Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I was wondering what evidence you have for this accusation? If such a thing is occurring shouldn't someone be made aware of this unlawful undertaking?
Economic liberty is a part of both personal and social liberty. Economic liberty means the right to buy and sell as we choose, own property, start businesses, hire and be hired. Plainly if we're denied these things, then we're being denied our personal liberty. Since economic decisions are always part of social life, denial of economic liberty is also denial of social liberty.
I'm kind of wondering that too. It can't be a reference to health care, since America's Medicare system gives seniors much more money for health care than any other nation.
Economic liberty is a part of both personal and social liberty. Economic liberty means the right to buy and sell as we choose, own property, start businesses, hire and be hired. Plainly if we're denied these things, then we're being denied our personal liberty. Since economic decisions are always part of social life, denial of economic liberty is also denial of social liberty.
I'm kind of wondering that too. It can't be a reference to health care, since America's Medicare system gives seniors much more money for health care than any other nation.
I agree that a command economy and a massive bureaucracy are two different things. However, both of them are systems which restrict economic liberty. Moreover, both impede economic growth, both leave populations stranded in poverty, and both block technological progress. Thus one can point to both China and India as examples of how denial of economic freedom harms people.Those "scores" conflate clumsy bureaucracy with a command economy. There is a very great deal of difference. I spent decades professionally studying and observing command economies such as the Soviet Union and China as well as economies such as India (which has been a pet poli sci study of mine since college in the early 70s). There is a significant difference.
A great amount of personal liberty... though old and sick people are still unnecessarily forced into torturous and undignified deaths against their will.
Well if you google I think you will easily find evidence that euthanasia and assisted suicide are banned in most 'free' countries. Other nations have in legal and have proven it is safe, yet we still treat our sick and poor lower than animals (animals are put to sleep, but humans are denied that choice).
Admittedly that's anecdotal evidence, but it suggests that in China, where everything is carefully portioned and maintained by the government, the air quality is worse than in the USA.
First, death is ultimately a necessity.
Second, Let us drop the euphemisms. Animals are not put to sleep they are killed often not to alleviate suffering but because they have become inconviences for their owners.
Euthanasia is legalized killing and may be carried out in humans for the same reasons as animals are killed.
Assisted suicide is a nonsense term as it actually is no suicide at all but the fulfillment of a person's wish to be killed by someone other than themself.
How it becomes the responsibility of a third party to carry out someone's death wish escapes me completely.
In any case whatever term one uses no one is actually forced into tourturous death against their will by society or laws. The process of dying is not something that society has forced upon anyone it is a natural process that society is powerless to impose upon anyone.
There is no such thing as dignified death. All death is undignified.
First, death is ultimately a necessity. Second, Let us drop the euphemisms. Animals are not put to sleep they are killed often not to alleviate suffering but because they have become inconviences for their owners. Euthanasia is legalized killing and may be carried out in humans for the same reasons as animals are killed. Assisted suicide is a nonsense term as it actually is no suicide at all but the fulfillment of a person's wish to be killed by someone other than themself. How it becomes the responsibility of a third party to carry out someone's death wish escapes me completely. In any case whatever term one uses no one is actually forced into tourturous death against their will by society or laws. The process of dying is not something that society has forced upon anyone it is a natural process that society is powerless to impose upon anyone. There is no such thing as dignified death. All death is undignified.
Is it? It may not be for future 'humans.
Sometimes they are killed to alleviate suffering though.
I'm not sure what weird laws you are hearing of that kill humans than are inconviences.
You've never heard of people being given a pill that they take?
Why is it massively different from normal palliative care? If I were qualified and no one else would, I would happily do such a job. It is a more meaningful and loving job than most.
Firstly, science probably does have the ability to impose such deaths on people.
Secondly, the law does impose such a death on people. They can easily die a less painful death, and that is their choice, yet the law forces them to die a torturous death. It is evil and reflects just as poorly on our nations as slavery did.
I see nothing undignified in dying in ones sleep or by a pill (Im not concerned about what happens after death to the body). Or, at least those are more dignified than losing your mind and control of your body, perhaps to the extent that you are almost an undead version of your formed self. Far more dignified than dying it great and unnecessary suffering against your will.
Quite.
However, I too will have to disagree with a part of this; Power itself is an illusion, I would say. It's a trick, a shadow on the wall. (Those who know what I just referenced, I congratulate you!) And so if the people believe they have no power, then they actually have no power. There is the potential that the people could seize, as it were, significant power, but they don't currently have it.
Also, there is another barrier to the people having significant power. One is the capitalists, as you mentioned. But the other is that the politicians commonly elected to a wide variety of offices belong to their own special strata of society, like the capitalists, and they have their own illusions they perpetuate to the public, for their own purposes.
(More particularly politicians running for some federal or national office; And also state-level offices, to an extent)
But certainly if the people as a whole came together and had the will to effect change, things would, for so long as that will lasted.
I think you've got everything exactly backwards. A nation that has more political liberty can expect to have fewer people living in poverty, less pollution, and more scientific and technological discoverities, as compared to a nation without political liberty. For example, here's a major American city:
Here's a major city in communist China:
Admittedly that's anecdotal evidence, but it suggests that in China, where everything is carefully portioned and maintained by the government, the air quality is worse than in the USA.
On the issue of new science and technology, consider what was invented by Americans seeking personal profit: the telephone, the light bulb, the microchip, the personal computer, the assembly line, the metal detector, the transformer, large-scale electricity, the airplane, the air conditioner, the vast majority of medicines currently in use, blood transfusions, artificial insulin, online auctions, the nuclear reactor, the tractor, ... Obviously this list could go on for quite a while. By contrast, totalitarian countries with command economies, such as China and Cuba, have not invented a whole lot.
In terms of wealth, just ask yourself one thing: how many Americans currently can't afford electricity or running water? How does that compare to the percentages in China or India or other heavily regulated economies?
I'll acknowledge that the USA is not now, and never has been, perfectly dedicated to personal liberty. But it has always been vastly better than most other nations, and both Americans and other peoples have benefited as a result.
People don't have power...but then again if they got together and worked toward something they do have power. Well, perhaps we agree but I'm not stating it clearly enough. I think individuals are relatively powerless to the masses. No amount of wealth or political influence will change that. For an example, see every revolution in history.
I absolutely think that the Chinese would be better of if they shifted away from their communist positions and towards a free society. I have already linked to the Index of Economic Freedom, which clearly shows that those countries with the most economic freedom are the most prosperous. Indeed China has made a considerable shift towards free markets since the time of Chairman Mao, and there's no doubt that the Chinese people have benefited. There was mass starvation in Mao's time, the worse mass starvation in human history. Nowadays the Chinese have more than enough to eat. In contrast we can look at North Korea, which has stuck with old-school Marxism and where there still is mass starvation. In terms of poverty, China has experienced economic growth around 10% a year for many years, ever since they began liberalizing their economy. North Korea has experienced no economic growth at all. All indications are that increased freedom has been excellent for the Chinese people, and that further increases in freedom would make life even better.Let's look at your example of China for a moment. Suppose they allowed their citizens the same personal liberties (or more) we have here in the US? Do you think that they would be better off for it? Or do you think issues of crime, poverty, overpopulation, disease, and mass starvation would send the nation spiraling into destruction?
Let's look at your example of China for a moment. Suppose they allowed their citizens the same personal liberties (or more) we have here in the US? Do you think that they would be better off for it? Or do you think issues of crime, poverty, overpopulation, disease, and mass starvation would send the nation spiraling into destruction?
I've had this idea for some time now, wanted to make a thread on it but honestly I've been afraid I'd be unable to explain this idea correctly. In short, I think a nation founded upon the idea might be a bad thing.
I think that this is very astute. Western individualism has some good values but I think that, as a whole, it is deadly -- meaning that if it continues unchecked it will ultimately destroy humanity. Consider some selections from Isaiah 58:
"Yet they seek me daily and delight to know my ways, as if they were a nation that did righteousness and did not forsake the judgment of their God...
...Behold, in the day of your fast you seek your own pleasure, and oppress all your workers...Fasting like yours this day will not make your voice to be heard on high...
...Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide from your own flesh."
The Bible understands humanity not as a aggregate of individuals who are competing for scarce resources, but as one whole -- as a family. What is bad for some is bad for all. What's good for you is good for me because we are the same flesh. That's why it's written "love your neighbor as yourself."
Western individualism values freedom and this is a good thing. It pursues freedom wrongly though and in the end it doesn't even really attain it. The ancient books say that if we pursue righteousness, justice, and mercy then we will have liberty. But if we pursue liberty without the other three things we will have none of them.
It is not necessarily true that to lack religious values and not be submissive to any other standard of behavior will "destroy humanity." Certainly because the bible suggests or says so doesn't make it true.
I am not claiming here that the Bible is authoritative. I'm simply offering it's perspective for consideration. Who said anything about religious values? I'm talking about righteousness, justice, and mercy.
It is and will remain a necessity. Humans of the future will still be mortal.
That would be suicide not assisted suicide and I have no objection to that. The power over a person's life should always remain in their own hands and never be given into the hands of another.
Many people are attracted to the power over the life and death of another. I am leery of giving that power to anyone as power tends to corrupt. In palliative care the only power is to soothe not to kill.
Science is a field of inquiry not a sentient being that has a will of its own and can impose something on an actual living being.
The law makes no such imposition it merely states that murder i.e. the killing of another human being is not lawful and does not make an exception for those that wish to be murdered or for those that think another would be better off dead.
The only person that can control how dignified they die is the person that is dying. If they approach the matter in a dignified way they will die with dignity.I see nothing more or less dignified in any of the scenarios you paint because I do not believe that dignity is something extrinsic to a human being but it is an intrinsic quality that a person possesses regardless of their circumstances. The way of death that you claim to be more dignified is surely an easier death but I do not see anything in it that has anything to do with dignity until I see how the person conducts him/herself in that process. I also see nothing undignified about suffering or dying in any fashion that one finally dies.
Sorry for the late reply.
Well you may no longer wish to call them humans, but post-humans, or whatever you want to call our future evolution, will likely be free from death by natural disease or ageing. They would still be vulnerable to things like physical damage for quite some time.
I'm pretty sure giving someone a pill to kill themselves is assisted suicide and illegal currently. If you are ok with that then I would suggest you make your support heard to help relieve the suffering of the sick, and respect their choice.
It would see that you are against euthanasia... helping people who can't kill themselves because they simply can't (ie: paralysis). You say it should be in their hands, but if their hands are dead to their minds control, then it simply seems like discrimination against those most disabled.
When a person's communication is respected their life is in their 'hands'. As long as others are restricted to only do what the patient has said, the other person does the same job in response to the patients mind as their hands would do if they worked.
The problem is that people DO currently have power over life and death. Self autonomy has been stolen from the sick and old and given to the government. It is the government (made up of people) who current use coercive power to strike against the will of those whose life it is.
The solution is to give the power back to the people whose life it is. Whether a people is helped to die should be the choice of the person whose life it is... anything else is tyranny and evil to almost the highest degrees of government evil (obviously being below genocide and mass torture). The government, in taking the power for itself, is in a much more coercive position than doctors regulated to make them act only on the informed choice of the patient.
I would also point out that there are fates worse than death. If you disagree that is your choice, but you shouldn't be forcing that value judgement on other people when it is their life, not yours.
I hope you don't take me to be saying that in an accusing tone.
Well yeah, but I'm sure you know what I mean.
Which is an evil of our modern states.
The state does make exceptions: ie: self-defence (either individuals, or the army). It makes much for sense for killing to be illegal when it is against the will of the person being murdered. If someone wants to die (and is rationally informed when willing such) then there is no harm done by killing them. Just as theft is only theft when you take something against the will of the owner. When the owner allows you to take it, it isn't theft.
Well we are getting into vague definitions of dignity now, so I doubt there is much good in trying to argue over it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?