At what point do you think a persons choice should be taken away from them?

[Deleted]

Only when someone has been shown to be a danger to the lives of others.

What people do with their own lives, and how they treat themselves, should ultimately be no one else's business - as long as they do not directly affect others. People are free to worry, of course, but it should not warrant removing any choice of them.

[Kurioxan]

"Only when someone has been shown to be a danger to the lives of others"

If people want to kill themselves slowly, go for it i have no sympathy.
If we lived in an age with no information, sure, it would be our duty, but people know full well the effects, yet we have movements like fatacceptance and so forth, who cares, its their lives.
Only intervene when it reaches a point it messes with other peoples lives.

[Damajin]

The second they make forum posts, blog posts, internet discussions, semi to fully formal groups dedicated to this, or assert legislation or regulations to create such assertions. The people who want to take away someones' choice should have it done to them first and we'll see how long they think it's cool.

[MegaVolti]

"Only when someone has been shown to be a danger to the lives of others" sounds about right but what exactly do you mean with "danger"? From your initial post it seems that making an economic decision is already a "danger to others" in your opinion which is pretty silly so be honest.

"Only when someone can be proven (beyond any reasonable doubt) to be or have been a direct, physical danger to others" is what it should be. Plus of course "when someone can be proven (beyond any reasonable doubt) to not be mentally capable of comprehending own actions" (young children, mentally disabled people).

As soon as you start going beyond these necessities you will inevitably end up with a fascist dictatorship. Which, funny enough, all attempts at socialism / communism have turned out to be. Guess why? Exactly because they started taking away freedoms for what they thought were "good" reasons.

[Machismo]

A person's choice should be taken from them, when they cause actual harm to another. If you cannot show actual harm, then don't stand in their way.

Unfortunately, far too many people simply want to stop others from doing things, simply because they do not like them. Take the OP, for example... he wants to take almost all the money away from rich people. Sure, he hasn't said what he would do with that money, but he definitely does not want them to have it. That is a very dangerous mentality to have. If a woman wants to eat herself to death, that's her choice. You don't have to like it, but that gives you no right to stop it.

[Krekal]

Do bad=get bad, I guess? It has worked so far.

[Azadina]

Only when it's clear that they are/will be a danger to others, and not just themselves.

[Dezerte]

When a person's action is detrimental to others, that action should be stopped.

[Deleted]

Only if they act on it and and even then only to neutralize them. Forced treatment and medication is never ok IMO. If they refuse, it should be respected and they should just be kept locked up and under guard till its clear they're no longer dangerous to others.

[Deleted]

The option I opt for isnt there:a persons choice (in some matters) should be taken away from them when they are deemned unable to make choices for themselves and others. (including (future) progeny).. Obviously this is a moral minefield and is a hard subject to tage (How would you draw a line here..)

I read about a case +/- a week ago about a family of 6 , two mentally handicapped parents with 5 mentally handicapped children and one 21 year old male.

The 21 year old was found dead in their very neglected/filthy (the words used were biohazardous) house(parents isolated themselves from the children by just watching tv all day), and the article stated govermental services might have failed here.

It got me thinking, what kind of society are we when we allow a situation to get that far? The mere fact we cannot at any point (no matter the circumstances) say, well someone should make decisions for these people because its very obvious they cant, and this will go wrong.

[Grimbold21]

The moment the action you chose to undertake directly and negatively impacts another's life.

Werent you the one that made the thread about that women that decided not to give marriage licenses to gays? Well theres your example, a lot of ppl went but her beliefs!! or[freedom of religion.. Thats fine, but her choice negatily impacted other people, so i say revoke her freedom of religion

[the game]

They should lose their right to choose when they order a steak well done.

[Deleted]

43% voted for "When it is clear that a person is a danger to themselves or someone else", yet most answers in the thread seem to reflect the second option.
Can someone of those people explain why it would be justified to interfere with people's choices as long as they only are a danger to themselves?

[Azadina]

43% voted for "When it is clear that a person is a danger to themselves or someone else", yet most answers in the thread seem to reflect the second option.
Can someone of those people explain why it would be justified to interfere with people's choices as long as they only are a danger to themselves?

I personally voted for the second option, but I think the "or someone else" on the first option is skewing the results in this poll. It kinda has an overlap with the second option.

[Erwarth]

If I want to commit suicide but fail. I'll be charged with murder attempt ?