How much Freedom is Too Much?

[edgray]

We have that kind of program here, it's called 'Work for the dole' - Mutual Obligation/Work for the Dole

That's awesome!!

 

[Accountable]

As earlier, I don't as much think of that as an issue of freedom, but of an issue of social justice. As a source of revenue, tax money from the highest income earners contributes much to government coffers, such tax dollars can be used to fund social services, that benefit the socially and economically disadvantaged members in society.

our governments are set up differently. Helping the socially and economically disadvantaged is not in the purview of the federal gov't, though that minor detail of constitutionality gets conveniently ignored with regularity.
State and local government are free to address the issue, though I contend that labeling someone socially disadvantaged gives and excuse for sloth, encourages mediocrity. Different debate for a different thread.

When a government with a particular political ideology, enact policies that favor the powerful and wealthy in society, and leave those who are less better off out in the cold, I believe that has the potential to cause harm for others, and it limits their freedom. For example, if you cut taxes for the wealthy - which reduces revenue, and consequently cut social programs to the disadvantaged; then I would contend that is when you are 'causing harm'.

I agree with your first statement, but disagree that your example is a valid example of that statement.
Cutting taxes is not enacting a policy; it is canceling one. Cutting taxes (within limits) has proven to increase revenue rather than reducing it, much like pruning a plant encourages new and more vigorous growth.
Nevertheless, it is the enactment of government policy, rather than allowing citizens to keep what is theirs, that can limit freedom.

Almost everyone universally would agree that competition is a good thing, but competition can only exist, in my view, with some form of government regulation of the market.

We agree in principle, just not in degree. I'll try to explain in the next response.

In regard to the telecommunication industry, the market isn't diverse as the United States. Telstra, even before privatization, have virtually dominated the market. For example, they own all the telephone lines, and hence, they charge other telecommunication companies a 'line rental' charge. However, there is steady competition growing in the sector, and the government has recently announced that they will legislate to break up Telstra into two separate entities, a move that has been welcomed with consumers and business experts alike.

Also, much expense derives from the fact that our telecommunication infrastructure isn't advanced as much as say, the United States.

When Ma Bell had her monopoly, it was very much as you describe Telstra. When the gov't broke it up into pieces, it also divided the lines among the new competitive pieces. This is where I think gov't intervention & regulation of business does good: when it keeps one company from unfairly destroying or preventing competition. In other words, to prevent monopoly. That, and possibly monitoring to ensure that actions behind the scenes are on the up and up, such as cleanliness in the food industry or truth in advertising.

Of course, I hope we can agree that while there are benefits to private ownership of industries, the penetration of market forces into some industries can be detrimental for society.

Defense, prisons, roads management, ..... that's about all I can think of for now. I'm not convinced that the gov't has a role even in education; it seems to cause more harm than good.

We have that kind of program here, it's called 'Work for the dole' - Mutual Obligation/Work for the Dole

That sounds fantastic!! :clap
It gives a person the freedom to choose to work for the dole or walk away.

 

[Accountable]

Tim says that when a person gains the skills that enable him to save a person's life, he loses the freedom to choose whether to use them.

http://www.offtopicz.net/56584-democrats-hope-ping-pong-republicans-out-2.html#post1435300

I disagree.

 

[Tim]

Tim says that when a person gains the skills that enable him to save a person's life, he loses the freedom to choose whether to use them.

http://www.offtopicz.net/56584-democrats-hope-ping-pong-republicans-out-2.html#post1435300

I disagree.

Google EMTALA law and read up on it.

It's against the law to refuse life saving treatment.

If you are a doctor or RN and drive by an accident with medical injuries, you can lose your license.

 

[Accountable]

Google EMTALA law and read up on it.

It's against the law to refuse life saving treatment.

If you are a doctor or RN and drive by an accident with medical injuries, you can lose your license.

Just a little too much generalizing, there, Tim. I didn't read every word on EMTALA.COM - Resources and information, but I perused the FAQs. That law only refers to physicians on duty. The word "accident" wasn't there at all.

Do you think that everyone should be required to perform their acquired skills under penalty of law, or only medical personnel?

 

[Meirionnydd]

Just a little too much generalizing, there, Tim. I didn't read every word on EMTALA.COM - Resources and information, but I perused the FAQs. That law only refers to physicians on duty. The word "accident" wasn't there at all.

Do you think that everyone should be required to perform their acquired skills under penalty of law, or only medical personnel?

I've briefly studied torts, and what Tim says is correct, the anecdotal example he used is used quite frequently be legal practitioners and teachers as an example of negligence and 'duty of care' in tort law

Only some members of the public are bound by a duty of care, depending on their occupation, or qualification. Generally, this applies to medical personnel, but sometimes, also those trained in first aid. For example, it would be against the law for say, a Police Officer to drive past and ignore a traffic accident in which people require medical assistance.

Now, I don't think that everyone should be requited to perform their acquired skills under the penalty of law, but certainly this should apply to medical and emergency personnel. For many, rendering assistance to those who need help, regardless of them 'working' at the time, is just part of their profession.

 

[nova]

Great, we have now progressed to my hypothetical situation. We're talking about throwing doctors in jail for refusing to work. Using the sharp speartip of gov't to get what you want regardless of right or wrong. De-facto slavery is so cool....

 

[dt3]

Of course we should also jail any certified mechanic who drives past a stranded motorist on the interstate. And of course any certified electrician whose neighbor loses power. And any military or law enforcement personnel who were on the flight into Detroit and didn't stop the bomber. And every vet who sees a stray animal and doesn't take it in. And every firefighter who doesn't check their neighbor's smoke detector. And any person with cash in their wallet who passes a homeless person without giving.

 

[Accountable]

Now, I don't think that everyone should be requited to perform their acquired skills under the penalty of law, but certainly this should apply to medical and emergency personnel. For many, rendering assistance to those who need help, regardless of them 'working' at the time, is just part of their profession.

What's the logic? If it's part of their profession then why should there be the double whammy of threat of punishment?

 

[Tim]

Great, we have now progressed to my hypothetical situation. We're talking about throwing doctors in jail for refusing to work. Using the sharp speartip of gov't to get what you want regardless of right or wrong. De-facto slavery is so cool....

WTF are you talking about? This is nothing new, not by a long shot. You act like this was just passed by the Obama administration or something.

What's the logic? If it's part of their profession then why should there be the double whammy of threat of punishment?

You guys really crack me up.

 

[Accountable]

So you have no answer? You've never really thought about it, have you? You just accept it. It's always been this way so it must be okay?

 

[nova]

WTF are you talking about? This is nothing new, not by a long shot. You act like this was just passed by the Obama administration or something.

I don't give a shit when it was enacted to be perfectly honest. Wrong is wrong...

 

[Tim]

I don't give a shit when it was enacted to be perfectly honest. Wrong is wrong...

So you think it's ok for a doctor to just walk by an accident scene without offering assistance. I mean hell, it's his choice if he decides to work that day or not, right? The oath he took means nothing when he isn't in his office, right?

 

[dt3]

So you think it's ok for a doctor to just walk by an accident scene without offering assistance. I mean hell, it's his choice if he decides to work that day or not, right? The oath he took means nothing when he isn't in his office, right?

No, him not helping is morally and ethically WRONG. But legislating that he be required to stop is just as WRONG.

 

[nova]

So you think it's ok for a doctor to just walk by an accident scene without offering assistance. I mean hell, it's his choice if he decides to work that day or not, right? The oath he took means nothing when he isn't in his office, right?

It may be morally questionable depending on your moral system but it should not be punishable legally. You find it morally objectionable to walk by an accident scene, I find it morally objectionable to force involuntary servitude upon people.

As far as oaths go, not all doctors take one and for the one's that do, not all the oaths are the same. My wife's oath said nothing that could be construed as "helping everyone, everywhere all the time regardless."

 

[retro]

Google EMTALA law and read up on it.

It's against the law to refuse life saving treatment.

If you are a doctor or RN and drive by an accident with medical injuries, you can lose your license.

Now I'm pretty sure you have a fundamental lack of understanding of EMTALA

EMTALA applies only to "participating hospitals" -- i.e., to hospitals which have entered into "provider agreements" under which they will accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program for services provided to beneficiaries of that program. In practical terms, this means that it applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners' Hospital for Crippled Children and many military hospitals. Its provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients. (See Section 15 below.)

The avowed purpose of the statute is to prevent hospitals from rejecting patients, refusing to treat them, or transferring them to "charity hospitals" or "county hospitals" because they are unable to pay or are covered under the Medicare or Medicaid programs. This purpose, however, does not limit the coverage of its provisions -- see Sections 15 and 16 below.

A physician who is responsible for providing an examination or treatment, including but not limited to an on-call physician, may be liable for a civil money penalty for signing the medical certificate if he knew or should have known that the benefits of transfer did not in fact outweigh the risks of transfer, or if he misrepresents the patient's condition or the hospital's obligations under the statute.


A physician who is on call and who fails or refuses to appear after being called by an E.R. physician (or other physician) may be subject to a penalty under the statute, or may subject his hospital to a penalty.

FAQ on EMTALA

EMTALA doesn't have anything to do with the situation that you're describing, it has to do with treatment of patients in emergency situations at Hospitals regardless of their lack of ability, or perceived lack of ability, to pay.

In actuality, the situation that you described could actually lead to a physician violating EMTALA. Since hypothetical situations seem to be the way to go here... let's go with one. A physician is on-call, he is called by the hospital to evaluate and admit a patient into the hospital, he has x number of minutes to get to the hospital and start this process. On the way, he sees an accident where someone might need medical attention. If he stops to evaluate the situation, even though he probably isn't equipped to provide treatment, he won't have enough time to get to the hospital and evaluate and admit the first patient. But you're claiming that he's legally required to stop and provide care to anyone who looks as though they might need it. But that's where you're wrong. EMTALA has little to nothing to do with private physicians individually, and everything to do with hospitals providing emergency treatment. You've twisted the definition and purpose of EMTALA in order to fit it with your argument.

Here, go take a look at the actual text of the law

EMTALA - Primary law

 

[Accountable]

So you think it's ok for a doctor to just walk by an accident scene without offering assistance. I mean hell, it's his choice if he decides to work that day or not, right? The oath he took means nothing when he isn't in his office, right?

That's it? That's your line of reasoning, that just because a person ought to do something, there should be a law compelling him to do so under penalty of law??

What should the sentencing structure be for not holding a door open for an old lady with her arms full of groceries?

Holy shit. I'm surprised anyone would want to be a doctor at all. If you don't help, you might go to jail. If you do, you might get sued for whatever random fucking reason some psycho might think of. God forbid the person has a DNR request on file. :willy_nilly:

 

[Meirionnydd]

Great, we have now progressed to my hypothetical situation. We're talking about throwing doctors in jail for refusing to work. Using the sharp speartip of gov't to get what you want regardless of right or wrong. De-facto slavery is so cool....

Progressed to? The concept of negligence and 'duty of care' have existed for at least the past 150 years, this is by no means new.

Please also note that the law stipulating negligence is part of tort law, not criminal law.

 

[KpAtch3s]

The Constitution and Freedom - Part 5 | The FOX Nation[/URL]

I know how much some of you love Fox News, but there are 5 short video clips about the constitution and freedom that I think pertain to this discussion.

The point at which a person has too much freedom is at the point in which they are infringing on the freedoms of those around them. To be more precise, I think the following explains the exact boundaries better than any other combination of words where our freedoms lie and that nothing shall interfere with them.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The key here is you have these rights, but you are also responsible to yourself to pursue your own happiness. Your fellow citizen is not responsible for you nor you for him. This means no social programs, which is not a responsibility of the government.

America is the most charitable nation in the world, even in the worst econimic decline since the great depression we are giving millions of dollars and aid to Haiti. By this example alone shows that for those truly in need of help; the help can be provided by the nations people without the help of government programs, which unduly burdens the poor and slows the pace of a free market economy.

Small government, no regulations (including no minimum wage, no CAFE standards, no tariffs, etc.), and low taxes, is the way government should be run. I think I'm getting off topic so I will end it here, but you can see where the boundries of freedom lie.

 

[Accountable]

Do you own a home?