Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
It’s my body, not the governments
Replies
-
pinggolfer96 wrote: »Curious on people’s opinions here. Never have I ever taken an anabolic steroid or an illegally obtained supplement for bodybuilding. We have had anabolics, sarms, prohormones, marijuana, dhea....etc all banned for the sake of our “health”, yet we are written a prescription like it’s nothing for medication daily that comes with more adverse side effects than the compounds I listed above. Everything that big pharma can’t sell gets banned or isn’t passed. I’m sick of the govt telling me what we can and can’t put in our body unless it makes THEM money. Like I said, I don’t take these, and it extends to a lot of other products as well, but listed those as examples. The fact we have more people dying from obesity related illnesses and we worry about a simple precursor to testosterone production or a compound that “may” potentially have negative effects makes me have zero support for our regulation system. It’s all a money game.
I just can't agree more pinggolfer. I don't want to throw the thread off track, but just lately I've been wondering if the claims of cancers being cured simply by eating right, are true;) I see our biggest battle is against the "so called" legal drugs (being handed out like candy at Halloween). What person isn't tempted to just "take a pill"?? Damn hard not to try some of the so-called fixes I see on commercials. And notice how many new "legal" drug advertisements are on cable now.
Good thread, excellent thread!!
Just want to add here, I am 65, and older people rate right up there with drug addictions many claim are mostly young people:( I don't take anything either, not even vitamins for now because I want to get what I can from food, as long as I can still do that the way some are growing/producing/selling what we eat and drink.
Dang, gotta add this too, sorry, but what if everyone got on the health-wagon?? How many businesses, doctors, hospitals would be out of work?? I know the answer to that one.
8 -
There certainly is a worldwide issue with maintaining retirees above the poverty line for this fundamental reason:
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=b&strail=false&nselm=s&met_x=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&met_s=sp_pop_totl&scale_s=lin&ind_s=false&dimp_c=country:region&ifdim=country&iconSize=0.5&uniSize=0.035#!ctype=b&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=s&met_x=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&met_s=sp_pop_totl&scale_s=lin&ind_s=false&dimp_c=country:region&ifdim=country&pit=-305658000000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false
(drag the bar to the left then hit press play.
That is world births per woman versus life expectancy versus time that I just slapped together with the census data explorer. It is actually a 5 dimensional graph, X axis is life expectancy, Y axis is fertility, Z axis is time, bubbles are regions and bubble size is population of the region.
Life expectancy world wide is climbing while birth rates are declining which means fewer and fewer able bodied working adults are supporting a larger and larger retired population. The change that has occurred globally just in the past 50 years is dramatic and yet our economic systems haven't really adapted to compensate. Don't get me wrong, life expectancy increasing while birth rate decreases is actually a real sign of economic and developmental progress world-wide which is excellent, but it does mean we probably have to change how we handle retirement.
(on a side note looking at the graph again just shows how absolutely f***** Cambodia was in 1977 and Rwanda in 1993)
2 -
tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
So if there was no safety social net and you lost your investments after you could no longer work, you'd what? Lay down and die? I'm really curious to know what your exact expectations of those with no money and limited ability to earn more are.
This has nothing to do with "compassion," I'm asking about the practical consequences if we all adopted this as a matter of policy.
If I couldn't work and/or couldn't enjoy my life, then why not die?
What is the benefit to keeping around a host of people who cannot care for themselves?
We have the technology to keep people "alive" but are they living? I told my daughter that if I'm 100 and want black coffee and bacon for breakfast, I don't want her suggesting to me or others that I cannot have black coffee and bacon for breakfast.
I believe we spend the most on health care at the end of life for most folks. For what? A few more months of low quality life?
I'd rather have a nice scotch, some beautiful surroundings, and maybe something to ease my pain.
If all I am is a burden to others, maybe it's time to let me move on.
So yeah, if I screwed the pooch with my portfolio and can no longer work, I'm so broken in body and/or mind that I need adult supervision and support, it's time to let me go. There are 7+ billion on this planet, I'm not irreplaceable.
I think it's a leap to suggest that one is incapable of enjoying life just because one can no longer work. My grandmother is retired and she appears to enjoy her life (not being inside her head, I cannot tell for certain).
I don't think the right of someone else to live is dependent on whether or not they provide a tangible "benefit" to me.
This discussion is independent of technology to keep people alive or spending money on end of life health care.
So you would like to die if you no longer had resources. I don't think that's a majority opinion.
It's coming across that you think of humans as interchangeable work machines who have no value apart from what they can produce economically. That may not be what you're trying to communicate, but it's hard for me to read your words without picking up that impression.
Do you think there is value in a human life that doesn't produce anything economically?
I was asked what I'd do, and I answered it.
It's not my place to put a value on the life of another. I don't want that responsibility. If you feel responsible, then pony up. But don't feel obligated to support me. I'd rather people NOT try to keep me around if I cannot support myself.
If others feel otherwise, make plans. Just don't sign me up for your values and expect me to provide my time, talent and treasure to support your vision of the greater good just because those are your values.
Ayn Rand is great up until the point you have empathy and realize that bad things can happen to good hard working people.
Look, person A might look at a situation where if you kill 100 people you greatly enrich the lives of 200 and think that is practical because those enriched 200 people will help build a better world where in the future those 100 people would have been much better off (if they hadn't died). Person B might think that is atrocious and would want to help and save those 100 people even if it hurt the 200 economically. Person A thinks Person B is an overly emotional bleeding heart who is screwing us in the long run and Person B thinks Person A is some sort of monster and blah blah blah argument that goes no where.
I get both sides, it isn't an easy thing to answer. I'd just ask for some recognition that the answer isn't somehow obvious and that there is a way of doing things that is just best for everyone...because there isn't. Pretending that if we all give up our money everyone would be taken care of (pure communism) or that if we all kept our money everyone would be taken care of (pure libertarian capitalism) is just kind of silly. The answer has to be a compromise and there is no answer that is perfect.
For me that compromise is a free market capitalist society that values innovation and technological and social development and rewards merit combined with a bare minimum social safety net that doesn't allow people to needlessly die or be relegated to absolute poverty and provides a foundation level where anyone regardless of birth circumstance has the possibility of climbing that ladder.7 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »I was asked what I'd do, and I answered it.
It's not my place to put a value on the life of another. I don't want that responsibility. If you feel responsible, then pony up. But don't feel obligated to support me. I'd rather people NOT try to keep me around if I cannot support myself.
If others feel otherwise, make plans. Just don't sign me up for your values and expect me to provide my time, talent and treasure to support your vision of the greater good just because those are your values.
Ayn Rand is great up until the point you have empathy and realize that bad things can happen to good hard working people.
Look, person A might look at a situation where if you kill 100 people you greatly enrich the lives of 200 and think that is practical because those enriched 200 people will help build a better world where in the future those 100 people would have been much better off (if they hadn't died). Person B might think that is atrocious and would want to help and save those 100 people even if it hurt the 200 economically. Person A thinks Person B is an overly emotional bleeding heart who is screwing us in the long run and Person B thinks Person A is some sort of monster and blah blah blah argument that goes no where.
I get both sides, it isn't an easy thing to answer. I'd just ask for some recognition that the answer isn't somehow obvious and that there is a way of doing things that is just best for everyone...because there isn't. Pretending that if we all give up our money everyone would be taken care of (pure communism) or that if we all kept our money everyone would be taken care of (pure libertarian capitalism) is just kind of silly. The answer has to be a compromise and there is no answer that is perfect.
I can be very empathetic. In fact, I contend that it's MORE empathetic to not put the burden on society to care for me.
Empathy is fine. I have no problem with people being empathetic, or charitable. My problem is as you describe, governments tend to choose one size fits all solutions and as you have so eloquently made my point, there is no one size fits all that is the right answer.
This is why I say let people choose. If you want and/or believe that Social Security is the program that fits your needs and values, be part of it.
Those who don't should have the same freedom to say no thanks, I'll go my own road.
I think that is what our founders had in mind. Not DC calling all the shots. After all, what works in Maryland may not be well suited for Montana. Therefore, shouldn't most decisions be made locally, by the people of Maryland or Montana, rather than being decided inside the capitol beltway?6 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I have no problem with the concept of possessing personal freedom to be reckless , as long as the person who engages in this doesn't become a liability to the government as a result.
For example, go ahead and abuse steroids and drugs or refuse to wear motorcycle helmets and seatbelts, but if this decision results in an impairment to your health, the ensuing medical treatment and other costs associated with the health problem (lost work, for example) are completely on you, not the government. You can't ask the government to butt out of your life when it suits you and then scurry over and ask for government assistance when the *kitten* hits the fan...
Well said, can't add a thing!! Just wish there was a HUGE thumbs-up Icon here;)2 -
Services that I think benefit from broad collaboration - national highways, all railroads, utilities, pensions, communication networks, and health care.2
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »For those who advocate minimal government, I wonder how they propose completing national collaborative projects? And if another agency is used, how is it any less bureaucratic than the government?
Take roads for instance. An enterprising citizen may be able to take care of the pot-hole outside their property, but what about a nation spanning highway or railway? Such projects demand collaborative effort.
There is a difference in a collaborative effort in providing infrastructure and the government (city, state, national) telling you that you can no longer buy a Big Gulp soda because that's too much sugar.
There is also a difference between a government telling you that sugary drinks are illegal and a government that imposes additional taxes on unnecessary foods and drinks tied to the obesity epidemic as a means of helping to offset additional health care costs that they result in.
Making things adults choose to use that harm their own health illegal in the sense of jailtime I think is extreme and inappropriate. Discouraging their use through additional taxes or fines in order to offset the actual monetary cost they place on the society as a whole just makes financial sense.
I don't want to live in a country where being a reckless jerk is applauded. I want to live in a country where being a reckless jerk is tolerated but there are consequences to that sort of behavior.
Then why don't we just go ahead and legislate or tax morality/ sexuality as well? Government is taking care of people who get and spread AIDS and other diseases due to lifestyle choices in this area too. So should the government place extra Taxes on people who are gay? Or single and sexually active? What other inappropriate behaviors should the government TAX in order to try and control that behavior? And who gets to decide which behaviors to tax or not tax? Does this also make sense to you?
I'm not saying I am fine with the government taxing things into oblivion because some people don't like them, I am saying I am fine with the government taxing things to recoup costs that those specific things place upon the society. I am for personal freedom of adults, I just think it is silly to act like there should be absolutely no cost or consequences for ones decisions imposed by the society in which you live.
The financial cost of drinking alcohol on society is fairly evident in increased incidences of death, liver disease and crime. There is an additional tax placed on alcohol to help offset this cost as well as to discourage its use. I don't have a problem with that.
What is the financial cost of being gay?
You totally missed my point!!
You stated that you think it's fine for government to tax inappropriate behaviors by "reckless jerks" in order to deter that behavior and offset monetary costs to society. You said this makes financial sense.
So I presented another scenario to you. Who else should government place special taxes on based on reckless behavior?? Just people who drink alcohol? Or drink sugary Soda? Or does this tax get placed on any and all reckless behaviors? Do you not understand my analogy of placing a tax on a gay person, who might get aids, because some may see their behavior as "inappropriate or reckless"?
And who gets to choose what is and is not appropriate behavior? The government?? They could call anything inappropriate behavior. And what would this tax called? A reckless tax? Sin tax?
Do you not see what a slippery slope this would be? If not, perhaps you are using faulty logic.13 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »For those who advocate minimal government, I wonder how they propose completing national collaborative projects? And if another agency is used, how is it any less bureaucratic than the government?
Take roads for instance. An enterprising citizen may be able to take care of the pot-hole outside their property, but what about a nation spanning highway or railway? Such projects demand collaborative effort.
There is a difference in a collaborative effort in providing infrastructure and the government (city, state, national) telling you that you can no longer buy a Big Gulp soda because that's too much sugar.
There is also a difference between a government telling you that sugary drinks are illegal and a government that imposes additional taxes on unnecessary foods and drinks tied to the obesity epidemic as a means of helping to offset additional health care costs that they result in.
Making things adults choose to use that harm their own health illegal in the sense of jailtime I think is extreme and inappropriate. Discouraging their use through additional taxes or fines in order to offset the actual monetary cost they place on the society as a whole just makes financial sense.
I don't want to live in a country where being a reckless jerk is applauded. I want to live in a country where being a reckless jerk is tolerated but there are consequences to that sort of behavior.
Then why don't we just go ahead and legislate or tax morality/ sexuality as well? Government is taking care of people who get and spread AIDS and other diseases due to lifestyle choices in this area too. So should the government place extra Taxes on people who are gay? Or single and sexually active? What other inappropriate behaviors should the government TAX in order to try and control that behavior? And who gets to decide which behaviors to tax or not tax? Does this also make sense to you?
I'm not saying I am fine with the government taxing things into oblivion because some people don't like them, I am saying I am fine with the government taxing things to recoup costs that those specific things place upon the society. I am for personal freedom of adults, I just think it is silly to act like there should be absolutely no cost or consequences for ones decisions imposed by the society in which you live.
The financial cost of drinking alcohol on society is fairly evident in increased incidences of death, liver disease and crime. There is an additional tax placed on alcohol to help offset this cost as well as to discourage its use. I don't have a problem with that.
What is the financial cost of being gay?
You totally missed my point!!
You stated that you think it's fine for government to tax inappropriate behaviors by "reckless jerks" in order to deter that behavior and offset monetary costs to society. You said this makes financial sense.
So I presented another scenario to you. Who else should government place special taxes on based on reckless behavior?? Just people who drink alcohol? Or drink sugary Soda? Or does this tax get placed on any and all reckless behaviors? Do you not understand my analogy of placing a tax on a gay person, who might get aids, because some may see their behavior as "inappropriate or reckless"?
And who gets to choose what is and is not appropriate behavior? The government?? They could call anything inappropriate behavior. And what would this tax called? A reckless tax? Sin tax?
Do you not see what a slippery slope this would be? If not, perhaps you are using faulty logic.
Being gay is just who someone is...it isn't an action. The reckless action that leads to the spread of a sexually transmitted disease such as AIDS is unprotected sex. Now it might very well be true that there is a lot more unprotected sex in the gay community especially in the 80s that lead to a high burden or incidence of AIDS within that community and so the risk for contracting AIDS when having unprotected sex is higher in that community than in the heterosexual community but that does not change the fact that the action that is reckless is the unprotected sex.
Therefore I would take issue with the government trying to tax people simply because they are gay. I would not, however, take issue in principle with health care companies or the government raising your medical insurance premium on the basis of how much unprotected sex you were having regardless of your sexuality. Now, that raises a separate issue though which is privacy. It is easy enough to put a tax on alcohol because people purchase alcohol, people do not purchase unprotected sex....therefore there is no public record of it that a tax could be applied to. So instead of that we can incentivize protected sex by having clinics provide prophylactics for free or have medical insurance pay for them....which we already do. That is just the other side of the same coin.
By analogy taxing people simply because they are gay rather than providing some sort of disincentive for unprotected sex would be like giving people tickets for an area where lots of people are speeding instead of ticketing the people who are speeding. Sure...if you are in an area where lots of people are speeding then you might be at higher risk of an accident, but it is the people committing the reckless action that should recieve the financial punishment.
If we could somehow know the amount of unprotected sex everyone was having without it being a gross invasion of privacy then having that increase your insurance premium would be okay with me in principle...but its pretty much impossible to get around the privacy issue. Taxing someone just because they are gay though is pretty indefensible.13 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »For those who advocate minimal government, I wonder how they propose completing national collaborative projects? And if another agency is used, how is it any less bureaucratic than the government?
Take roads for instance. An enterprising citizen may be able to take care of the pot-hole outside their property, but what about a nation spanning highway or railway? Such projects demand collaborative effort.
There is a difference in a collaborative effort in providing infrastructure and the government (city, state, national) telling you that you can no longer buy a Big Gulp soda because that's too much sugar.
There is also a difference between a government telling you that sugary drinks are illegal and a government that imposes additional taxes on unnecessary foods and drinks tied to the obesity epidemic as a means of helping to offset additional health care costs that they result in.
Making things adults choose to use that harm their own health illegal in the sense of jailtime I think is extreme and inappropriate. Discouraging their use through additional taxes or fines in order to offset the actual monetary cost they place on the society as a whole just makes financial sense.
I don't want to live in a country where being a reckless jerk is applauded. I want to live in a country where being a reckless jerk is tolerated but there are consequences to that sort of behavior.
Then why don't we just go ahead and legislate or tax morality/ sexuality as well? Government is taking care of people who get and spread AIDS and other diseases due to lifestyle choices in this area too. So should the government place extra Taxes on people who are gay? Or single and sexually active? What other inappropriate behaviors should the government TAX in order to try and control that behavior? And who gets to decide which behaviors to tax or not tax? Does this also make sense to you?
I'm not saying I am fine with the government taxing things into oblivion because some people don't like them, I am saying I am fine with the government taxing things to recoup costs that those specific things place upon the society. I am for personal freedom of adults, I just think it is silly to act like there should be absolutely no cost or consequences for ones decisions imposed by the society in which you live.
The financial cost of drinking alcohol on society is fairly evident in increased incidences of death, liver disease and crime. There is an additional tax placed on alcohol to help offset this cost as well as to discourage its use. I don't have a problem with that.
What is the financial cost of being gay?
You totally missed my point!!
You stated that you think it's fine for government to tax inappropriate behaviors by "reckless jerks" in order to deter that behavior and offset monetary costs to society. You said this makes financial sense.
So I presented another scenario to you. Who else should government place special taxes on based on reckless behavior?? Just people who drink alcohol? Or drink sugary Soda? Or does this tax get placed on any and all reckless behaviors? Do you not understand my analogy of placing a tax on a gay person, who might get aids, because some may see their behavior as "inappropriate or reckless"?
And who gets to choose what is and is not appropriate behavior? The government?? They could call anything inappropriate behavior. And what would this tax called? A reckless tax? Sin tax?
Do you not see what a slippery slope this would be? If not, perhaps you are using faulty logic.
Being gay is just who someone is...it isn't an action. The reckless action that leads to the spread of a sexually transmitted disease such as AIDS is unprotected sex. Now it might very well be true that there is a lot more unprotected sex in the gay community especially in the 80s that lead to a high burden or incidence of AIDS within that community and so the risk for contracting AIDS when having unprotected sex is higher in that community than in the heterosexual community but that does not change the fact that the action that is reckless is the unprotected sex.
Therefore I would take issue with the government trying to tax people simply because they are gay. I would not, however, take issue in principle with health care companies or the government raising your medical insurance premium on the basis of how much unprotected sex you were having regardless of your sexuality. Now, that raises a separate issue though which is privacy. It is easy enough to put a tax on alcohol because people purchase alcohol, people do not purchase unprotected sex....therefore there is no public record of it that a tax could be applied to. So instead of that we can incentivize protected sex by having clinics provide prophylactics for free or have medical insurance pay for them....which we already do. That is just the other side of the same coin.
By analogy taxing people simply because they are gay rather than providing some sort of disincentive for unprotected sex would be like giving people tickets for an area where lots of people are speeding instead of ticketing the people who are speeding. Sure...if you are in an area where lots of people are speeding then you might be at higher risk of an accident, but it is the people committing the reckless action that should recieve the financial punishment.
If we could somehow know the amount of unprotected sex everyone was having without it being a gross invasion of privacy then having that increase your insurance premium would be okay with me in principle...but its pretty much impossible to get around the privacy issue. Taxing someone just because they are gay though is pretty indefensible.
Ok, not totally sure you got my point, but ok. Yes. There is definitely a privacy issue here, as there would be with many behaviors deemed inappropriate. You don't want the government to start trying to legislate morality. And if they start to apply this type of tax to one private, personal behavior, they may extend their reach into MANY personal, private behaviors that they have no business getting into.5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »For those who advocate minimal government, I wonder how they propose completing national collaborative projects? And if another agency is used, how is it any less bureaucratic than the government?
Take roads for instance. An enterprising citizen may be able to take care of the pot-hole outside their property, but what about a nation spanning highway or railway? Such projects demand collaborative effort.
There is a difference in a collaborative effort in providing infrastructure and the government (city, state, national) telling you that you can no longer buy a Big Gulp soda because that's too much sugar.
There is also a difference between a government telling you that sugary drinks are illegal and a government that imposes additional taxes on unnecessary foods and drinks tied to the obesity epidemic as a means of helping to offset additional health care costs that they result in.
Making things adults choose to use that harm their own health illegal in the sense of jailtime I think is extreme and inappropriate. Discouraging their use through additional taxes or fines in order to offset the actual monetary cost they place on the society as a whole just makes financial sense.
I don't want to live in a country where being a reckless jerk is applauded. I want to live in a country where being a reckless jerk is tolerated but there are consequences to that sort of behavior.
Then why don't we just go ahead and legislate or tax morality/ sexuality as well? Government is taking care of people who get and spread AIDS and other diseases due to lifestyle choices in this area too. So should the government place extra Taxes on people who are gay? Or single and sexually active? What other inappropriate behaviors should the government TAX in order to try and control that behavior? And who gets to decide which behaviors to tax or not tax? Does this also make sense to you?
I'm not saying I am fine with the government taxing things into oblivion because some people don't like them, I am saying I am fine with the government taxing things to recoup costs that those specific things place upon the society. I am for personal freedom of adults, I just think it is silly to act like there should be absolutely no cost or consequences for ones decisions imposed by the society in which you live.
The financial cost of drinking alcohol on society is fairly evident in increased incidences of death, liver disease and crime. There is an additional tax placed on alcohol to help offset this cost as well as to discourage its use. I don't have a problem with that.
What is the financial cost of being gay?
You totally missed my point!!
You stated that you think it's fine for government to tax inappropriate behaviors by "reckless jerks" in order to deter that behavior and offset monetary costs to society. You said this makes financial sense.
So I presented another scenario to you. Who else should government place special taxes on based on reckless behavior?? Just people who drink alcohol? Or drink sugary Soda? Or does this tax get placed on any and all reckless behaviors? Do you not understand my analogy of placing a tax on a gay person, who might get aids, because some may see their behavior as "inappropriate or reckless"?
And who gets to choose what is and is not appropriate behavior? The government?? They could call anything inappropriate behavior. And what would this tax called? A reckless tax? Sin tax?
Do you not see what a slippery slope this would be? If not, perhaps you are using faulty logic.
Being gay is just who someone is...it isn't an action. The reckless action that leads to the spread of a sexually transmitted disease such as AIDS is unprotected sex. Now it might very well be true that there is a lot more unprotected sex in the gay community especially in the 80s that lead to a high burden or incidence of AIDS within that community and so the risk for contracting AIDS when having unprotected sex is higher in that community than in the heterosexual community but that does not change the fact that the action that is reckless is the unprotected sex.
Therefore I would take issue with the government trying to tax people simply because they are gay. I would not, however, take issue in principle with health care companies or the government raising your medical insurance premium on the basis of how much unprotected sex you were having regardless of your sexuality. Now, that raises a separate issue though which is privacy. It is easy enough to put a tax on alcohol because people purchase alcohol, people do not purchase unprotected sex....therefore there is no public record of it that a tax could be applied to. So instead of that we can incentivize protected sex by having clinics provide prophylactics for free or have medical insurance pay for them....which we already do. That is just the other side of the same coin.
By analogy taxing people simply because they are gay rather than providing some sort of disincentive for unprotected sex would be like giving people tickets for an area where lots of people are speeding instead of ticketing the people who are speeding. Sure...if you are in an area where lots of people are speeding then you might be at higher risk of an accident, but it is the people committing the reckless action that should recieve the financial punishment.
If we could somehow know the amount of unprotected sex everyone was having without it being a gross invasion of privacy then having that increase your insurance premium would be okay with me in principle...but its pretty much impossible to get around the privacy issue. Taxing someone just because they are gay though is pretty indefensible.
Ok, not totally sure you got my point, but ok. Yes. There is definitely a privacy issue here, as there would be with many behaviors deemed inappropriate. You don't want the government to start trying to legislate morality. And if they start to apply this type of tax to one private, personal behavior, they may extend their reach into MANY personal, private behaviors that they have no business getting into.
Yeah I don't want taxes (a type of force) to be used to legislate morality and I would oppose any tax or law that tried to do that. That said I don't think that is a reason we shouldn't have taxes or laws that try to decentivize "reckless" actions that have a clear objective financial cost. I'll agree with you that there is a slippery slope in terms of defining "reckless" and trying to make some vague case for financial harm. Therefore I'd say it is better to error on the side of caution and not support such laws unless there is a really clear financial harm.
I think cigarettes and alcohol it is pretty clear there is a burden those things place on our health care system and that justifies the added taxes. I don't think that evidence is there for sugary drinks. Why? For this simple reason. If I smoke a pack of cigerretes I just increased my chance for lung cancer, there pretty much is nothing I can do to reverse that. If I drink a bunch of alchohol I caused some damage to my liver, there is pretty much nothing I can do to reverse that. If I drink a sugary drink I can go for a run and not gain weight. I can balance that action out with other actions in my life. There is nothing about drinking a sugary drink that GUARANTEES you are going to be obese and therefore it would be inappropriate to tax the consumption of sugary drinks.
I mean I feel like I am being consistent here, if I am not feel free to call me out on it.6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »It's a bad deal all the way around for me.
Have you considered that if you have 401k options and work in the tech sector that the existence of social security may intentionally be not "for you"? That the purpose of said deal is not to support you but to support others who have a much stronger need for support? Maybe you don't want to do that, fair enough, but it seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what programs like social security are for if you think they are to enable well off people to retire early
Its more to ensure that people who have been blue collar low wage all their life don't end up in utter destitution when they can no longer work because we, as a society, don't want to see that happen. You putting into a 401k for yourself isn't going to make that happen and those blue collar workers probably don't have matched 401k's and stock options available to them because those are perks not a protective social net.
Then maybe they should let me opt out. If the system can't make it without my "contribution" then the system is broken.
If you need to force others into something to make it work, it's not well designed.
So anything that uses tax dollars to build and maintain is "not well designed" in your opinion? We should rely on people not only being altruistic enough but also taking the time to figure out how to allocate their funds in a balanced way to not only fund the things directly in front of their face that obviously affect them but also the more subtle things like the maintenance of the road 40 miles away that acts as a major transport lane for goods that come into the city in order to stock the stores in the local suburbs?
Taxes aren't evil. Taxes are a recognition that there are social services that we all benefit from either directly (through our own use) or indirectly (through people who support us using them) that require funding and that it is unreasonable to expect individuals to have the time to figure out exactly how to distribute a portion of their income to fund all of them. There are thousands of jobs and workers dedicated to figuring out how to best distrubute those funds for a reason and sure they probably aren't getting it 100% correct but they are doing a better job than I would if I tried to divy up a portion of my salary to fund absolutely everything that I utilize either directly or indirectly within the society I am a part of.
Just because you personally don't see a direct benefit or use from a given service does not mean that people who provide services to you aren't reliant on those services. The truck driver who keeps working knowing they have some protection in their retirement through social security and who drives over roads maintained through federal and state funding benefits you. Are you saying that the way that should be funded is not through taxation but bu you personally figuring out absolutely everything that supports you and what portion of their work supports you relative to other people and then sending them small checks to contribute to their maintenance and support?
Your success and my success aren't islands...that success is built on a foundation of a society with many players and contributors. The government taxes us in part to support that infrastructure, both literal infrastructure such as roads as well as personnel resource such as the labor force that helps support it. Perhaps you and I personally don't benefit from or need social security because of our stock options and 401ks, but a hell of a lot of people who provide the support structure necessary for our success do and therefore yeah, you we probably be contributing to that. The fact that you don't seem to recognize that is the very reason why the tax is necessary.
X 1000
3 -
There is definitely a privacy issue here, as there would be with many behaviors deemed inappropriate.
Appropriate/ inappropriate according to some cults imaginary friend <> higher riskYou don't want the government to start trying to legislate morality.
Doesn't the US have statutory separation of church and state? I'll acknowledge the practicality seems to be a challenge though.
How we've got from the role of government in regulating pharmaceuticals to pensions and sexuality isn't entirely clear!
6 -
I'd agree that unprotected sex outside of committed relationships creates a cost on society.
But the problem with saying that if alcohol is taxed, so should that be is how on earth would one tax it?4 -
tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
So if there was no safety social net and you lost your investments after you could no longer work, you'd what? Lay down and die? I'm really curious to know what your exact expectations of those with no money and limited ability to earn more are.
This has nothing to do with "compassion," I'm asking about the practical consequences if we all adopted this as a matter of policy.
If I couldn't work and/or couldn't enjoy my life, then why not die?
What is the benefit to keeping around a host of people who cannot care for themselves?
We have the technology to keep people "alive" but are they living? I told my daughter that if I'm 100 and want black coffee and bacon for breakfast, I don't want her suggesting to me or others that I cannot have black coffee and bacon for breakfast.
I believe we spend the most on health care at the end of life for most folks. For what? A few more months of low quality life?
I'd rather have a nice scotch, some beautiful surroundings, and maybe something to ease my pain.
If all I am is a burden to others, maybe it's time to let me move on.
So yeah, if I screwed the pooch with my portfolio and can no longer work, I'm so broken in body and/or mind that I need adult supervision and support, it's time to let me go. There are 7+ billion on this planet, I'm not irreplaceable.
I think it's a leap to suggest that one is incapable of enjoying life just because one can no longer work. My grandmother is retired and she appears to enjoy her life (not being inside her head, I cannot tell for certain).
I don't think the right of someone else to live is dependent on whether or not they provide a tangible "benefit" to me.
This discussion is independent of technology to keep people alive or spending money on end of life health care.
So you would like to die if you no longer had resources. I don't think that's a majority opinion.
It's coming across that you think of humans as interchangeable work machines who have no value apart from what they can produce economically. That may not be what you're trying to communicate, but it's hard for me to read your words without picking up that impression.
Do you think there is value in a human life that doesn't produce anything economically?
I was asked what I'd do, and I answered it.
It's not my place to put a value on the life of another. I don't want that responsibility. If you feel responsible, then pony up. But don't feel obligated to support me. I'd rather people NOT try to keep me around if I cannot support myself.
If others feel otherwise, make plans. Just don't sign me up for your values and expect me to provide my time, talent and treasure to support your vision of the greater good just because those are your values.
I appreciate you answering the question and if my response conveyed otherwise, I'm sorry for that. I was asking you further questions to continue the conversation not to indicate that your answers to date didn't satisfy me.
We all place values on the lives of others through our daily decision making process.
If there was no governmental safety net, are there circumstances in which you would give your personal time, talent, and treasure to support those who are unable to work? Or do you consider those who do concerns (at least some) of the lives of the unable to work as having values other than yours? That's what I am picking up from your use of the term "your values."
That you wish to die in certain circumstances doesn't mean that others wouldn't value their lives in that same situation. There are people who would want to die if they were disabled in a certain way, but not all of them insist that those who are disabled in that way should be executed. When it comes to the individual choice of life or death, we don't have to insist others must make the same choice we would.6 -
On the whole tax issue, I was just thinking about churches, and how many give freely of their money, resources and time to churches. Churches don't "tax" or demand money from people but many not only keep their bills payed, by "giving" of their congregations, but they thrive.
I know that not everyone gives to the church they attend, so never will everyone contribute to a church, or anything else, like the building of roads for example. But wouldn't it be great if people, in America for example, loved their company, respected their government, and "wanted" to support it? Like those that love their churches.
Just a wishful thinking I suppose. The truth is, imo, that the world would be a better place if it were not for greed, or fear of not having enough. At the same time, I don't believe it will change for the good, it's going to get worse, and I'm not the gloom and doom type. I don't dwell on that, I try to live each day and think of others, be un'self'ish. But I fall short, a lot of the time.
I wonder if there are still any countries left that are like this?
I want to add here that I don't believe in people supporting the government. It was supposed to be government for the people. What I mean by that is, government to organize things (represent the wishes of the people in WA) to help their people that voted them in, not make themselves rich off the people of their country. People *kitten* about cults like the Rajneeshi in Oregon all those years ago. What was he except another, smart-*kitten* governor that "lived' high and mighty off his followers? That's not any different than the crooks who've gone to Washington or our State Capitols.
Not all, I'm not including every government official at all. Thank God we have some good ones.
7 -
abbynormal52 wrote: »On the whole tax issue, I was just thinking about churches, and how many give freely of their money, resources and time to churches. Churches don't "tax" or demand money from people but many not only keep their bills payed, by "giving" of their congregations, but they thrive.
I know that not everyone gives to the church they attend, so never will everyone contribute to a church, or anything else, like the building of roads for example. But wouldn't it be great if people, in America for example, loved their company, respected their government, and "wanted" to support it? Like those that love their churches.
Just a wishful thinking I suppose. The truth is, imo, that the world would be a better place if it were not for greed, or fear of not having enough. At the same time, I don't believe it will change for the good, it's going to get worse, and I'm not the gloom and doom type. I don't dwell on that, I try to live each day and think of others, be un'self'ish. But I fall short, a lot of the time.
I wonder if there are still any countries left that are like this?
I want to add here that I don't believe in people supporting the government. It was supposed to be government for the people. What I mean by that is, government to organize things (represent the wishes of the people in WA) to help their people that voted them in, not make themselves rich off the people of their country. People *kitten* about cults like the Rajneeshi in Oregon all those years ago. What was he except another, smart-*kitten* governor that "lived' high and mighty off his followers? That's not any different than the crooks who've gone to Washington or our State Capitols.
Not all, I'm not including every government official at all. Thank God we have some good ones.
I think you see people giving so freely of their time, resources, and money to churches because it's a self-selecting group. Those who don't support the mission or theology of a certain church are free to choose another or to not give at all. With government, it's a bit more complex (although people certainly have been known to switch countries).
The idea that churches shouldn't be taxing the general public is a relatively new one (and it isn't universal, there are still places where the church is part of government).8 -
8
-
IMO, it's kind of rude to look at multiple longer posts where people are trying to be thoughtful, explain their positions, and actually *debate* (what this area is for) and then make a crack about "words words words words."
If you don't like longer posts, why not just skip over them?10 -
abbynormal52 wrote: »On the whole tax issue, I was just thinking about churches, and how many give freely of their money, resources and time to churches. Churches don't "tax" or demand money from people but many not only keep their bills payed, by "giving" of their congregations, but they thrive.
I know that not everyone gives to the church they attend, so never will everyone contribute to a church, or anything else, like the building of roads for example. But wouldn't it be great if people, in America for example, loved their company, respected their government, and "wanted" to support it? Like those that love their churches.
Just a wishful thinking I suppose. The truth is, imo, that the world would be a better place if it were not for greed, or fear of not having enough. At the same time, I don't believe it will change for the good, it's going to get worse, and I'm not the gloom and doom type. I don't dwell on that, I try to live each day and think of others, be un'self'ish. But I fall short, a lot of the time.
I wonder if there are still any countries left that are like this?
I want to add here that I don't believe in people supporting the government. It was supposed to be government for the people. What I mean by that is, government to organize things (represent the wishes of the people in WA) to help their people that voted them in, not make themselves rich off the people of their country. People *kitten* about cults like the Rajneeshi in Oregon all those years ago. What was he except another, smart-*kitten* governor that "lived' high and mighty off his followers? That's not any different than the crooks who've gone to Washington or our State Capitols.
Not all, I'm not including every government official at all. Thank God we have some good ones.
The world is far more peaceful that it has historically been. Quality of life has never been this good. Every generation thinks the world is about to end and yet we remain.
Things are so good we have the time to complain debate on this forum and worry about the affairs of others when our time would be much better served in self improvement and helping out our families and friends.
You can't fix the world, but you can fix yourself. If we did this the world would be a better place.
Taxation at it's core is theft. You may find the concept distasteful, but can be proven by simply not paying your taxes and enjoying the ramifications. Charity is just that...charity. I may receive a cross look from a lay leader at my church if I stop donating, but there are no punitive measures on the books. There's an element of pride when we hold the power and decide where our money is invested. There's a equal element of resentment and disgust when our money is not used wisely or in a corrupt manner.
The primary issue with government is that it lacks accountability. There are no incentives or mechanisms to improve. Removing bad actors from the system takes years and a monumental effort.
0 -
There are built in checks and balance in government. There’s:
- appeal processes
- the courts, arms length
- free press
- fixed terms and public elections
- annual reporting
- audits (Auditor General reports are always great reading)
- Ombudsman offices
Governments who fail to secure public confidence don’t typically stay in power long.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
IMO, it's kind of rude to look at multiple longer posts where people are trying to be thoughtful, explain their positions, and actually *debate* (what this area is for) and then make a crack about "words words words words."
If you don't like longer posts, why not just skip over them?
let me try to explain how our civil liberties works..i have the right to my opinion and to voice my own opinion. (did I incite a riot - I think not) imo WHEN IT COMES TO THE WORKINGS OF OUR GVT THEY GIVE A LOT OF LIP SERVICE AND NOT MUCH MORE.(UNLESS OF COURSE IT GETS THE MONEY TO FLOW IN THEIR DIRECTION - I think I am allowed to say that this thread is like the gvt..words words words words (former political activist - when you have been arrested making fighting for change - you may understand what I am talking about)
16 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
IMO, it's kind of rude to look at multiple longer posts where people are trying to be thoughtful, explain their positions, and actually *debate* (what this area is for) and then make a crack about "words words words words."
If you don't like longer posts, why not just skip over them?
let me try to explain how our civil liberties works..i have the right to my opinion and to voice my own opinion. (did I incite a riot - I think not) imo WHEN IT COMES TO THE WORKINGS OF OUR GVT THEY GIVE A LOT OF LIP SERVICE AND NOT MUCH MORE.(UNLESS OF COURSE IT GETS THE MONEY TO FLOW IN THEIR DIRECTION - I think I am allowed to say that this thread is like the gvt..words words words words (former political activist - when you have been arrested making fighting for change - you may understand what I am talking about)
Nobody, absolutely nobody, is infringing on your ability to voice your opinion here. People having *a response* to your opinion isn't an infringement. As to whether you have a "right" to voice your opinion in this private space administered by UnderArmour, that's between you and them. The government isn't a factor.
Posturing about "civil liberties" in an online discussion is absolutely ridiculous. Your fellow members here can do nothing to infringe upon your rights in this situation.16 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
IMO, it's kind of rude to look at multiple longer posts where people are trying to be thoughtful, explain their positions, and actually *debate* (what this area is for) and then make a crack about "words words words words."
If you don't like longer posts, why not just skip over them?
let me try to explain how our civil liberties works..i have the right to my opinion and to voice my own opinion. (did I incite a riot - I think not) imo WHEN IT COMES TO THE WORKINGS OF OUR GVT THEY GIVE A LOT OF LIP SERVICE AND NOT MUCH MORE.(UNLESS OF COURSE IT GETS THE MONEY TO FLOW IN THEIR DIRECTION - I think I am allowed to say that this thread is like the gvt..words words words words (former political activist - when you have been arrested making fighting for change - you may understand what I am talking about)
15 -
Don't even need the hypothetical, I do so now. I've worked mission projects in the US and abroad, helping others. I make cash and other donations to organizations that help others. I've even been known to buy a meal or a coat for the guy on the street who is down and out.janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
I was asked what I'd do, and I answered it.
It's not my place to put a value on the life of another. I don't want that responsibility. If you feel responsible, then pony up. But don't feel obligated to support me. I'd rather people NOT try to keep me around if I cannot support myself.
If others feel otherwise, make plans. Just don't sign me up for your values and expect me to provide my time, talent and treasure to support your vision of the greater good just because those are your values.
I appreciate you answering the question and if my response conveyed otherwise, I'm sorry for that. I was asking you further questions to continue the conversation not to indicate that your answers to date didn't satisfy me.
We all place values on the lives of others through our daily decision making process.
If there was no governmental safety net, are there circumstances in which you would give your personal time, talent, and treasure to support those who are unable to work? Or do you consider those who do concerns (at least some) of the lives of the unable to work as having values other than yours? That's what I am picking up from your use of the term "your values."
Now, I don't like handing out cash on the street because that may go for some habit that is not helping that person. But I will buy a meal, fill a gas tank, etc. If I've been played, at least I was played willingly. Usually, if someone really needs a tank of gas to get to Chicago, they'll let me fill their tank. If they are just hustling some cash to support a habit, their need for gas turns into just give me some cash...
So I've donated my time, talent and treasure to help others. Those are my values.
However, it's not my place to impose my values on others. If you don't wish to donate as I do, or even at all, that's your right.janejellyroll wrote: »
That you wish to die in certain circumstances doesn't mean that others wouldn't value their lives in that same situation. There are people who would want to die if they were disabled in a certain way, but not all of them insist that those who are disabled in that way should be executed. When it comes to the individual choice of life or death, we don't have to insist others must make the same choice we would.
Who said anything about executing someone?
I'm glad you said we don't have to insist others make the same choice, because that's what welfare through taxation does. You are forced to "make" the "choice" where it comes to helping others. Those values, voted into law are now "your" values by legislative fiat.
My view is exactly as you describe, not wishing to impose my values on another. If someone else wants to freely give more or less, even to zero, that is totally their right. If they want to live, let them live. If they want to die, let them die. If they want to help others, let them. If they want to be part of a big government apparatus, let them. Let those who don't wish to belong stay out of it.
Freedom, it really is that simple.6 -
tbright1965 wrote: »
Don't even need the hypothetical, I do so now. I've worked mission projects in the US and abroad, helping others. I make cash and other donations to organizations that help others. I've even been known to buy a meal or a coat for the guy on the street who is down and out.janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
I was asked what I'd do, and I answered it.
It's not my place to put a value on the life of another. I don't want that responsibility. If you feel responsible, then pony up. But don't feel obligated to support me. I'd rather people NOT try to keep me around if I cannot support myself.
If others feel otherwise, make plans. Just don't sign me up for your values and expect me to provide my time, talent and treasure to support your vision of the greater good just because those are your values.
I appreciate you answering the question and if my response conveyed otherwise, I'm sorry for that. I was asking you further questions to continue the conversation not to indicate that your answers to date didn't satisfy me.
We all place values on the lives of others through our daily decision making process.
If there was no governmental safety net, are there circumstances in which you would give your personal time, talent, and treasure to support those who are unable to work? Or do you consider those who do concerns (at least some) of the lives of the unable to work as having values other than yours? That's what I am picking up from your use of the term "your values."
Now, I don't like handing out cash on the street because that may go for some habit that is not helping that person. But I will buy a meal, fill a gas tank, etc. If I've been played, at least I was played willingly. Usually, if someone really needs a tank of gas to get to Chicago, they'll let me fill their tank. If they are just hustling some cash to support a habit, their need for gas turns into just give me some cash...
So I've donated my time, talent and treasure to help others. Those are my values.
However, it's not my place to impose my values on others. If you don't wish to donate as I do, or even at all, that's your right.janejellyroll wrote: »
That you wish to die in certain circumstances doesn't mean that others wouldn't value their lives in that same situation. There are people who would want to die if they were disabled in a certain way, but not all of them insist that those who are disabled in that way should be executed. When it comes to the individual choice of life or death, we don't have to insist others must make the same choice we would.
Who said anything about executing someone?
I'm glad you said we don't have to insist others make the same choice, because that's what welfare through taxation does. You are forced to "make" the "choice" where it comes to helping others. Those values, voted into law are now "your" values by legislative fiat.
My view is exactly as you describe, not wishing to impose my values on another. If someone else wants to freely give more or less, even to zero, that is totally their right. If they want to live, let them live. If they want to die, let them die. If they want to help others, let them. If they want to be part of a big government apparatus, let them. Let those who don't wish to belong stay out of it.
Freedom, it really is that simple.
If one assumes that others should live or die based on their individual preferences if found in another individual's situation, then execution would almost certainly be involved (I understand that isn't your position, but there is where execution comes into it).
A society safety net doesn't insist that anyone die in a situation where I would choose death. People can always choose death or suicide if that is their preference. A society safety net ensures that an individual that prefers to continue living can continue living, even if they are unable to work. Just saying "let them live" isn't sufficient to ensure continued life, there has to be some sort of action to accompany it. I understand you feel that action should always be that of a private individual.
4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
IMO, it's kind of rude to look at multiple longer posts where people are trying to be thoughtful, explain their positions, and actually *debate* (what this area is for) and then make a crack about "words words words words."
If you don't like longer posts, why not just skip over them?
let me try to explain how our civil liberties works..i have the right to my opinion and to voice my own opinion. (did I incite a riot - I think not) imo WHEN IT COMES TO THE WORKINGS OF OUR GVT THEY GIVE A LOT OF LIP SERVICE AND NOT MUCH MORE.(UNLESS OF COURSE IT GETS THE MONEY TO FLOW IN THEIR DIRECTION - I think I am allowed to say that this thread is like the gvt..words words words words (former political activist - when you have been arrested making fighting for change - you may understand what I am talking about)
TLDR
Just to remind everyone the opinion that you expressed that only someone who got arrested in the service of political activism would understand is that you don't like words. Although apparently you like words just fine if they are capitalized excessively and arranged into long run on sentences complete with random hyphenation. Was your political activism to protest the use of periods?
Look, you have a right to say what you want to say. What you do not have is the right to govern or police how people respond to you or the right to not be offended. People responding negatively to your publically posted comment is not some sort of abridgment of your social liberty but I do thank you for providing a real world example of someone who seems to thinks that suffering consequences for what you say in public is some sort of violation of freedom of speech.
Might want to take a step back and realize coming into a long conversation between several groups of people trying to explain their position and posting "lolz woords" was not the most insightful or meaningful opinion you could have shared. I'm going to move on now as I'm not sure what a deep dive into "words are bad" would accomplish.18 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
IMO, it's kind of rude to look at multiple longer posts where people are trying to be thoughtful, explain their positions, and actually *debate* (what this area is for) and then make a crack about "words words words words."
If you don't like longer posts, why not just skip over them?
let me try to explain how our civil liberties works..i have the right to my opinion and to voice my own opinion. (did I incite a riot - I think not) imo WHEN IT COMES TO THE WORKINGS OF OUR GVT THEY GIVE A LOT OF LIP SERVICE AND NOT MUCH MORE.(UNLESS OF COURSE IT GETS THE MONEY TO FLOW IN THEIR DIRECTION - I think I am allowed to say that this thread is like the gvt..words words words words (former political activist - when you have been arrested making fighting for change - you may understand what I am talking about)
TLDR
Just to remind everyone the opinion that you expressed that only someone who got arrested in the service of political activism would understand is that you don't like words. Although apparently you like words just fine if they are capitalized excessively and arranged into long run on sentences complete with random hyphenation. Was your political activism to protest the use of periods?
Look, you have a right to say what you want to say. What you do not have is the right to govern or police how people respond to you or the right to not be offended. People responding negatively to your publically posted comment is not some sort of abridgment of your social liberty but I do thank you for providing a real world example of someone who seems to thinks that suffering consequences for what you say in public is some sort of violation of freedom of speech.
Might want to take a step back and realize coming into a long conversation between several groups of people trying to explain their position and posting "lolz woords" was not the most insightful or meaningful opinion you could have shared. I'm going to move on now as I'm not sure what a deep dive into "words are bad" would accomplish.
A lot of these people who scream about their "civil liberties" and First Amendment rights to free speech fail to realize that the knife cuts both ways. People with opposing viewpoints are just as free to express theirs as you are yours.
They also misinterpret what it actually means. It means the government can't throw you in prison for what you say. Nothing more. It doesn't mean you have carte blanche to say whatever you want, wherever you want, without opposition and/or repercussions.8 -
pinggolfer96 wrote: »Curious on people’s opinions here. Never have I ever taken an anabolic steroid or an illegally obtained supplement for bodybuilding. We have had anabolics, sarms, prohormones, marijuana, dhea....etc all banned for the sake of our “health”, yet we are written a prescription like it’s nothing for medication daily that comes with more adverse side effects than the compounds I listed above. Everything that big pharma can’t sell gets banned or isn’t passed. I’m sick of the govt telling me what we can and can’t put in our body unless it makes THEM money. Like I said, I don’t take these, and it extends to a lot of other products as well, but listed those as examples. The fact we have more people dying from obesity related illnesses and we worry about a simple precursor to testosterone production or a compound that “may” potentially have negative effects makes me have zero support for our regulation system. It’s all a money game.
Going back to the situation the OP posed - there are so many rules and regulations on the books currently that no one can possibly enforce the current laws, let alone enforce more. The average US citizen unwittingly commits ~6 felonies daily, yet most are completely unaware.
With illegal drugs the current model of enforcement is focused on distribution, not use. So you are completely able to use these drugs with little to no legal risk. I will note that you would be using products that are not regulated, so not sure how risky you want to play the game of life and inject parenteral products which are formulated, manufactured, and distributed with no oversight. Also not assuming providers of these products are doing so with a profit motive. Not sure if it's possible to avoid the money game.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
Don't even need the hypothetical, I do so now. I've worked mission projects in the US and abroad, helping others. I make cash and other donations to organizations that help others. I've even been known to buy a meal or a coat for the guy on the street who is down and out.janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
I was asked what I'd do, and I answered it.
It's not my place to put a value on the life of another. I don't want that responsibility. If you feel responsible, then pony up. But don't feel obligated to support me. I'd rather people NOT try to keep me around if I cannot support myself.
If others feel otherwise, make plans. Just don't sign me up for your values and expect me to provide my time, talent and treasure to support your vision of the greater good just because those are your values.
I appreciate you answering the question and if my response conveyed otherwise, I'm sorry for that. I was asking you further questions to continue the conversation not to indicate that your answers to date didn't satisfy me.
We all place values on the lives of others through our daily decision making process.
If there was no governmental safety net, are there circumstances in which you would give your personal time, talent, and treasure to support those who are unable to work? Or do you consider those who do concerns (at least some) of the lives of the unable to work as having values other than yours? That's what I am picking up from your use of the term "your values."
Now, I don't like handing out cash on the street because that may go for some habit that is not helping that person. But I will buy a meal, fill a gas tank, etc. If I've been played, at least I was played willingly. Usually, if someone really needs a tank of gas to get to Chicago, they'll let me fill their tank. If they are just hustling some cash to support a habit, their need for gas turns into just give me some cash...
So I've donated my time, talent and treasure to help others. Those are my values.
However, it's not my place to impose my values on others. If you don't wish to donate as I do, or even at all, that's your right.janejellyroll wrote: »
That you wish to die in certain circumstances doesn't mean that others wouldn't value their lives in that same situation. There are people who would want to die if they were disabled in a certain way, but not all of them insist that those who are disabled in that way should be executed. When it comes to the individual choice of life or death, we don't have to insist others must make the same choice we would.
Who said anything about executing someone?
I'm glad you said we don't have to insist others make the same choice, because that's what welfare through taxation does. You are forced to "make" the "choice" where it comes to helping others. Those values, voted into law are now "your" values by legislative fiat.
My view is exactly as you describe, not wishing to impose my values on another. If someone else wants to freely give more or less, even to zero, that is totally their right. If they want to live, let them live. If they want to die, let them die. If they want to help others, let them. If they want to be part of a big government apparatus, let them. Let those who don't wish to belong stay out of it.
Freedom, it really is that simple.
If one assumes that others should live or die based on their individual preferences if found in another individual's situation, then execution would almost certainly be involved (I understand that isn't your position, but there is where execution comes into it).
A society safety net doesn't insist that anyone die in a situation where I would choose death. People can always choose death or suicide if that is their preference. A society safety net ensures that an individual that prefers to continue living can continue living, even if they are unable to work. Just saying "let them live" isn't sufficient to ensure continued life, there has to be some sort of action to accompany it. I understand you feel that action should always be that of a private individual.
No one is saying don't craft a social safety net. I'm simply saying do it without forcing others to "contribute."
The theft of freedom isn't the net, it's the notion that everyone who is able must contribute.
Have your net. Just do it with volunteered time, talent and treasure. Don't use resources taxed from others.
That way, the freedom of everyone is preserved.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
So if there was no safety social net and you lost your investments after you could no longer work, you'd what? Lay down and die? I'm really curious to know what your exact expectations of those with no money and limited ability to earn more are.
This has nothing to do with "compassion," I'm asking about the practical consequences if we all adopted this as a matter of policy.
If I couldn't work and/or couldn't enjoy my life, then why not die?
What is the benefit to keeping around a host of people who cannot care for themselves?
We have the technology to keep people "alive" but are they living? I told my daughter that if I'm 100 and want black coffee and bacon for breakfast, I don't want her suggesting to me or others that I cannot have black coffee and bacon for breakfast.
I believe we spend the most on health care at the end of life for most folks. For what? A few more months of low quality life?
I'd rather have a nice scotch, some beautiful surroundings, and maybe something to ease my pain.
If all I am is a burden to others, maybe it's time to let me move on.
So yeah, if I screwed the pooch with my portfolio and can no longer work, I'm so broken in body and/or mind that I need adult supervision and support, it's time to let me go. There are 7+ billion on this planet, I'm not irreplaceable.
I think it's a leap to suggest that one is incapable of enjoying life just because one can no longer work. My grandmother is retired and she appears to enjoy her life (not being inside her head, I cannot tell for certain).
I don't think the right of someone else to live is dependent on whether or not they provide a tangible "benefit" to me.
This discussion is independent of technology to keep people alive or spending money on end of life health care.
So you would like to die if you no longer had resources. I don't think that's a majority opinion.
It's coming across that you think of humans as interchangeable work machines who have no value apart from what they can produce economically. That may not be what you're trying to communicate, but it's hard for me to read your words without picking up that impression.
Do you think there is value in a human life that doesn't produce anything economically?
I agree with you totally. My little Daddy is 88 years old and lives with me and my husband. His mind is fine and health very good for his age. His life is invaluable to his family! His contribution is love and wisdom, not money or work. When he has had to be hospitalized, you better believe I was there to see he received the care he needed and deserved. It is up to NO ONE else to decide his worth or treatment but his family. Not government or society. When he gets to the point where he has no quality of life and is actively dying, I will decide what further treatments. Etc he will get or if we keep him comfortable and let him go peacefully.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions