A right to eat oneself to death?

Malor wrote:

Liberalism is a mental disorder, you know. So is conservatism. And everyone hates libertarians.

Defining behavior you don't like as a mental disorder is the slipperiest of slopes.

While I agree -- we labeled homosexuality as a mental disorder just a short time ago -- I feel justified* labeling a person's tendency to eat him(her)self to death as a disorder.

*my degree is not in the fields of medicine, psychology, or psychiatry. It's not even in the field of nutrition. So if you say I'm wrong, you're probably right.

Paleocon wrote:
Staats wrote:

Sounds like you're hung up on on the connotations of the words "freedom" and "right", Paleo.

That's possible. Like I said, I don't think we should use the power of the government to stop her from doing this to herself. I don't think it is the purpose of government to do so and can appreciate drawing a line at limits of government power. Moreover, I think it distracts from the things government should be doing.

I guess my issue is with the equating of a lack of government regulation with some sort of obligation we might have to protect one's "right" to be an idiot. If, for instance, her mother or a group of her concerned relatives and friends intervened to correct her action, I would think it would be a tragedy to use government power to stop them.

Well that rather depends on their method of intervention, but broadly, I agree. There's a big difference between intervention by force and intervention by persuasion.

I would roundly criticise a suggestion to kidnap the large lady and lock her up on limited rations until she's half her size, while I would have no such problem with her relatives pleading with her to change her ways. One clearly infringes her right to be anything, idiot or otherwise, and the other doesn't.

Edit -Tannhauser'd by Q-Stone! The shame of it!

Seth wrote:

My first reaction was to differentiate between voluntary insurance and forced insurance, but I realized that there's really not much difference. The only way I can avoid paying car or homeowners' insurance is to not drive or own a house.

There is a significant difference there. You are not compelled to own a car or (especially) a house. You may feel obligated to do so, but it's not force. The incentives are such that you feel it's a good, necessary, and obvious decision, but there is no force involved - you are not required by law to own these things. There is some force involved in auto insurance, but it happens only after you've bought a car and want to use it on government-provided roads, which is a something of a different question. You're perfectly free to buy a car and drive it around in circles on your property - most people call it NASCAR.

It's also quite possible to move around without a car and avoiding the paying of auto insurance. For example, my primary transportation is a Yamaha C3 scooter that does not require insurance, and a bicycle would serve as well. Renting could conceivably deal with the homeowner's insurance. So you do have choices - and many people do take those choices, so they aren't preposterous or out of the realm of consideration.

In short there is a significant difference, even for libertarians like me, between regulating access to government-provided and taxpayer-funded services and mandating that everyone must buy a government-approved product simply because the person exists.

Jonman wrote:

Edit -Tannhauser'd by Q-Stone! The shame of it!

Gimme 4, buddy!

Seth wrote:

While I agree -- we labeled homosexuality as a mental disorder just a short time ago -- I feel justified* labeling a person's tendency to eat him(her)self to death as a disorder.

Not trying to be contrary, but would you consider a person's tendancy to shoot themselves to death as a disorder?

Aetius wrote:

In short there is a significant difference, even for libertarians like me, between regulating access to government-provided and taxpayer-funded services and mandating that everyone must buy a government-approved product simply because the person exists.

There's the rub though, you may have a choice about buying a car or house, but requiring healthcare is not a choice. At some point or another, we're *all* going to need it.

Would you be comfortable refusing all publicly funded healthcare to someone who opts out of a government mandated plan, even emergency care? I honestly don't know where I stand on that one.

Jonman wrote:
Seth wrote:

While I agree -- we labeled homosexuality as a mental disorder just a short time ago -- I feel justified* labeling a person's tendency to eat him(her)self to death as a disorder.

Not trying to be contrary, but would you consider a person's tendancy to shoot themselves to death as a disorder?

I think so. Suicidal tendencies are often considered mental disorders, aren't they?

Seth wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Seth wrote:

While I agree -- we labeled homosexuality as a mental disorder just a short time ago -- I feel justified* labeling a person's tendency to eat him(her)self to death as a disorder.

Not trying to be contrary, but would you consider a person's tendancy to shoot themselves to death as a disorder?

I think so. Suicidal tendencies are often considered mental disorders, aren't they?

I'd be willing to disagree. Several states have Death with Dignity laws that allow for people with terminal illnesses to end it on their own terms. Personally, were I heading towards dementia, severe Alzheimer's, or untreatable mental disorders of the like, I would probably consider it. There are also people suffering severe abuse (spousal, child, etc.) in places where help is not available who could make a good case for it as well. Don't forget zombie apocalypse, either.

Jonman wrote:
Aetius wrote:

In short there is a significant difference, even for libertarians like me, between regulating access to government-provided and taxpayer-funded services and mandating that everyone must buy a government-approved product simply because the person exists.

There's the rub though, you may have a choice about buying a car or house, but requiring healthcare is not a choice. At some point or another, we're *all* going to need it.

While that's true, it's not at all a given that health insurance, especially the twisted "insurance" today that is essentially pre-paid healthcare, is at all necessary. We should have many choices in buying health insurance and health care, just as we have many choices in buying food, another item that is necessary for life. However, the health insurance and health care markets are heavily distorted by government interference - and the current plan proposes to worsen that interference.

Would you be comfortable refusing all publicly funded healthcare to someone who opts out of a government mandated plan, even emergency care? I honestly don't know where I stand on that one.

Yes, I would be very comfortable with that, because it's their choice and their life. (Actually, it would be my choice and my life, as I would never utilize a government health insurance plan for myself unless forced.) Our fundamental problem is that we allow people to make choices, which is good, but when consequence time comes, we refuse to let it happen in the name of charity. As any parent knows, that rewards and incentivizes bad behavior. Now that sounds cold, but it's not, because there are numerous volunteer clinics and charity programs to help those who really need it. We are trying to institutionalize charity by forcing some people to pay for others, adding additional injustice on top of the existing problems without solving them, and indeed often making them worse.

However, the health insurance and health care markets are heavily distorted by government interference - and the current plan proposes to worsen that interference.

Honestly, I think this hybrid approach is going to be even worse than what we already have, as bad as it is. Even a fully socialized system would be better than this monstrosity.

The REAL problem is that healthcare costs more than we want to pay, but we all think the world owes us the resources to keep us alive as long as we want to live. These two drives are not compatible.

Kraint wrote:
Seth wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Seth wrote:

While I agree -- we labeled homosexuality as a mental disorder just a short time ago -- I feel justified* labeling a person's tendency to eat him(her)self to death as a disorder.

Not trying to be contrary, but would you consider a person's tendancy to shoot themselves to death as a disorder?

I think so. Suicidal tendencies are often considered mental disorders, aren't they?

I'd be willing to disagree. Several states have Death with Dignity laws that allow for people with terminal illnesses to end it on their own terms. Personally, were I heading towards dementia, severe Alzheimer's, or untreatable mental disorders of the like, I would probably consider it. There are also people suffering severe abuse (spousal, child, etc.) in places where help is not available who could make a good case for it as well. Don't forget zombie apocalypse, either.

I think the problem here is one of generalization. I'm not convinced that we can accurately compare terminal patients wishing to end their suffering to someone "with a tendency to shoot themselves to death," given the confines of this specific discussion.

What you're saying is perfectly legitimate, and I agree with what you're saying; I just don't think it has much bearing on Jonman's question or my response to it.

Amoebic wrote:

Is The “Fattest Woman on Earth” a Hoax?
-kind of a relief.

And for the record, Dan Savage is wrong to suggest this woman should have her kids taken away. Smokers, daredevils, snake handlers, creationists, anorexics, cancer patients, fishermen, and bomb disposal experts are free to have kids and so are people who eat a lot.

Like the ending to it. Wish my parents were snake handlers.

Heck, if they let Beck have kids, she should qualify.

Gravey wrote:
Amoebic wrote:

Is The “Fattest Woman on Earth” a Hoax?
-kind of a relief.

And for the record, Dan Savage is wrong to suggest this woman should have her kids taken away. Smokers, daredevils, snake handlers, creationists, anorexics, cancer patients, fishermen, and bomb disposal experts are free to have kids and so are people who eat a lot.

Like the ending to it. Wish my parents were snake handlers.

Anyone else find it ironic that Dan Savage, a man who until very recently, would have been barred from having kids with his partner, should suggest that?

Jonman wrote:
Gravey wrote:
Amoebic wrote:

Is The “Fattest Woman on Earth” a Hoax?
-kind of a relief.

And for the record, Dan Savage is wrong to suggest this woman should have her kids taken away. Smokers, daredevils, snake handlers, creationists, anorexics, cancer patients, fishermen, and bomb disposal experts are free to have kids and so are people who eat a lot.

Like the ending to it. Wish my parents were snake handlers.

Anyone else find it ironic that Dan Savage, a man who until very recently, would have been barred from having kids with his partner, should suggest that?

Yeah, even though I'm a fan of his, I'm disappointed in his stance, given how many people think he would be an unfit parent because of his lifestyle. Not that I necessarily believe that someone who would want to eat themselves to death would be a good parent, but there are far worse "normal" parents out there, I'm sure.