While I fully believe in the responsibility of the state to step in and regulate matters of national economic importance, does this responsibility include stepping into the personal lifestyle choices made by citizens?

One of the criticisms made by the right when discussing politics is leftists want control over ever aspect of people's lives. The right cling to the mantra of individual freedom of choice.

While it's the right wing non-thinkers that always state the government has no place involving itself in the private lives of it's citizenry, it's always this bunch that demands more government regulation in matters of personal and private choice.

Take abortion as an example.
Generally, those who's political views are left leaning tend to agree that women are free to make the choice without interference from the state. Again, generally, it's the freedom spouting neo-con right that would have the state step in and remove this freedom from the list of options available to women when it comes to reproductive choices.

We have a similar situation brewing in a thread that has been locked down due to heated emotions welling up.

The ultimate question is the same.
Should the state have the right to step in on the personal choices of the citizen?

A member of these forums, msattler, has come under fire for lifestyle choices that some others do not approve of.
One person in particular, Chicken Stacker, has gone so far as to...well, I'll just let you read what CS wrote.


"You are the greatest of enablers. You convince every one you are an alcoholic and manic depressive and in control. Every drunk who ever killed, maimed and ruined lives was in control. Right?

So, all the people who are drunks, alcoholics, and all the people with "problems" will take your example of being in control and feel they can get away with it. Like you have. Like so many have. Thanking GOD and all of Providence for The Great Luck.

It was all in The Past. The Great Past you got away with. Wow, what a guy!

Yep, your posts where you say you are in control are "kid friendly". Hey Kids, I did it, and got away with it-you can too!

My Brother was a Lucky One also. I'm sure his stories of Luck and Getting Away With It would rival yours and best yours by many magnitudes.

I don't take your Cavalier Attitudes on drinking and manic depression lightly. Maybe I'll get a hold of the State Attorney General of California and tell them how their SETI people are allowing this person on their message boards to proclaim how in control they are, and how it is OK to be an Alcoholic and Manic Depressive and proclaim its merits. It must have merits, correct? You seem to talk it up Ad Nauseam in THOUSANDS of posts."


Are we now at the point where citizen vigilantes feel free to turn in their fellow citizens for lifestyle choices that don't meet the personal sniff tests of others?

Do we want Big Brother coming into our homes to remove our property or take us away for social conditioning and treatment when we have not requested such?

The question is simple: Does the state have the right, or the responsibility to intervene at the level of personal choice where no harm is being done to anyone else?

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

Some would have it so.........

There are those who have nothing better to do with their own lives that it makes them feel better about themselves if they can control another's.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

<snip>

The question is simple: Does the state have the right, or the responsibility to intervene at the level of personal choice where no harm is being done to anyone else?

I guess your question must be answered with another question - what is the scope of

no harm is being done to anyone else

For example: If a retired guy sits at home alone and drinks his liver to death, is he harming anyone else? Yeah he is - the Medicare system that now has to pay for his medical bills.

I'm not going to bore you with other examples, I'm sure others here will.

I'm a NY State Trooper and in my job I've learned one or two things about my fellow man: There is no such thing as no harm is being done to anyone else. Unless you're a Monk and live alone in a cave! People seem to think that they know when their actions don't hurt anyone else. Newsflash - most don't!

I wish you could ride with me for a week on the job.

<snip>

The question is simple: Does the state have the right, or the responsibility to intervene at the level of personal choice where no harm is being done to anyone else?

I guess your question must be answered with another question - what is the scope of

no harm is being done to anyone else

For example: If a retired guy sits at home alone and drinks his liver to death, is he harming anyone else? Yeah he is - the Medicare system that now has to pay for his medical bills.

I'm not going to bore you with other examples, I'm sure others here will.

I'm a NY State Trooper and in my job I've learned one or two things about my fellow man: There is no such thing as no harm is being done to anyone else. Unless you're a Monk and live alone in a cave! People seem to think that they know when their actions don't hurt anyone else. Newsflash - most don't!

I wish you could ride with me for a week on the job.

That's cause most people are probably too self centered, maybe. Me I try not to be that way, But then I've always been a bit different, But not always. :o

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

While I fully believe in the responsibility of the state to step in and regulate matters of national economic importance, does this responsibility include stepping into the personal lifestyle choices made by citizens?

One of the criticisms made by the right when discussing politics is leftists want control over ever aspect of people's lives. The right cling to the mantra of individual freedom of choice.

While it's the right wing non-thinkers that always state the government has no place involving itself in the private lives of it's citizenry, it's always this bunch that demands more government regulation in matters of personal and private choice.

Take abortion as an example.
Generally, those who's political views are left leaning tend to agree that women are free to make the choice without interference from the state. Again, generally, it's the freedom spouting neo-con right that would have the state step in and remove this freedom from the list of options available to women when it comes to reproductive choices.

Not another person who has confused up and down with right and left and forwards and backwards!

You seem to think that bedrooms and boardrooms are the same thing. You measure one group on one scale and another group on the other scale and say they are opposed. Then you provide and example of the extreme of one meeting the extreme of the other. That's how you end up with a circle. Circular logic!

Then you want to talk about another scale, government intrusion. It runs at right angles to those other scales! Assign the sharia lovers and Pol Pot's to one end and the anarchists to the other. When you do this you see that either end is dangerous.

Moderation in all things.

BTW, Chicken's have been <plonk>'d. That is an example of a personal choice.

---

I find it interesting that Republicans are against government - except where it should not matter - in peoples bedrooms.

---

BOINC WIKI

Not another person who has confused up and down with right and left and forwards and backwards!

You seem to think that bedrooms and boardrooms are the same thing. You measure one group on one scale and another group on the other scale and say they are opposed. Then you provide and example of the extreme of one meeting the extreme of the other. That's how you end up with a circle. Circular logic!

Then you want to talk about another scale, government intrusion. It runs at right angles to those other scales! Assign the sharia lovers and Pol Pot's to one end and the anarchists to the other. When you do this you see that either end is dangerous.

Moderation in all things.

BTW, Chicken's have been <plonk>'d. That is an example of a personal choice.

Gary, I think I explained my position at the opening of this thread.
I do not think that bedrooms and boardrooms are the same.

In one, privacy is expected and demanded.
In the other, full accountability and openess is my expectation.

I would place great levels of regulation on the activities of the boardroom while expecting the state to stay out of my bedroom.

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

For example: If a retired guy sits at home alone and drinks his liver to death, is he harming anyone else? Yeah he is - the Medicare system that now has to pay for his medical bills.

.

So Giles, what level of intervention is recommended in this case?
Does the state step in or not?
If the retired guy refuses to allow the state into his home, do they kick in his door?
Should the state confiscate his property, in this case his booze, and drag him away for rehabilitation?

Barring that aggressive solution, does the state commence selective distribution of health benefits? Do we allow the public system to cut people out of healthcare like the private insurers commonly do?

We are alive. This life is ours to do with as we please.
If a minority of citizens live in a manner the majority disapprove of, does that indicate some level of control over their lifestyle is warranted?

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

Where I live, it is not so much "my neighbors are doing this and we need to protect/stop them" situation, but more of a "I can't control myself or my family so we need a new law".

---

Calm Chaos Forum...Join Calm Chaos Now

<snip>

We are alive. This life is ours to do with as we please.
If a minority of citizens live in a manner the majority disapprove of, does that indicate some level of control over their lifestyle is warranted?

Excellent points Robert.

In 2008 about 2.08% of the general population in Eire County NY where I am a State Trooper broke the law in some manner. So due to only 2% of 'Bad Apples' the state has to keep an expensive law enforcement infrastructure in place. If my peers and I were not here, do you think that maybe things would get worse? I believe that you know the answer to that question - you seem like a really smart guy.

Selective distribution of health benefits? Yes! Do we allow the public system to cut people out of healthcare like the private insurers commonly do? Absolutely!

Alive or not, government should put in place an infrastructure so if you or I decide to hurt ourselves - WE are the only ones that pay for it. The Needs of the Many are far more important than just Your needs (and Mine).

<snip>

We are alive. This life is ours to do with as we please.
If a minority of citizens live in a manner the majority disapprove of, does that indicate some level of control over their lifestyle is warranted?

Excellent points Robert.

In 2008 about 2.08% of the general population in Eire County NY where I am a State Trooper broke the law and were arrested / convicted. So due to only 2% of 'Bad Apples' the state has to keep an expensive law enforcement infrastructure in place. If my peers and I were not here, do you think that maybe things would get worse? I believe that you know the answer to that question - you seem like a really smart guy.

Or should society change it laws so that only 0.025% of the people break the laws?

Selective distribution of health benefits? Yes! Do we allow the public system to cut people out of healthcare like the private insurers commonly do? Absolutely!

Alive or not, government should put in place an infrastructure so if you or I decide to hurt ourselves - WE are the only ones that pay for it. The Needs of the Many are far more important than just Your needs (and Mine).

Yes, yell jump to the guy on the bridge. Cheaper to scrape the body up than treat the mental problem.

---

<snip>
Or should society change it laws so that only 0.025% of the people break the laws?
<snip>

It's coming - in Psychology Today a few years back a doctor presented an article to his peers where he felt that Incest should not be a crime if it happens with consent from the child.

The Libs never give up...

I would place great levels of regulation on the activities of the boardroom while expecting the state to stay out of my bedroom.

Classic case of multiple personality disorder.

Government either intrudes on a person or it doesn't. If you allow it in A it is allowed in B also.

Perhaps you can state the reason for a government to be allowed to intrude. Say something like because it affects others. Or maybe because it persists after the person who does it is dead. Just what is the broad reason? Then figure out why your broad reason doesn't permit the government telling what color you can paint your house or how many children you can have. Very slippery vertical slope.

---

<snip>
Or should society change it laws so that only 0.025% of the people break the laws?
<snip>

It's coming - in Psychology Today a few years back a doctor presented an article to his peers where he felt that Incest should not be a crime if it happens with consent from the child.

Cite please.

The Libs never give up...

Neocons never give up ...

---

It's coming - in Psychology Today a few years back a doctor presented an article to his peers where he felt that Incest should not be a crime if it happens with consent from the child.

The Libs never give up...

If we're going to have an intelligent and respectful discussion, we must first understand and acknowledge that liberals are NOT pro-incest.

This is very clearly a situation where there is harm being done to another, even if that other is too young or too unaware of social behaviour to know they are being harmed.

This differs greatly from the retired guy drinking alone in his home.

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

<snip>
Or should society change it laws so that only 0.025% of the people break the laws?
<snip>

It's coming - in Psychology Today a few years back a doctor presented an article to his peers where he felt that Incest should not be a crime if it happens with consent from the child.

Cite please.

The article in Psychology today was taken from this study:

http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.pdf

Neocons never give up ...

The Police officers of this country that ensure that you enjoy the freedoms that you probably take for granted Gary are Traditionalist Conservatives not Neocons. There is a difference - try looking it up or ask a Cop if you know any...

Excellent points Robert.

In 2008 about 2.08% of the general population in Eire County NY where I am a State Trooper broke the law in some manner. So due to only 2% of 'Bad Apples' the state has to keep an expensive law enforcement infrastructure in place. If my peers and I were not here, do you think that maybe things would get worse? I believe that you know the answer to that question - you seem like a really smart guy.

Selective distribution of health benefits? Yes! Do we allow the public system to cut people out of healthcare like the private insurers commonly do? Absolutely!

Alive or not, government should put in place an infrastructure so if you or I decide to hurt ourselves - WE are the only ones that pay for it. The Needs of the Many are far more important than just Your needs (and Mine).

This argument can be taken even further.
People make decisions that place them in danger quite often, even if it was unintended danger.

Why not extend this rational to people who have chosen lines of work that are more dangerous than most?
Being a cop comes to mind, or running heavy equipment and truck driving. (that's me)
Should we exclude athletes who suffer greater disabilities in their old age?

Everyone pays into the system and the rates are prorated to cover the expenses of those who may have greater needs in healthcare.
Keep in mind that there are also people who, by plain good fortune, good genes or any number of other reasons, almost never access the system.

It all evens out in the end.

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

It's coming - in Psychology Today a few years back a doctor presented an article to his peers where he felt that Incest should not be a crime if it happens with consent from the child.

The Libs never give up...

If we're going to have an intelligent and respectful discussion, we must first understand and acknowledge that Liberals are NOT pro-incest.

This is very clearly a situation where there is harm being done to another, even if that other is too young or too unaware of social behaviour to know they are being harmed.

This differs greatly from the retired guy drinking alone in his home.

Robert, The doctors that wrote this study http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.pdf are probably Liberals, not Conservatives.

Please don't shoot the messenger :-) I know that most Liberals are not into incest but this study is disturbing and is a trend that is not going to go away.

Generally, Traditional Conservatism is a philosophy which emphasizes the need for the principles of natural law and transcendent moral order. Liberalism favor the importance of individual freedom, sometimes above all other ideoologies and yes sometimes above the Law. Been there and seen it on the job. I am a Cop so I see folks at their worst - people don't call me when life is good...

It's coming - in Psychology Today a few years back a doctor presented an article to his peers where he felt that Incest should not be a crime if it happens with consent from the child.

The Libs never give up...

If we're going to have an intelligent and respectful discussion, we must first understand and acknowledge that Liberals are NOT pro-incest.

This is very clearly a situation where there is harm being done to another, even if that other is too young or too unaware of social behaviour to know they are being harmed.

This differs greatly from the retired guy drinking alone in his home.

Robert, The doctors that wrote this study http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.pdf are probably Liberals, not Conservatives.

Please don't shoot the messenger :-) I know that most Liberals are not into incest but this study is disturbing and is a trend that is not going to go away.

Generally, Traditional Conservatism is a philosophy which emphasizes the need for the principles of natural law and transcendent moral order. Liberalism favor the importance of individual freedom, sometimes above all other ideoologies and yes sometimes above the Law. Been there and seen it on the job. I am a Cop so I see folks at their worst - people don't call me when life is good...

I don't know how to react to this.
I guess I'll say thanks and that I also know that most conservatives are not into incest too.
????

I'm somewhat confused by your definition of conservative. I have never thought of conservatives as transcendent in any way. Most seem rather base in their political stances.
Someone trying to transcend would look beyond the reactionary views of the base.

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

<snip>
Or should society change it laws so that only 0.025% of the people break the laws?
<snip>

It's coming - in Psychology Today a few years back a doctor presented an article to his peers where he felt that Incest should not be a crime if it happens with consent from the child.

Cite please.

The article in Psychology today was taken from this study:

http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.pdf

If you don't have the date of publication, title and author name for the article in Psychology Today I can accept that as an answer.

BTW, did you even read the review [not study] you gave as a cite?

Summary and Conclusion
...
In this sense, the findings of the current review do not imply that moral
or legal definitions of or views on behaviors currently classified as CSA should be abandoned or even altered.

---