to pen by the sudden change in drink driving rules by the Scottish parliament.
Why do they have to do this? Yesterday a person could drink one glass of low alcohol wine with a meal and drive home from the restaurant; today they would be committing a criminal act.

The particular law mentioned here is not the point, it is the taking away of a persons right to manage their own behaviour. Governments all over the world poke their noses into people's private lives, into the way people drink, smoke, eat, bring up their children, handle their dogs, drive their cars, post on the internet, email and phone.

I cannot remember a government announcement on the radio which was about less rules and regulations governing our private lives. It is always more rules and regulations!

When is it going to end? Is there any limit to this interference?

Alex.

If ever you are hit on the road by a drunken driver, you may change your views, presuming you survive the crash...

manolo wrote:Folks,

We have discussed this topic before, but there may be use in further analysis and debate.

This time I'm inspired to pen by the sudden change in drink driving rules by the Scottish parliament.
Why do they have to do this? Yesterday a person could drink one glass of low alcohol wine with a meal and drive home from the restaurant; today they would be committing a criminal act.

The particular law mentioned here is not the point, it is the taking away of a persons right to manage their own behaviour. Governments all over the world poke their noses into people's private lives, into the way people drink, smoke, eat, bring up their children, handle their dogs, drive their cars, post on the internet, email and phone.

I cannot remember a government announcement on the radio which was about less rules and regulations governing our private lives. It is always more rules and regulations!

When is it going to end? Is there any limit to this interference?

Alex.

because progressives believe in government fixing the ills of society with new rules and puritan conservatives love sin taxes.

bipartisanship sucks, viva la gridlock.

noddy wrote:
because progressives believe in government fixing the ills of society with new rules and puritan conservatives love sin taxes.

bipartisanship sucks, viva la gridlock.

noddy,

I used to think that the 'new rules' thing was a pet of the left, but having lived through a few conservative governments I'm not so sure. It's just different rules.

With a word change from 'progressives' to 'politicians' I would heartily agree with you, however.

Alex.

i think you will find that if you read the second half of that sentence and the following sentence that i actually said that.

as mentioned before, to my mind the only difference between puritan conservatives and progressives is the holy bible vs the holy statistics.

noddy,

Sometimes clever posts go over my head, but I can feel the vibes.

Alex.

sorry, i figured by your own content you must like snide and sarcastic vibes

noddy wrote:sorry

noddy,

Thanks noddy, "sorry" will do nicely.

I'm sure we both agree that politeness always wins out on internet forums, and there are plenty of folks who would never make an apology in print. You are not one of them.

Alex.

manolo wrote: I'm sure we both agree that there are plenty of folks

im fairly confident this bit is true.

noddy wrote:

manolo wrote: I'm sure we both agree that there are plenty of folks

im fairly confident this bit is true.

noddy,

Respect.

Alex.