|
>> there is [...] nothing weird about the logic of my argument. People often
>> constrain their own actions now because they do not want to be exposed to
>> risks, including risks associated with weakness of their own will, further down
>> the track. An example is people who self-exclude from gaming venues because
>> they cannot trust themselves to stop gambling once they start. This logic is not only weird, it's scary. Tell me, how often do you need the government to protect you from making
bad decisions which might harm yourself? Isn't it great that you are rational enough to know exactly what those bad
decisions are (and therefore capable of instructing the government in those
moments of clarity at the ballot box). I mean - if you were just irrational and
stupid you would need a government who just made decisions about your life
without instruction from you at all. You are advocating allowing someone to take away your free will - 'I am
(frequently) too irrational and stupid to make decisions for myself, so someone
else can do it for me'. Do you know that I turn into a werewolf every month, and chain myself to
the wall just before the full moon rises? Then, when the full moon passes and I
turn into a human again I unchain myself. Actually, I'm only joking - werewolves and altruistic governments and
man-friendly feminists don't exist, silly.
| 
