The Gross National Debt

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Your right to be stupid

On yesterday’s American Family Radio (American Family Association) noon show (or thereabouts) the roundtable talk was - SURPRISE! SURPRISE! - about conservative issues.

Topic du jour - the recent CPAC conference. AFA boycotted the annual event cause groups of homosexual conservatives attended.
Telling the truth...
Myself, I boycotted the CPAC conference because it was peopled with sheeple. What few people who could, can and do think for themselves were pretty much summed up in Ron Paul. Besides which if you put me in the same room as Ann Coulter for more than a nanosecond, one of us is going to die.
Ann Coulter meets Ben Baker.
During discussion the gents on the radio talked about the Libertarian influence that is increasingly apparent in political circles. Most of the roundtable quickly shifted from Libertarian to Libertine as way to describe folks of such a mind bent.

One of the speakers said the Libertines (his word) agitate not so much for freedom as for anarchy.
Libertine cupcake. (so I stretched this one too. Deal with it.)
I can’t argue hard against that. Some of the Libert(append whatever suffix you wish) crowd are one step shy of anarchists. Some probably are anarchists.
Recommended reading.

But the guys on AFR continued to say the agenda these folks push is a bad thing, particularly where such items as abortion and homosexuality are concerned. They repeatedly pointed to the Bible to back up their assertions. They repeatedly said American cannot be great unless God is involved. (I am addressing this paragraph in the blog immediately below this one.)

There was one voice of reason in the radio show. He said the Liberts (abbreviating henceforth) are not saying they wish to engage in homosexuality, abortion and all the other sins enumerated. He said the Liberts merely say government should not be dictating what people are allowed and not allowed to do. He pointed out Liberts believe adults have the right to engage in risky behavior without government interference.
Do you believe that?

Do you, as an adult have the right to engage in risky behavior?

Careful how you answer that because your answer may be used against you.
Ever had what you said held against you

If you say Yes to those questions, then I ask - who is responsible for the consequences?

“Me,” you say.

Ah. So if you engage in risky behavior and are damaged, who picks up the repair bill? Example, you ride a motorcycle at 100 MPH, wreck and suffer a head injury and debilitating brain damage. Your health bill runs to $100K or more a year. This is just an example and you can input any risky activity you wish.

“I have insurance” you say.
Is your rope long enough?
And what about when it runs out? Who picks up the bill for long term invalid care? If your insurance has run out, then you must depend on others to take care of you.

Is that fair? Perhaps, if you find a charity willing to take you on. What if you can’t find a charity, or rather what if there is not charity willing to take you on. What then? You have 2 choices - die or go on government aid. Government aid, you may recall, is forcing me to pay your bills.

In other words, your risky behavior has put the burden of the consequences on me. Not you.

Are you willing to die?
Gonna shake hands with The Man?
What about people who do not have insurance and yet engage in risky behavior?

Are you and them still allowed to engage in risky behavior?

Are you willing to sentence them to death because they cannot afford to pay for the consequences of their actions?
Judge, Jury, Executioner.

Flip side. If you say “No” then who will be the Risk Czar? Who determines what a risk is?

Would you ban unhealthy foods like SuperSize meals? Would you ban smoking? Alcohol? Would you force people to lose weight? Wear sunscreen? Ban sports? - after all people are hurt every day playing active sports.

Would you ban vehicles? Horses? Prevent hiking in the wilderness?

Where are your limits?
Slow down already!
How do you gauge them?

A question for both sides-

What is a major risk to one person is a minor risk to another. Going back to the motorcycle example, if you cannot ride a bicycle, attempting to drive a motorcycle down a highway is a recipe for instant disaster. However if you can ride a motorcycle, the risks drops.

If you try to put qualifiers on it, then you are restricting a person’s right to engage in risky behavior. What gives you that right? Where do you stop? Are you limiting yourself or just other people? What about if they try to restrict you?
What location? Any of 'em. All of 'em.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Hi. I welcome lively debate. Attack the argument. Go after a person in the thread, your comments will not be posted.