06-09-2003, 05:05 PM
. . . goes down the tubes.
Hi,
Once again, the question is what position away from both extremes is "correct".
Letting people suffer and die simply because they are too poor to receive aid is not much of a tenable position (I think). Covering all injuries, even those beyond the norm because of foolishness or stupidity on the part of the injured is also untenable (again, IMO).
Somehow, a "happy" medium needs to be achieved. And legislation trying to force people not to be fools is a waste of time and money. And that is *our* money. And for the most part doomed to failure. Those too stupid to use seat belts will be stupid enough to break a seat belt law.
Actions have consequences. If those consequences are not passed back at least in part to the one who acted, then there is no need for personal responsibility. We see this in many places: the judge who gives a criminal a suspended sentence or the parole board that lets a criminal out early are not held responsible for the actions of that criminal. The hiker who goes off into the wilderness alone and unprepared isn't charged for the cost of the great search and rescue effort his getting lost engenders. Ditto the climber and the sailor.
So, somewhere between "let them stew in their own juices" and "no worries, we'll take care of everything" lies the answer. The USA does not have it, but I don't think Canada does either. Indeed, I can think of no place that does.
--Pete
Hi,
Once again, the question is what position away from both extremes is "correct".
Letting people suffer and die simply because they are too poor to receive aid is not much of a tenable position (I think). Covering all injuries, even those beyond the norm because of foolishness or stupidity on the part of the injured is also untenable (again, IMO).
Somehow, a "happy" medium needs to be achieved. And legislation trying to force people not to be fools is a waste of time and money. And that is *our* money. And for the most part doomed to failure. Those too stupid to use seat belts will be stupid enough to break a seat belt law.
Actions have consequences. If those consequences are not passed back at least in part to the one who acted, then there is no need for personal responsibility. We see this in many places: the judge who gives a criminal a suspended sentence or the parole board that lets a criminal out early are not held responsible for the actions of that criminal. The hiker who goes off into the wilderness alone and unprepared isn't charged for the cost of the great search and rescue effort his getting lost engenders. Ditto the climber and the sailor.
So, somewhere between "let them stew in their own juices" and "no worries, we'll take care of everything" lies the answer. The USA does not have it, but I don't think Canada does either. Indeed, I can think of no place that does.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?