I finally have the time to sit down and respond to the comments from my previous post "Please Government: Protect me from myself!" As a general comment, I have to say this was nothing less than astounding. I didn't expect such emotional driven, facetious straw man arguments.

There were two common themes from the 6 comments: 1) The United States would fall apart if the government wasn't there to protect us, 2) people's choices to patron a particular establishment is based on no logic or reason.

It is extremely important to understand that under no circumstances should the government be a forcefully moral compass or to have a hand in determining social agendas. This makes the false assumption that the individuals we elect have 100% compatibility in our social and moral presumptions and 100% compatibility in everyone who voted from them. This also assumes the 49% of the people who didn't vote for the representative have changed their moral and social presumptions to go along with the representative. If this is the case, then every United States citizen is responsible for the torture and illegal detaining of terrorist prisoners because of the few who made the very wrong decision. This clearly cannot be the case because the Congress and Administration runs on their own moral and social agenda, no matter what the voters had originally wanted.

So I think I want to take the time to dispute some of the comments made on the previous post and hopefully in the process educate some of the commentators on what liberty should entail.

From Ellen: "The FDA will halve the allowable nicotine in cigarettes; smokers will buy twice as many packs as they did before; and government's tax revenues will double."

It is painfully clear in the article that they could not get enough votes to add "nicotine regulation" to the current bill. The bill only regulates the process of making the cigarettes. This may change your opinion on the bill being "best thing since sliced bread".

For fun, lets assume that Ellen had her facts straight and they were regulating the nicotine in the cigarettes or eliminating it all together. What would change?  Well two things will happen and we know this because of the fabulous (sarcasm) "War on Drugs". The first is the importing of stronger cigarettes, albeit illegally. The second is the eventual removal of cigarette manufacturing from the United States. The second will come about because of Economics 101: supply vs. demand. The supply will slowly decline because of the use of illegal cigarettes and the removal of "casual smokers" and the ones who won't buy illegal cigarettes will only be able to afford so much. What is the punishment for buying illegal cigarettes? Five years in prison after "third strike" law kicks in?

So why even bother? Proctor & Gamble and Altria Group have thousands of other products. Eventually the price to maintain the business will outweigh the income and then all production will stop. Period. No more cigarette taxes, no more multi-billion dollar lawsuits that the government has percentages invested in.

From CVille_Dem: "Do you also disagree with helmet and seat-belt laws? Because we all pay for head-injured, and broken-bodied people who flout those laws; our insurance rates go up to cover their long-term care, and eventually when they end up on Medicaid, it comes out of our taxes too."

Not only do I disagree with helmet and seat-belt laws, but I also disagree with the current state of insurance companies and the clear monopolistic terms that they have on their consumers. The insurance system is drastically flawed and should be delt with accordingly. Saving someone the trouble of paying a medical bill isn't the governments job. I do not need someone to give me common sense. The implied "I don't want to pay for other's stupidity" is pointing the finger at the wrong person. Is it the individual that is causing the problems or the insurance company?

The tobacco companies actually add in addictive chemicals, which are separate from the tobacco itself. It's not quite as simple as you portray here, elite.

Agreed. At the same time, insurance rates aren't as simple as you protrayed either. So we can call a draw on that. But I think a more "Public Health Concern" is people who don't wash their hands after going to the bathroom, or one's that cough in their hands instead of a tissue. Should we start fining these people too?

Don't get me wrong, cigarettes are terrible for you.  I don't smoke and I don't like to. I enjoy a occasional cigar with friends over some good whiskey and port. But at the end of the day it is my choice to ruin my body, just like it is people's choice to be grosly obeise.  Just imagine how many lawsuits would come about if McDonalds stop selling to people with a terrible BMI. How is this any different?

Which brings me to the final point. Consumers and their pocket books make better regulators than the government. i.e. Free market works.

From LegalCat: "How about those government regulations that require restaurants to refuse service to customer who aren't wearing shoes? Against those too? I mean, sure, it's a public-health issue, but the government has no right to put concerns about public health above the convenience of people who want to do things that are bad for other people, right?"

First, I am unable to find any actual laws regulating "no shoes, no shirt, no service". To the best of my google searching, it seems this was a common practice by store owners in the 1950s near beaches, where people mainly wear shorts only. So, to my understanding, yes you don't need government to deny service to someone. And the only "public health" issue for no shoes would be for the owners, who would have to deal with lawsuits if someone cut their toes. So it isn't for the public, as much for the owners. And the owner can enact that. Similarly shops that allow dogs to come in, like PetSmart, or some restaurants. This could be a public health concern for those individuals with deathly alergies, or dogs biting. But you know what the greatest part is? You don't have to go there. No one is making you eat at that restauraunt. If enough people don't patron a store, it will close. Or, if you want to be proactive, get a petition together and go to the store owner and express your concerns. No need to get a bully to do your job for you. All it takes is a little responsibility and proactivness.

Should the government have the ability to regulate private businesses to make them prevent customers from spitting on the floor?

You answered your question in the first 10 words. The government should not have the ability to regulate private business if the public is not harmed. Yes, you can't shoot firearms in an establishment but you should be able spit on the floor if it is "Jerry's floor spiting saloon". And if you don't like spit on the floor, I suggest going elsewhere.

It only takes a little bit of common sense and economics 101 to realize that you don't need the big bad government to help you. The free market has put bar and smoking together, because people like to smoke when they are drunk. If you don't like it, go to a smoke free bar. If there aren't any, try to make your own or petition for your favorite bar to go smoke free. Using the government and siting bull like "the teenagers are being targetted" or "second hand smoke is killing me"* is just getting others to do your dirty work.

* Note: It is very clear that second and first hand smoke are very very bad for you. I suggest not breathing it in and not patron the establishments who don't respect your non-smoking wishes.

P.S. CycloneHog I will watch the video you posted when I get a chance, time is not on my side lately.