How Far Can The State Go?

[occupied]

The right to choose when to end one's own life, where would one put that among the best examples of 'liberty'?

Asked because we hear so much lip service given to 'liberty' nowadays from the Right.

The right demands their leaders protect them from moral dilemmas, what could be more authoritarian then that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Religions change their beliefs all the time. Let them render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The right to choose when to end one's own life, where would one put that among the best examples of 'liberty'?

Asked because we hear so much lip service given to 'liberty' nowadays from the Right.

The right demands their leaders protect them from moral dilemmas, what could be more authoritarian then that?

It's seems odd how so much of what the Right demands in the name of 'liberty' and 'rights' turns out to be demands for the liberty and right to deny others their rights and liberty.

 

[PoliticalChic]

politicalchic, would you like a third party - like say the government - intervening between a doctor and patient and telling them which course of treatment they are allowed to pursue based on that third party's whims?

Conservatives support the free market death panel. If you can't afford healthcare at the market price,

you go without, or at best go begging.

It is eminently simple to prove that your post is untrue......

Since Republican President Ronald Reagan, every person in America, citizen or other wise, has had healthcare.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Holland isn't here. Regardless if a pharmacist doesn't want to hand out legal drugs then they can find a new job.

There are, of course, significant differences between fascism and Progressivism, but these are mainly attributable to the cultural differences between Europe and America- and between national cultures in general.



The Germans, representative of European thought, have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”
Ralf Dahrendorf, "Society and Democracy in Germany"



And in the above post one can hear the echoes of jackboots on cobblestone.

Ever cared for a terminally ill patient? When life is nothing but very expensive torment the most monstrous thing of all is the government telling you that you have to endure more suffering because the church people demand it. My mother suffered the torments of the damned before she died many months after life had lost it's last shred of dignity. Who the fuck are you people that you require the terminally ill to suffer?

First of all she is not thoughtful, within both meanings of the word. One might expect that from a narcissist, so that's a given; however, your question is profound and not one she is capable of understanding. I guess the simple answer is she doesn't give a damn about others and that alone requires a social/psychiatric evaluation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Admit it or not, the politically dominant philosophy, whether one calls it Democrat, Liberal, socialist, Marxist, it virulently opposed to religion, and, by extension, the morality thereof.



1. "Religious case at Supreme Court could affect Obamacare and much more
...At issue in Tuesday's oral argument before the court is a regulation under the Affordable Care Act that requires employers to provide workers a health plan that covers the full range of contraceptives, including morning-after pills and intrauterine devices, or IUDs."
Religious case at Supreme Court could affect Obamacare and much more - Los Angeles Times


But this is only the tip of the iceberg.




The American Left has always taken it's cues from the European Left.....
...and there, one can see both the how far the Left wishes to go against religious precepts, and, possibly.....

...an incipient push-back.



2. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients.
Would they do so based on their whim?

a. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland


b. Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting?

"How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland?"
David Berlinski



3. What makes men good? Certainly they are not good by nature. In fact, frequently, the contrary. Does science have an opinion?
"Perhaps," Atheist Richard Dawkins speculates, "I... am a Pollyanna to believe that people would remain good when unobserved and unpoliced by God."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091226094728AAv8UVO





Perhaps there are some men who are simply good by their nature.....

4. "Some Dutch pharmacists refusing to supply euthanasia drugs

Although euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands, some Dutch pharmacists are refusing to supply the lethal drugs needed to carry it out. ....this does not necessarily happen because of religious objections to euthanasia. Some pharmacists do not know the doctors who approved the euthanasia; others do not agree with euthanasia for conditions like dementia or depression.

“A pharmacy is not a shop where deadly drugs are just handed over,” a spokesperson for the pharmacists’ association said."
BioEdge: Some Dutch pharmacists refusing to supply euthanasia drugs




Now, if the pharmacies of Holland were under the purview of the current United States President and his henchmen at the Department of Justice.....

...what, one wonders, would they be ordered to do?

"Admit it or not, the politically dominant philosophy, whether one calls it Democrat, Liberal, socialist, Marxist, it virulently opposed to religion, and, by extension, the morality thereof."?

1. Not all Democrats are Liberals.

a. If they were socialists they would be members of the Socialist Workers Party

b. if Communists, members of the Communist Party

c. if opposed to religion many would not be practicing Catholics or Jews or members of other organized religious sects.

2. As we know - at least I do - PC ought not speak to the issue of Morality, Immorality or Amorality; she does not comprehend the construct of each.

3. PC is, IMO, a bore, a passive aggressive, angry narcissist who holds any ideas which does not fit nicely into the box she carries labeled "my dogma" as the product of (pick the pejorative).

"PC is, IMO, a bore, a passive aggressive, angry narcissist blah blah blah...."


Now....is that a nice way to speak about your mentor?

 

[ogibillm]

politicalchic, would you like a third party - like say the government - intervening between a doctor and patient and telling them which course of treatment they are allowed to pursue based on that third party's whims?

Conservatives support the free market death panel. If you can't afford healthcare at the market price,

you go without, or at best go begging.

It is eminently simple to prove that your post is untrue......

Since Republican President Ronald Reagan, every person in America, citizen or other wise, has had healthcare.

no, they've had emergency care. that's not the same thing at all.

but on topic, why is it you believe the religious whims of a third party should decide the course of treatment agreed to by a doctor and patient?

 

[Wry Catcher]

politicalchic, would you like a third party - like say the government - intervening between a doctor and patient and telling them which course of treatment they are allowed to pursue based on that third party's whims?

Conservatives support the free market death panel. If you can't afford healthcare at the market price,

you go without, or at best go begging.

It is eminently simple to prove that your post is untrue......

Since Republican President Ronald Reagan, every person in America, citizen or other wise, has had healthcare.

That's untrue (surprise!). When found in the street all person in America (well maybe not in Texas) will be transported to a county hospital and receive emergency care. Of course they will be billed for this service. But healthcare is more than that, and quality health care is expensive. That is why the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was conceived - a way to provide preventative care as well as emergency care via private sector insurance. Thus it is not socialism, no matter how often liars and crooks call it so.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Admit it or not, the politically dominant philosophy, whether one calls it Democrat, Liberal, socialist, Marxist, it virulently opposed to religion, and, by extension, the morality thereof.



1. "Religious case at Supreme Court could affect Obamacare and much more
...At issue in Tuesday's oral argument before the court is a regulation under the Affordable Care Act that requires employers to provide workers a health plan that covers the full range of contraceptives, including morning-after pills and intrauterine devices, or IUDs."
Religious case at Supreme Court could affect Obamacare and much more - Los Angeles Times


But this is only the tip of the iceberg.




The American Left has always taken it's cues from the European Left.....
...and there, one can see both the how far the Left wishes to go against religious precepts, and, possibly.....

...an incipient push-back.



2. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients.
Would they do so based on their whim?

a. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland


b. Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting?

"How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland?"
David Berlinski



3. What makes men good? Certainly they are not good by nature. In fact, frequently, the contrary. Does science have an opinion?
"Perhaps," Atheist Richard Dawkins speculates, "I... am a Pollyanna to believe that people would remain good when unobserved and unpoliced by God."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091226094728AAv8UVO





Perhaps there are some men who are simply good by their nature.....

4. "Some Dutch pharmacists refusing to supply euthanasia drugs

Although euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands, some Dutch pharmacists are refusing to supply the lethal drugs needed to carry it out. ....this does not necessarily happen because of religious objections to euthanasia. Some pharmacists do not know the doctors who approved the euthanasia; others do not agree with euthanasia for conditions like dementia or depression.

“A pharmacy is not a shop where deadly drugs are just handed over,” a spokesperson for the pharmacists’ association said."
BioEdge: Some Dutch pharmacists refusing to supply euthanasia drugs




Now, if the pharmacies of Holland were under the purview of the current United States President and his henchmen at the Department of Justice.....

...what, one wonders, would they be ordered to do?

"Admit it or not, the politically dominant philosophy, whether one calls it Democrat, Liberal, socialist, Marxist, it virulently opposed to religion, and, by extension, the morality thereof."?

1. Not all Democrats are Liberals.

a. If they were socialists they would be members of the Socialist Workers Party

b. if Communists, members of the Communist Party

c. if opposed to religion many would not be practicing Catholics or Jews or members of other organized religious sects.

2. As we know - at least I do - PC ought not speak to the issue of Morality, Immorality or Amorality; she does not comprehend the construct of each.

3. PC is, IMO, a bore, a passive aggressive, angry narcissist who holds any ideas which does not fit nicely into the box she carries labeled "my dogma" as the product of (pick the pejorative).

"PC is, IMO, a bore, a passive aggressive, angry narcissist blah blah blah...."


Now....is that a nice way to speak about your mentor?

No, of course not. It isn't even adequate to describe you, but why should I go into greater detail, your callous disregard for others is no secret?

 

[NYcarbineer]

politicalchic, would you like a third party - like say the government - intervening between a doctor and patient and telling them which course of treatment they are allowed to pursue based on that third party's whims?

Conservatives support the free market death panel. If you can't afford healthcare at the market price,

you go without, or at best go begging.

It is eminently simple to prove that your post is untrue......

Since Republican President Ronald Reagan, every person in America, citizen or other wise, has had healthcare.

And the Earth is 6000 years old. We know most of your erroneous beliefs. You need not repeat them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Holland isn't here. Regardless if a pharmacist doesn't want to hand out legal drugs then they can find a new job.

There are, of course, significant differences between fascism and Progressivism, but these are mainly attributable to the cultural differences between Europe and America- and between national cultures in general.



The Germans, representative of European thought, have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”
Ralf Dahrendorf, "Society and Democracy in Germany"



And in the above post one can hear the echoes of jackboots on cobblestone.

You reject the principle of laws that can be enforced if people don't obey them?

What about a law against abortion, where the state says you must obey, and the state has penalties to impose if you don't?

 

[NYcarbineer]

politicalchic, would you like a third party - like say the government - intervening between a doctor and patient and telling them which course of treatment they are allowed to pursue based on that third party's whims?

Conservatives support the free market death panel. If you can't afford healthcare at the market price,

you go without, or at best go begging.

It is eminently simple to prove that your post is untrue......

Since Republican President Ronald Reagan, every person in America, citizen or other wise, has had healthcare.

If that were true then anyone who is buying health insurance is wasting their money.

 

[NYcarbineer]

politicalchic, would you like a third party - like say the government - intervening between a doctor and patient and telling them which course of treatment they are allowed to pursue based on that third party's whims?

Conservatives support the free market death panel. If you can't afford healthcare at the market price,

you go without, or at best go begging.

It is eminently simple to prove that your post is untrue......

Since Republican President Ronald Reagan, every person in America, citizen or other wise, has had healthcare.

I overlooked the obvious. What I referred to is what conservatives support, not what they've been able to impose.

If you want to argue that conservatives don't support a 'market-based solution' for healthcare, by all means,

let's have that debate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Admit it or not, the politically dominant philosophy, whether one calls it Democrat, Liberal, socialist, Marxist, it virulently opposed to religion, and, by extension, the morality thereof."?

1. Not all Democrats are Liberals.

a. If they were socialists they would be members of the Socialist Workers Party

b. if Communists, members of the Communist Party

c. if opposed to religion many would not be practicing Catholics or Jews or members of other organized religious sects.

2. As we know - at least I do - PC ought not speak to the issue of Morality, Immorality or Amorality; she does not comprehend the construct of each.

3. PC is, IMO, a bore, a passive aggressive, angry narcissist who holds any ideas which does not fit nicely into the box she carries labeled "my dogma" as the product of (pick the pejorative).

"PC is, IMO, a bore, a passive aggressive, angry narcissist blah blah blah...."


Now....is that a nice way to speak about your mentor?

No, of course not. It isn't even adequate to describe you, but why should I go into greater detail, your callous disregard for others is no secret?

The truth about PC is that she's a centrist more than a rightwing conservative, but she plays the role of the latter probably because she enjoys the fawning of her rightwing fan club.
Centrists are poor fawners.

 

[whitehall]

European regimes aren't burdoned by the freedom inherent in the greatest document ever written. American radical left wingers would go all the way if it wasn't for that pesky Bill of Rights in the Constitution. That's why FDR tried to stack the Supreme Court and appointed a former KKK member to write the incredibly flawed opinion that created the modern version of "separation of Church and state".

 

[Katzndogz]

I wish I could say I was surprised at the left's embrace of an authoritarian government deciding when, where and how everyone's life should end and punish those who resist. But, I'm not. It falls right in line with liberal thinking.

When the government wants your life to end, it has only to tell the patient that life is not worth living and they should be happy that a non emotional entity is stepping in to take these decisions from them. Now the patient really wants to be murdered. If there is a third party that objects, even if not on religious grounds but simple moral grounds, that third party MUST be punished.

 

[ogibillm]

I wish I could say I was surprised at the left's embrace of an authoritarian government deciding when, where and how everyone's life should end and punish those who resist. But, I'm not. It falls right in line with liberal thinking.

When the government wants your life to end, it has only to tell the patient that life is not worth living and they should be happy that a non emotional entity is stepping in to take these decisions from them. Now the patient really wants to be murdered. If there is a third party that objects, even if not on religious grounds but simple moral grounds, that third party MUST be punished.

your entire post is so much made up bullshit.

no government discussed in this thread is putting anyone to death - unless you count the death penalty, and then yes, our government does that.

your second paragraph just has absolutely no basis in reality at all.

i'm not sure what thread you were reading, but it wasn't this one.

 

[Pogo]

Damn. In the food chain of fallacies this is like double chocolate cake.

Well, let's not overeat...

Admit it or not, the politically dominant philosophy, whether one calls it Democrat, Liberal, socialist, Marxist, it virulently opposed to religion, and, by extension, the morality thereof.

Whew.

Admit it or not,

Ipse dixit declaration coming. Make way for the strawman...

the politically dominant philosophy, whether one calls it Democrat, Liberal, socialist, Marxist

The "politically dominant philosophy", given no parameters and ergo considering that of the United States, would be a center-right one in its world. That doesn't function with any of those adjectives.

Strawman deployed....

it virulently opposed to religion

Hm. Strawman musta been pregnant. It suddenly have sidekick.

It not opposed to religion at all; it opposed to theocracy. It important distinction. One it religion, other it government. It two different things.

Liberalism (which built this country) was dead set against the authoritarianity of the First Estate. Not the religion used as a tool, but the clerics-gone-wild that used it. They weren't having that shit here. Got a problem with that?

and, by extension, the morality thereof.

Strawmen "extend"? Like a ladder?
Doesn't matter; the original pair of strawmen is invalid at the beginning. Eschewing theocracy makes no statement on "morality". For that matter, eschewing religion wouldn't either. Theocracy doesn't accompany or imply "morality"; nor does "morality" (entirely subjective term anyway) require "religion". Doesn't fit, with or without strawman.

Sorry, strawmen.

Whew. I'm stuffed with low-hangin' fruit.

:urp:​

 

[Pogo]

politicalchic, would you like a third party - like say the government - intervening between a doctor and patient and telling them which course of treatment they are allowed to pursue based on that third party's whims?

Conservatives support the free market death panel. If you can't afford healthcare at the market price,

you go without, or at best go begging.

It is eminently simple to prove that your post is untrue......

Since Republican President Ronald Reagan, every person in America, citizen or other wise, has had healthcare.

Wow, I gotta check my passport to see what country I'm a citizen of. Either that or I've got a ton of refund checks coming.

 

[Redfish]

Conservatives support the free market death panel. If you can't afford healthcare at the market price,

you go without, or at best go begging.

It is eminently simple to prove that your post is untrue......

Since Republican President Ronald Reagan, every person in America, citizen or other wise, has had healthcare.

If that were true then anyone who is buying health insurance is wasting their money.

The ones who paid for insurance covered the ones who did not. exactly the same as under obozocare, but now we also have to pay for a huge inefficient govt beaurocracy. and you fools call that progress?