From: Boris Liberman
On 5/31/2010 1:13 PM, Bob W wrote:
> yes, sure, but that's changing the terms of the discussion. So far the
> discussion has been about whether the state has a right to force the
> individual to something 'for his own good'. I say it doesn't.
It could be that you and I had a discussion on close but different sets
of terms here. I see your point now.
I say that the State *may have* a right to force (or very strongly
recommend) something to the individual if it prevents severe harm to
individual's health or may be even their death.
If Bob wants to smear his brain all over the highway because it's his
personal responsibility whether or not he wears a helmet, I'm cool with
that. But why should I have to contribute to his maintenance when he
ends up in a persistent vegetative state from doing something stupid?
And should I, who do prudently wear the mandated personal protective
equipment, be denied care because the resources that might be used to
treat me were already used up by someone who refused to do so?
Or should I be taxed additionally so that there are enough facilities to
provide care to both? Especially when the additional cost might be
easily avoided by enforcement of the helmet laws?
Instead of "the State", say society has an interest to force individuals
to take self protective measures to the extent that their failure to do
so adds an unfair burden on the rest of society.
Personal responsibility is all well and good, but you must accept ALL of
the responsibility.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
