I largely agree with TB (SURPRISE!!!!!). I think 'spanking' as a form of abuse is questionable. I don't think I would spank my children if I had any- but I think it is a reasonably open question if Spanking is abuse... and in the absence of some sort of hard proof, it has to be left up to the individual. However, using implements to strike the child, leaving bruises or doing lasting physical harm- these are all clearly abuse and we have plenty of laws to cover these issues... We would better be served by our government aggressively enforcing these laws than 'criminalizing' spanking.

Should there be hard data to reference that spanking causes lasting psychological or physical harm, then sure, pass that law.

With Trans Fats, its a bit more complicated. I largely agree that the consumer should have the responsibility to make the decision. However, it is not currently required for the users of trans-fats to label their food in all cases where it is used...

One philosophy of the role of governement in society that is consistent with many 'liberals' beliefs is that the government doesn't just protect us from the transgressions of others (foreign and domestic), but also from our own ignorance or stupidity. I don't find this philosophy as odious as, say, Tom would- but I think its unworkable in a real-world society that still holds the rights of the individual as paramount.

Its difficult to draw the line, practically, between a government (on one hand) that 'knows whats best' because it uses good science and eschews ideological or faith based dogma, and (on the other hand) a government that 'knows whats best' because its The Government (and perhaps cherry-picks or edits science accordingly- Sound familiar?). Obviously the Latter scenario combined with the notion that the Government can legislate against 'individual stupidity' lands us in a world which is incompatible with individual rights.

Besides- Beginning from the premise that the government should protect us from the transgressions of others OR beginning from the premise that includes the clause 'and our own stupidity' usually arrives at the same conclusion for most realistic laws: You can't drive 100 mph on a road by a school not because its stupid for you to do so (since you are likely to die), but because school children need to be protected from your idiocy. You can't smoke in your office at work not because its bad for your health, but because the rights of your coworkers need to be protected from your actions.

The laws that diverge from this are usually laws I disagree with. Helmet laws, for example. I should have the right to splatter my brains on the pavement if I so choose. Its my own stupidity- and if I'm stupid enough ride without a helment chances are I am not using my brain for much anyway (and I think it then follows that my organs would be better used as donor organs for smarter people!). If you think that I should wear a helmet because you don't want your tax dollars supporting the 15 years I'll spend in a coma or as a semi-vegetable in a halfway house, then the appropriate law to enact is one that denies public health care of any type to people who sustained a head injury while riding a Motorcycle without a helmet.

Trans Fat is a more complex case, again, because the lack of disclosure. But I'd be happy with disclosure and no legislated ban.

However, the Left is not the only group who enacts such 'for your own good' type laws. The right actually tends to do it more than the left, but with a justification that usually boils down to: 'Because I believe your actions are immoral or against the will of god' (Pornography, Sodomy laws, Decency laws, Drug laws, etcetc).

And yeah, at this point, nobody of-age is stupid enough not to know the problems and dangers of recreational drug use. So I wouldn't mind at least thinking about legalizing all drugs.

Anyway. A bit of a ramble.