You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #36: The entire 'philosophy' of refusing to share or ameliorate the tragedies [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Places » Michigan Donate to DU
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-28-06 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. The entire 'philosophy' of refusing to share or ameliorate the tragedies
Edited on Wed Jun-28-06 03:27 PM by TahitiNut
... that our fellow human beings - our relatives, friends, neighbors, or fellow citizens - suffer, based on some choices they might make that we ourselves don't make, is the basis on which divisions and alienations become a cancer in our body politic.

Where do we draw the line?

We began by advising and educating people regarding the risks and hazards of various activities. The primary rationale? Compassion for the person - a desire to equip them with the information (and willingness to bear the educational expense) to make an informed choice. The activities include driving cars (auto design and equipment), tobacco use (cigarettes, cigars, pipes, chewing), riding motorcycles (helmets), and a host of other activities that don't gain the continued public discussion.

We weren't satisfied. We disapproved of the choices people made, even when "informed."

We then used the police power of government to impose requirements on products. We mandated collapsible steering columns, not just product disclosure. We mandated seat belts, not just product disclosure. We mandated carrying helmets for the rider and passengers on a motorcycle. We mandated warnings on tobacco packaging.

We weren't satisfied. We disapproved of the choices people made, even when "equipped."

We then used the police power of government to impose requirements on behavior - behavior that is not, in and of itself, directly harmful to others, except in an indirect statistical of diffuse economic sense.

It's a new rationale for criminalization of behavior - behavior that is not, per se, directly harming another person but, through diffuse statistical correlations, often very thin, has some indirect impact on either the health or, more often, the economics of others. Without question, however, the consequential impact on the individuals themselves totally dwarfs the impact on any other person.

Furthermore, where do we draw the line on whose tragedies we walk away from? To whom do we say "Fuck you! It's your fault and I'm not paying!" Our children? Our parents? Our cousins? Our spouses? Our lifelong friends? Our neighbors? Our coworkers? Our employees? Our employers? People with whom we share racial, religious, or other demographics? Or just "them" - those evil strangers? How many tobbacco-nazis refuse to visit a parent or sibling or child who smokes, merely because they oppose the behavior/smell? How many tobacco-nazis act with the same venom toward a parent, offspring, sibling that they do toward strangers?

When, if we're lucky, we finally pass a national health care system how much do we run amok criminalizing the behaviors of others (never ourselves, of course)??

Quite frankly, when I look at how Control Freaks are codependently destroying a liberal democracy in this country, I'm glad I'm childless and, at 63, won't have to live long enough to suffer the Hell we're very obviously headed toward.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
  -Saturday was interesting. IdaBriggs  Jun-26-06 10:39 AM   #0 
  - Sounds like a good news/bad news kind of day, Ida  SharonRB   Jun-26-06 10:43 AM   #1 
  - I agree. I just don't know how we're going to do it.  IdaBriggs   Jun-26-06 10:46 AM   #2 
     - Exactly.  SharonRB   Jun-26-06 10:56 AM   #3 
  - Yeah - she has to under THREE terms of Engler's BS  LisaM   Jun-26-06 11:56 AM   #4 
  - I meant to say UNDO, sorry, n/t  LisaM   Jun-26-06 12:57 PM   #6 
  - Its going to be a problem. I am also concerned that "normal" people  IdaBriggs   Jun-26-06 01:24 PM   #7 
  - hey, this is going to be a tough race  gasperc   Jun-26-06 12:56 PM   #5 
  - "the inability of the state democratic party to capitalize on this --"  IdaBriggs   Jun-26-06 01:27 PM   #8 
     - how they spend it,  gasperc   Jun-28-06 12:07 PM   #34 
  - I did my part  1gobluedem   Jun-26-06 03:33 PM   #9 
  - ALWAYS tie DeVos to Bush.  ih8thegop   Jun-26-06 04:49 PM   #10 
  - If you love Bush, you will love DeVos. Otherwise, vote Granholm.  skipos   Jun-26-06 08:40 PM   #11 
  - I don't get it either. People who hate the pretzelnut and his policies....  livvy   Jun-27-06 08:13 AM   #12 
  - I've never voted for a republican  michreject   Jun-27-06 08:28 AM   #13 
  - You have no problem letting MI fall into the hands of Bush style repub?  skipos   Jun-27-06 09:19 AM   #15 
  - I can and will fight for issues that I believe in  michreject   Jun-27-06 09:35 AM   #20 
  - Granholm is "EVIL?!?" That is FUNNY!!!  skipos   Jun-27-06 09:58 AM   #23 
  - Suggest you take a remedial reading course  michreject   Jun-27-06 10:52 AM   #29 
  - I've got to ask -- do you have any respect for her, because she stood up  IdaBriggs   Jun-27-06 10:15 AM   #24 
     - Well put, Ida  SharonRB   Jun-27-06 10:29 AM   #27 
  - I'm with you, skipos  SharonRB   Jun-27-06 10:27 AM   #26 
  - Explain, please. nt  IdaBriggs   Jun-27-06 09:21 AM   #16 
  - It is my preference to go without a helmet  michreject   Jun-27-06 09:32 AM   #18 
  - I'm sorry you feel that way; I agree with what she did, and think it is  IdaBriggs   Jun-27-06 09:45 AM   #21 
  - Does a post like that really require explanation?  Strawman   Jun-27-06 09:34 AM   #19 
     - Actually, it did, because I hadn't been paying attention to the issue,  IdaBriggs   Jun-27-06 09:48 AM   #22 
  - How can you in good conscience withhold your vote from  SharonRB   Jun-27-06 10:26 AM   #25 
  - Granholm over an issue such as this? Her veto will help save lives  michreject   Jun-27-06 10:57 AM   #30 
     - Well, if there is a caveat that MY insurance won't go up..  1gobluedem   Jun-27-06 12:10 PM   #31 
     - Exactly! n/t  SharonRB   Jun-27-06 01:34 PM   #32 
     - That's right. It's not enough that someone suffers head trauma...  TahitiNut   Jun-28-06 11:23 AM   #33 
        - I don't think this smacks of GOPish behavior  1gobluedem   Jun-28-06 01:36 PM   #35 
           - The entire 'philosophy' of refusing to share or ameliorate the tragedies  TahitiNut   Jun-28-06 02:43 PM   #36 
     - Until you star quarterback nearly dies and the public figures out  bleedingheart   Jun-30-06 06:57 AM   #39 
  - I had a brilliantly composed post inside my head...  weeksbr1   Jun-29-06 09:21 PM   #38 
  - As you know there are two ways of looking at that  vanboggie   Jun-30-06 09:44 PM   #40 
  - It's hard for an incumbent executive to run against a bad economy  Strawman   Jun-27-06 09:13 AM   #14 
     - Part of the problem was her letting DeVos "introduce" himself to the voter  IdaBriggs   Jun-27-06 09:27 AM   #17 
     - Even if she gets re-elected, that could still happen  SharonRB   Jun-27-06 10:33 AM   #28 
        - Deleted message  Name removed   Jun-28-06 04:00 PM   #37 

Home » Discuss » Places » Michigan Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC