No they're not. You've been given vast amounts of evidence that they're not, and you refuse, adamantly, to even address that evidence because it's not coming in the specific format that you ignorantly feel is the necessary format.
Maybe you're very, very young. What is the one criterion I would have to meet to have you admitted to a psychiatric facility for a period of more than 72 hours?
Really? You do claim to live in the US. Read:
Source.
I've pointed out to you several times how this is not the case. I ask, again, what is your source for this? Other than your "understanding" of the world.
No. Not in the least. Maybe in your own mind but that is a very limited arena.
People who can't understand the constitutionality, let alone the sense, of seat belt laws need to be looked after. What more can I say?
People who can't understand the constitutionality, let alone the sense, of seat belt laws need to be looked after. What more can I say?
Protecting adults from themselves is not a proper objective of government regulation.
... which they should be permitted to do...
... which is an appropriate target of government regulation.
My protest in town square, or controversial novel, can affect thousands of people. The question is whether it causes direct harm to others' persons or property. If not, then leave adults alone to do as they choose.
I can't think of a better phrase to describe government regulation as non-threatening and essentially benevolent. When trying to scare people in supporting their views, can't Libertarians and other anti-government types think of anything scarier than a nanny?
There are plenty of regulations and attitudes that actually fit this description, but not nearly enough.
The fascist view is that the people exist to serve the state. A nanny is paid to be of service to the children in a household, so a "Nanny State" implies that the state exists to serve the people; the exist opposite of the fascist view.
Cry me a river. It's not that you hold a different opinion. It's that your opinion here is provably wrong but you refuse to budge. FWIW, deciding who and who doesn't deserve a place in free society is the fascist view.
At least you're giving ground here but you're exposing your basic dissonance. How can you understand the sense behind the laws and not understand the purpose and reasoning behind them? That statement makes no sense.
We know that. Every political poll indicates that about 20-30% of respondents take an extreme view of the topic at hand. Luckily, this is a democracy so the fringe gets neutralized..most times. I'm sure you're one of those who dreams of low voter turnout so that you, finally, will get your candidate elected. Fortunatetly, that's why recalls were invented.
... which confirms an implication I wasn't going to impute to you -- that you think I have questioned the constitutionality of seatbelt laws, and that I need looking after. The first is wrong; the second is shameful.
Which isn't what I said. I said that fascist views like the one you espoused in your previous post have no place in the rules and policies of a free society. Unlike you, I have not made a statement about the value of certain individuals, or how much freedom they should get, on the basis of their beliefs whether right or wrong. I haven't recommend kicking anyone out.