Aonghus

Life should never be taken lightly, esp. by the government. That being said, some acts place people in the category of wasting air I may need someday.

In a possibly futile attempt to bring the discussion back on topic. (And with apologies to all for my part in the near descent into madness.) I would like to put forth a modest proposal to help curb the recognized abuses of the system. I would first like to postulate that there is no way to eliminate abuse in 100% of the cases. As long as someone is passing something out for free, there will be someone else who seeks to take advantage of the situation for their personal gain beyond the scope of the original charity. What if, however, we decided to do something to eliminate the "free" part of the equation? (I know this has been tried with the "all able bodied must work provision" some states have put in place, and an earlier commenter remarked on how this situation failed her.) What if we declared that, as a condition of receiving state assistance, one surrendered ones right to vote when one did so? After all, one of the recognized standards of adulthood is the ability to support oneself, and we don't allow children to vote.

SNIP - off topic Bben46

I've been reading this thread for a while and have (so far) resisted the urge to weigh in. Partially because I wasn't sure that I could add anything to the discussion and partially because I wasn't really sure where I would draw the line beyond the obvious case of self-defense. Have had some time to think it over, though, I think I may have an answer. "When is it okay to kill someone?" -- Whenever doing so prevents injustice. I base this quick statement on a study of the doctrine of the "Just War:" Just Cause - Killing, as with a war, must be undertaken only to protect innocents from imminent danger. Competent Authority - Lawful instructions from proper authorities must be followed. In the set of questions above, the order to kill a terrorist is lawful, the order to take out his entire family (unless they are also terrorists) is not. Right Intention - Killing must be undertaken only for a just cause (protecting innocents from harm, see above.) Personal gain, either material or emotional (i.e. revenge) is not. Probability of Success - My act of killing another must have a reasonable chance of preventing the innocent party from coming to harm, or for stopping the harm that has been done to them. Last Resort - There must be no other viable options available, or no time to consider other options. Proportionality - The harm that I am seeking to prevent must be sufficiently grave to justify killing. (IMHO, loss of life, serious trauma, and harms of that ilk qualify.) Two exchanges from entertainment come to mind as well. The first is dialogue from FO3, when the Lone Wanderer is trying to convince Nathan that unquestioning support of the government is wrong, one of the dialogue options is "Well, why else would they have given us guns and told us, "If we're messing up, feel free to take us out."" The second is from the TV series Firefly: Zoe: "Shepherd, don't the Good Book have some pretty specific things to say about killing?" Book: "Why yes." (He cocks a shotgun.) "It is however, hazier on the subject of kneecaps." My final thought is a quote from Machiavelli, "Never do an enemy a small injury." :devil:

You may find it surprising to find that I agree with you there. The problem, IMHO is that these are exceptions that prove the rule. Too often in my lifetime I've seen government intervening simply because it could. Even worse are the cases where it falls into the "governmental fallacy" 1. Something needs to be done. 2. This is something. 3. This needs to be done. The road to hell in three easy steps. As an example, I would point to a recent decision in my (rather libertarian) state requiring all children up to the age of eight to be in car safety seats. Are children killed in car crashes? Yes. Is this a tragedy? Yes. Do safety seats help protect children in car crashes? Yes. but accepting the logic in the state's decision is one small step from requiring parent to drape their kids with bubble wrap 24/7.

Jopo, I have a question that I believe is germane to the discussion you want to have. You begin your original post with the statement, "OK, personally I have been dragged forcibly to the mental hospital 3 times for Psychotic Depression." What are the circumstances that lead to your consultation with the single duty doctor whom made this determination not one, not three times? To the best of my knowledge, since the fall of the Soviet Union, no government on earth will randomly stop citizens on the street and perform mental health evaluations. (O.K. Maybe in N. Korea, but there has to be an exception to every rule. :whistling: ) What I'm driving at is that some action on your part brought you to the attention of this doctor. Was a police intervention involved (in which case, contrary to your assertion, your actions had affected others,) had you gone seeking help for depressive symptoms (in which case, why are you grousing about the help that was provided?) or had you gone for help in some other matter and seemingly random questions provoked the diagnosis? (In which case, why didn't you lie, particularly after the first time when you must have had some inkling of what would happen.) If you want to honestly debate the topic, then I am all for it. If, on the other hand (as I suspect) this is an attempt at starting a flame war or getting around explicit instructions from a moderator, I want nothing to do with this (and you should be careful, the ban hammer seems to swing freely around here.) BTW, while you are technically correct that suicide is illegal in the US, it also has the distinction of being the only crime we prosecute only for failed attempts. :tongue:

To my mind, Franklin made the best statement on this topic more than 200 years ago: "Those willing to sacrifice liberty for temporary safety are deserving of neither."

A small quibble, but an important one. Wealth and money, while similar, are not synonyms. I would refer you to Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" for a full explanation of the idea. It is a long and dry read, but the concepts in the book are invaluable. In particular I would reference what I consider the phrase that sums up his core argument: "The real price of every thing, What every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it, or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. That this is really the foundation of the exchangeable value of all things, excepting those which cannot be increased by human industry, is a doctrine of the utmost importance in political economy". Just my two cents, take it for what it's worth. ;)

I'm not normally one to get into political discussions in this type of topic. I'm not likely to read anything to cause me to change my views, nor am I likely to say anything that will cause others to change theirs. Still, I can sum up my opposition to a UHC model (based on fear,) with five words: The Department of Motor Vehicles :wallbash: (I should probably also add that in my personal philosophy there is no phrase more frightening than, "I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.")