Should the government be able to tell us what we can and can't buy?

Question

And if not, doesn't the freedom of consumers require the freedom of producers?

If the government says "you can't produce X" isn't that just the same thing as saying "you can't consume X?" After all, producers don't decide what to produce because they think that's what people ought to want - they produce what consumers are willing to pay enough of a premium for that they can made a profit after the cost of making it.

You know, while we disagree on some points, I'm very pleased that we all seem to agree that there is no distinction - whether or not one thinks the government should involve itself in commercial affairs, nobody that has posted so far (though we have yet to hear from Longhair) thinks that there is a difference between saying "you can't make/sell X" and "you can't buy X" - - - nobody has come back with "oh, but the big bad companies force us to buy this stuff."

Answer 1

No they shouldn't and not allowing production is the same as not allowing consumption. But the nanny state we are becoming knows what is best for all of us so they will protect us from our own misguided wants.

Answer 2

The governement can and should at some times tell you what you can't produce. The government tell you that you can not produce illicit drugs. They also regulate what can be produced where in the area of porn, all actors must be of legal age. I'm sure you feel that that those examples is a given but they illustrate the point that government can and does impose its will on the citizenry regularly and deciding what can be produced in this country definately falls under that.

Answer 3

Should you be able to buy a personal nuclear bomb? Was an M1 tank, an RPG, or an AK-47 contemplated by the Second Amendment? Then there is the less clear case of drugs which can only hurt oneself, but create around it economies that lead to no good. I only have questions that I hope will provoke discussion.

Answer 4

There is a shady line that I know I for one am not qualified to draw in the middle of what they can and can not regulate.

There are some things that are obvious... like you shouldn't be able to buy nuclear material as your average buyer.. and you can say, "well, it's for the betterment of the nation as a whole... for our safety".. but that starts you down a slippery slope if you aren't careful. Like with places saying that restaurants can't serve foods with saturated fats. Being a Child Care Health Coordinator I appreciate the fact that these foods are terrible for people.. ... but what happened to personal accountability and responsibility?

but my own argument could be used against me.. such as Wal-Mart and other stores not being allowed to sell mass quanities of Meth ingredients... again you could say .. why shouldn't they be allowed to buy these things.. personal accountability and all...

Like I said.. it's a tough line to draw.

Answer 5

Well, what exactly are you talking about here? Drugs? high top sneakers?


EDIT: I would never say that I am forced to buy anything. Noone stands over me with a gun to my head. However, I do wonder sometimes, why we can't have cars with higher gas mileage like they have in Europe...

Answer 6

If what we want to buy is harmful to society, then yes, the government is within their rights to prevent it from being purchased. That's why you can't buy pot, nuclear weapons or kiddy porn. Or do you think those things should be for sale?

Answer 7

Well X is a pretty dangerous drug. Don't you believe that for the protection of the unwitting that it should be regulated.

Answer 8

No. The Government should keep their grubby little dick-beaters out of my life.

Answer 9

this is not the land of free everything has a price.
anything that you do you pay for in the end.

Answer 10

pot wont be legalized so get over it