The struggle between Liberty and Authority

[espadrille]

I am firm believer in civil liberties and that the state has limited influence and control over an individuals behaviour and the way they live their lives.

I believe that everyone should take personal responsibility for themselves and their families and that the state need only intervene when either the individual is not capable of looking after themselves or the individual is causing harm or suffering to another persons lives or preventing them from living their lives in the way that we choose.

 

In my opinion the state has interfered too much in the way that we live our lives. I am pleased to see that we have managed to eradicate ID cards, hopefully for good.

Civil liberties and the freedom for one to live their life in the way that they want to is very important to me.

The harm principle says that society or the state doesn't have a right to intervene if the individual is not affecting others.People should have the right to have a say in government’s decisions. Social liberty is “the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual”.

 

So if more of us believed in Liberty rather than state dependance would we be in a better frame of mind to cope with the issues that we currently face. After all Government cant have all the answers.

What do you think?

[espadrille]

and the other thing is..why do we need the government to tell us that we should exercise and eat healthily?We all already know that.

We know that smoking is bad for us and unless we take it in moderation so is alcohol. We learnt all these things at school. Eat your veg. Eat some fruit. Have a balanced diet etc etc etc.Look after your finances, spend a little, save a little.

I know that there are some exceptions to this and that some people dont learn this as they should but on the whole people are quite capable.

 

So if this is the case why dont people just get on with it and do their best to live their life in the way they know is best for them and take personal responsibility.

[taxman]

and the other thing is..why do we need the government to tell us that we should exercise and eat healthily?We all already know that.

We know that smoking is bad for us and unless we take it in moderation so is alcohol. We learnt all these things at school. Eat your veg. Eat some fruit. Have a balanced diet etc etc etc.Look after your finances, spend a little, save a little.

I know that there are some exceptions to this and that some people dont learn this as they should but on the whole people are quite capable.

 

So if this is the case why dont people just get on with it and do their best to live their life in the way they know is best for them and take personal responsibility.

 

Having spent a week in Scotland I was amazed at the numbers of obviously seriously ill people who continued to smoke. We've known since the 60's that smoking is bad but I saw chronically ill people puffing away.

 

Surely then the state has a duty to step in? Not only to help these people (even if against their will) but also to mitigate against the long term costs to the NHS if/when these people are strapped to a ventilator in a long term dependency ward.

 

The other option would be to let them kill themselves and withhold treatment.

 

I'm just musing here having seen some more smokers in one place than ever before, many of them struggling to walk.

[Mecky]

Having spent a week in Scotland I was amazed at the numbers of obviously seriously ill people who continued to smoke. We've known since the 60's that smoking is bad but I saw chronically ill people puffing away.

 

Surely then the state has a duty to step in? Not only to help these people (even if against their will) but also to mitigate against the long term costs to the NHS if/when these people are strapped to a ventilator in a long term dependency ward.

 

The other option would be to let them kill themselves and withhold treatment.

 

I'm just musing here having seen some more smokers in one place than ever before, many of them struggling to walk.

 

[harvey19]

Having spent a week in Scotland I was amazed at the numbers of obviously seriously ill people who continued to smoke. We've known since the 60's that smoking is bad but I saw chronically ill people puffing away.

 

Surely then the state has a duty to step in? Not only to help these people (even if against their will) but also to mitigate against the long term costs to the NHS if/when these people are strapped to a ventilator in a long term dependency ward.

 

The other option would be to let them kill themselves and withhold treatment.

 

I'm just musing here having seen some more smokers in one place than ever before, many of them struggling to walk.

I once read the tax collected from the sale of tobacco products was more than the cost of medical treatment for smoking related illnesss.

I find it disgusting that the government takes money from a product they insist carry health warnings.

[Vague_Boy]

Surely then the state has a duty to step in? Not only to help these people (even if against their will)

 

Why limit that to smokers? Why not the morbidly obese, alcoholics and drug addicts, people who don't eat their 5-a-day or exercise enough.

 

We could have the forced feeding of anorexics and bulimics and the starving of fatties.

 

Or we could treat them like adults, including letting them face the consequences of their own actions.

[taxman]

Why limit that to smokers? Why not the morbidly obese, alcoholics and drug addicts, people who don't eat their 5-a-day or exercise enough.

 

We could have the forced feeding of anorexics and bulimics and the starving of fatties.

 

Or we could treat them like adults, including letting them face the consequences of their own actions.

 

Would you extend your analogy to people who get injured playing sport, driving, hang-gliding, hiking, having unprotected sex etc etc?

 

Does a smoker who has contributed to the NHS via duty on fags have less of a right to treatment than someone else, who may have contributed less?

 

Or should we just abandon the contributory principle altogether and make people take out insurance?

[espadrille]

Why limit that to smokers? Why not the morbidly obese, alcoholics and drug addicts, people who don't eat their 5-a-day or exercise enough.

 

We could have the forced feeding of anorexics and bulimics and the starving of fatties.

 

Or we could treat them like adults, including letting them face the consequences of their own actions.

 

but isnt that just the point. if we want real liberty then shouldnt we be brought up to take personal responsibility for our actions what ever they are?

[espadrille]

Having spent a week in Scotland I was amazed at the numbers of obviously seriously ill people who continued to smoke. We've known since the 60's that smoking is bad but I saw chronically ill people puffing away.

 

Surely then the state has a duty to step in? Not only to help these people (even if against their will) but also to mitigate against the long term costs to the NHS if/when these people are strapped to a ventilator in a long term dependency ward.

 

The other option would be to let them kill themselves and withhold treatment.

 

I'm just musing here having seen some more smokers in one place than ever before, many of them struggling to walk.

 

I dont think the state should interfere but I also think that there should be some limits on what the Nhs is prepared to do also.I know that it is very difficult for this to be black and white as you say where can the line be drawn.

For example my Mum used to live near someone who was a chronic smoker and in her middle age developed cancer. She had treatment and was told that she must stop smoking otherwise she wouldn't have very long to live. She continued to smoke and it wasn't long until she passed away. I was quite young at the time and was incredulous. I couldn't understand why someone would do that especially with a family and knowing what that may do to them.This person has already made up her mind not to fight but there are some who continue to take treatment( George Best is an example) and take no personal responsibility to change their own behaviour.

[onewheeldave]

For example my Mum used to live near someone who was a chronic smoker and in her middle age developed cancer. She had treatment and was told that she must stop smoking otherwise she wouldn't have very long to live. She continued to smoke and it wasn't long until she passed away. I was quite young at the time and was incredulous. I couldn't understand why someone would do that especially with a family and knowing what that may do to them.This person has already made up her mind not to fight but there are some who continue to take treatment( George Best is an example) and take no personal responsibility to change their own behaviour.

 

Thing is that most long-term smokers are thoroughly addicted to nicotine.

 

A common thought that smokers have is that they'll quit immediately if dignosed with cancer. However, for decades they've got into the habit of dealing with even normal everyday stress by smoking. To be diagnosed with cancer is perhaps the most stressful thing that can happen to anyone, so, in many cases, it's highly unlikely that they'll quit at that point.