03-11-2003, 12:26
Advertising ethics dispute. Perhaps over advertising to children, advertising alcohol and tobacco, or advertising with implicit messages that are damaging to people (e.g. ads with super-skinny models).
Regulation of medicine. Put all of it through an approval process before it can be sold? Allow 'natural' products to be sold without regulation? Make it completely unrestrained? Make it so that it has to prove its claims before it's allowed to make them in advertising?
Laws regarding mentally ill people who refuse treatment. A libertarian might think they should be able to refuse treatment no matter what. Someone else might think that it should be possible to force treatment if they are a physical danger to themselves or others, or if they are gravely disabled (some variation of this is the law in most parts of the U.S. and Canada that I know of). Someone else might think that treatment should be compulsory, because mental illness is a drain on the economy. Someone else might think that treatment should be compulsory if the person's condition is seriously detrimental to their family, society, or the person (e.g. the person's living on the street, or the person's behaviour is causing emotional trauma for their children).
Treatment of children. Ban on all physical punishment, and all emotional abuse, and maybe have a social worker pay visits to families once a year? Prohibition on leaving marks on the child? Or let parents do whatever they want?
Regulation of medicine. Put all of it through an approval process before it can be sold? Allow 'natural' products to be sold without regulation? Make it completely unrestrained? Make it so that it has to prove its claims before it's allowed to make them in advertising?
Laws regarding mentally ill people who refuse treatment. A libertarian might think they should be able to refuse treatment no matter what. Someone else might think that it should be possible to force treatment if they are a physical danger to themselves or others, or if they are gravely disabled (some variation of this is the law in most parts of the U.S. and Canada that I know of). Someone else might think that treatment should be compulsory, because mental illness is a drain on the economy. Someone else might think that treatment should be compulsory if the person's condition is seriously detrimental to their family, society, or the person (e.g. the person's living on the street, or the person's behaviour is causing emotional trauma for their children).
Treatment of children. Ban on all physical punishment, and all emotional abuse, and maybe have a social worker pay visits to families once a year? Prohibition on leaving marks on the child? Or let parents do whatever they want?