While in France applies a law veto against the traditional Burka, Chile presents a bill banning the sale of chocolates in schools. Both measures go beyond state control powers are clearly authoritarian and represent an invasion of individual liberty.
The idea that the state dictates that we dress and eat like a idea taken from Orwell's 1984 or Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. However, that's what seems to be forming surreptitiously in France and Chile.
already passed a law in France banning the wearing of the burqa indirectly, by prohibiting "hide their faces" in any public space, and considers fines of 150 euros who use it. The irony, a citizenship course for those who use it.
In Chile a bill seeking to establish a ban on selling products high in "some nutritional descriptor" like chocolate or French fries in schools. In addition to restricting the advertising of such products until after 22:00 hours.
Both measures represent a state invasion dimensions are the sole intervention of individuals, such as act of dressing and eating. It is inevitable that many questions regarding the applicability of such measures.
In Chile, the central argument of the authorities to establish the ban is to protect the health of infants and promote a healthier population. Many argue that the smaller, lacking discernment, do not choose your food well and therefore it is better to prohibit the chocolate to avoid negative externalities expensive. But then, based on that logic, should also prohibited certain cartoons, toys, some clothing, etc.
However, clearly it would be best to educate about a balanced diet that banning chocolate.
not conducive to ban protects the health of people, it is likely to emerge chocolate black market, where children themselves are engaged in the sale of sweets. For example, what will they do with their grandparents that give chocolates to their grandchildren for a birthday? Will you register each day to students to prevent the smuggling of cocoa? What will happen on Monday after Easter and delivering chocolates the rabbit? Will sniffing dogs?
The absurdity is evident when we begin to think of situations around the measure. For example, considering that the ban on chocolate point to have a healthier population and thin long term, a recent study showed that married life fat. Is it prohibited in the future living with a partner too, to keep slim and healthy population?
Is not this the beginning of a sort of social engineering that people expect reach a standard size?
And still more distrustful Is not this the first step of the state, to favor Isapres, allowing future expensive health services as a punishment for not taking care of their weight in childhood and adolescence? Is not it totalitarian?
In the case of France, the prohibition of the burqa has been advocated as a measure that promotes tolerance, freedom and secularism. However, the opposite is true.
As in Nazi Germany was probably crime to use a six-pointed cross or be circumcised, burka law criminalizes the use of certain clothing related to a religion, not necessarily the act of pressing a woman based on a dogma. In fact, the picture becomes more complex for women whose husbands brutalized by fanaticism, they are forced to wear the burqa at all times.
Both measures exceed state authority control, are clearly authoritarian and represent an invasion of individual liberty more than good, creating problems.
0 comments:
Post a Comment