Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (2704)	5/9/1999 1:56:00 PM
From: Dave Reed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

The example you raised is a situation where someone is mentally ill. That is a difficult issue. I believe adults have rights to make choices that children do not. While I believe that no adult has the right to second guess free choices made by another adult (xcpt force/fraud), it is clear to me that children are not yet capable of exercising informed choice. So, what about mentally ill people? That is very, very tough issue for me. Although I believe that severely mentally ill people are not capable of making informed choice, that is a very slippery slope. I'm not ready to give the government the power to decide who is and isn't sane. I'm certainly not ready to require people selling a product to ascertain the mental health of the purchaser. If I sell a rope to a depressed man without knowing his plans, I am blameless. If he tells me his plans, I personally would not provide the rope. That is a moral choice that I would make. Legally, I would hold someone who made the opposite choice blameless. There is a lot here for discussion. Have we reached any conclusions on the broad issue? We seem to be moving from end-case to end-case. Do you agree with the general principals or are you just bringing up end-cases to poke holes in the philosophy. No system is immune to end-cases as far as I know. If you've discovered Utopia, please let me know! Dave

To: Neocon who wrote (2704)	5/12/1999 1:01:00 AM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

If he sought help and was still in the midst of his depression, then unless you pull the trigger or push the needle, you shouldn't be culpable. One major issue currently in need of redress is pain management. Some people suffering from chronic pain can't get the drugs they need due to overregulation by the gov't. Many eventually take their own lives due to the pain. Is the gov't culpable? No. But if I provide them the means of killing themselves, I may be. The absurdity of this is apparent. The gov't caused the problem, refuses to deal with it in any meaningful way, and I get in trouble because the only seemingly reasonable solution (given the circumstances) is one the gov't says is illegal. Several doctors have lost their licenses for providing "excessive" dosages and prescriptions in managing patients' pain. How is that helping anyone?