Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Firebird" data-source="post: 9705371" data-attributes="member: 7015803">I meant it literally. That is why I quoted your phrasing. I'm speaking about the justification for the law, not the text of the law itself. When we discuss whether we ought to have such a law, the justification offered is that people cannot evaluate medical claims accurately.I'm confused. I think popularity is exactly why we make regulations in democratic societies. A step removed with representation, subject to lobbying, regulatory capture, outsourced to experts who we collectively decide to trust, but ultimately based on and legitimated by popularity.In many cases the US lacks regulations that are common elsewhere because they would be unpopular here. Gun control is the most obvious. Also restrictions on speech. These regulations hurt feelings in a profound way because many US citizens believe they violate natural rights.I know you know all of this so I am probably misreading your point. I hope it clarifies why I am confused. Maybe you mean something like: "We ought not to care about whether people are insulted when making public health regulations"? Or "these regulations are not interfering with rights so any insult is minor and categorically different than with gun control"?</blockquote>