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

[Doctor Amadeus]

I was having this conversation with a friend of mine who is right now dealing with a situation where his moms eating habits quickly becoming more severe along with obesity, and bouts with cancer, and history of alcoholism, she recently has been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. So it got me thinking about it and a lot of things as of late, where people who want to say, Not be obese, or Not be in poverty, or Want there to be more wealth equality.

However at least in the U.S we over eat, eat poorly, make bad life decisions, and allow rampant greed to a point it cripples our economy. So the question is this at what point do we as people, society, our government or whatever or act with some authority, and decide it is time to take away some peoples choices for their own good and the good of society over all?


I mean in some cases we already do take away some peoples rights to choose all the time, and some people even decide to give it away.

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

[TrumpIsPresident]

This could of been a good thread here.

But this part, this part here...

and allow rampant greed to a point it cripples our economy.

...will be the downfall of it.

Because its clear what you're actually trying to say.

Made even more clear by the following part:

government or whatever or act with some authority, and decide it is time to take away some peoples choices for their own good

This is your way of saying "I don't like the way freedom works because it allows people to think things that I disagree with so we need to change that and force them to stop".

And I know whats what you mean because I've read a great many of your posts.

If you had left out the agenda spikes this thread would have gone an entirely different direction.

Maybe you should consider editing them out before the snowball gets rolling.

[Fencers]

Usually I feel it is when choice directly endangers or causes the unnecessary suffering of another person, damages property other than one's own, is illegal, cause reasonable harm or deterioration to a shared environment.

[Doctor Amadeus]

On the surface this could of been a good thread here.

But this part, this part here:



Will be the downfall of it.

Because its clear what you're actually trying to say.

Made even more clear by the following part:



This is your way of saying "I don't like the way freedom works because it allows people to think things that I disagree with so we need to change that".

And I know whats what you mean because I've read a great many of your posts.

If you had let out the agenda spikes this thread would have gone an entirely different direction.

Maybe you should consider editing them out before the snowball gets rolling.

I have no plans to edit anything to make my question appear to be anything other than what it is, and while I am sure you and many others have read my previous post, I don't hide my stance on being authoritarian left and liberal.

But this post is more about where some might specifically draw that line.


Personally as it relates to some circumstances, I think in general society some responsibilities might be better left in the hands of those more capable, whether that be a temporary or permanent condition.

[zephid]

The option "Only when someone has been shown to be a danger to the lives of others" sounds pretty good to me.

[Independent voter]

When they are running down the street naked wearing only a

[brimdog]

Such things in life have come to be self evident

[Crissi]

Choice when it rewlates only to oneself, and harms no one else other than onself, I feel should never ever be infringed upon with one exception. Currently, only being declared mentally incompetent can have coices taken away, and Im fine with that since the mentally ill / dying / dementia / drugged out addict can be taken advantage of by the wrong person / incapable of the reasoning skills to make their own decision. Now being able to make an informed decision and still choosing the wrong one is still no ones business.

[Zelk]

I have no plans to edit anything to make my question appear to be anything other than what it is, and while I am sure you and many others have read my previous post, I don't hide my stance on being authoritarian left and liberal.

You should learn what these words mean before using them to describe yourself.

[Felicia]

I chose the first option, only because it relates to the 2nd one, too. I also feel it's necessary when a person CANNOT choose at all, whether they're in a coma... or in a state of mind that wouldn't help in good decision making. If said person in a coma has choices already decided in a will or whatever. Then those choices should be respected, no matter what.

I also let my husband make decisions for me when my blood sugar is too low for me to think coherently. While I'm capable of it most of the time, sometimes I get... irrational... about things. So he can decide if he wants to jab me in the thigh with glucagon or see if I'm cooperative enough to drink juice :P

[Vermicious]

or see if I'm cooperative enough to drink juice :P

Drink your juice, Shelby!

/thedirty30characters

[Primalthirst]

As soon as they consider voting for anyone owned by the Koch brothers.

[Xenryusho]

Never. If they break the law then punish them for it, but never take away the choice in the first place.

[Primalthirst]

Never. If they break the law then punish them for it, but never take away the choice in the first place.

Taking this to the extreme: If the President decides to launch all the nukes at American cities you don't actually stop him, just arrest him afterwards. Because you don't want to take away the choice in the first place?

There has to be a line.

[TrumpIsPresident]

I don't hide my stance on being authoritarian left and liberal.

Personally as it relates to some circumstances, I think in general society some responsibilities might be better left in the hands of those more capable, whether that be a temporary or permanent condition.

Ok so lets compromise.

The left gets the authoritarian dictatorship it wants, but the right gets to run it.

Fairs fair.

[PosPosPos]

Ok so lets compromise.

The left gets the authoritarian dictatorship it wants, but the right gets to run it.

Fairs fair.

The keywords were "more capable".

You just described a situation where the authority is significantly less capable than the ones being governed.

[Mormolyce]

You can't take someones choice away from them on the basis that they use it poorly. How could you ever define that well enough or set sensible limits on it?

[therealbowser]

I feel that a person's freedom should be taken away when he begins to impose upon the freedoms of others.

Of course there's a lot of missing context in that statement, but it is variable by intent.

"Danger to themselves" is another argument entirely. I don't really know how to address that. But, it would probably be best to help them by taking away a minimal amount of freedoms needed to do so.

[Nadiru]

IFF they are about to directly and physically hurt others. They can vote whichever way they want, believe whatever they want, talk about whatever beliefs they want. They are not allowed to stick a knife into somebody else. If discussion hurts your feelings, the onus is on you to improve yourself such that talk doesn't "trigger" you. The onus is not on them to modulate their discussion.

[TrumpIsPresident]

The keywords were "more capable".

You just described a situation where the authority is significantly less capable than the ones being governed.

Lets use an example.

If we hand over our freedom to people like Mall Security then Officer Darren Wilson would be sitting in a cell right now for a crime he didn't commit.

The premise of his statement is that people make bad decisions but that sentiment is passing through a heavily biased filter on whats bad and whats not.

I mean these are the same people who go around barring Mexican restaurants from handing out hats because they're "offensive".

These are the people who transform criminals into victims, forgiving all crimes, if the criminal's race/sexual orientation/religion/etc ranks high enough on the progressive stack.

These are the people who think they can tell you how much soda you're allowed to have or what you're allowed to pack your kid for lunch.

And I don't even know what to make of the whole injection of the greed part in the OP, whats that all about?

You could extrapolate from the general radical agenda behind this and assume that what he means is "if people have money then they've made a decision to be greedy and that's wrong so the solution is to remove their money thus removing their greed and correcting the bad decision".

You want to hand your life over to all of that?