It's still a difficult question when I consider the possible extremes.
That might be a personal problem, and, no, on this occasion that's not sarcastic. Look, it's just a matter of priorities. And something about the idea of what you find subtle compared to what else might seem completely obvious.
I mean, would we allow one person to kill another even if it was their choice to die?
The last time I recall that being tested, the answer is no. In truth, had the principle rolled, I would think I would have heard, but you never know.
That's blunt and crude, and certainly every circumstance has its own motivations, yet it does boil down to the very essence of the matter.
Competence is a difficult question, but, presently, consent to imminent homicidal act as means of suicide is generally not considered a competent decision.
That is to say, that we might permit a doctor to assist you in what would otherwise be self-termination in the face of mortal illness is one thing; that I can shoot you to death amid an ostensible sex act because you're suicidal for acute depression, melodramatic, and want to make a statement on your way out is quite another.
Smoking is, for instance, a question of slow death. It's not a guaranteed sentence, but it does increase the odds for disease, pain and early death. Is the government then justified in forcing me to quit for my own good?
The insurance companies will win out eventually, or else we go to single payer and the government plays that role. But as long as tobacco is legal, there are ways for insurance companies to compel people to reconsider their habits. No, seriously, on their best days, actuaries can be society's best friends.
One of life's great ironies is that we will eventually achieve the science-fiction fake intoxicants for the sake of our insurance costs, because I'm betting we probably won't be doing the science-fiction bit about ditching currency as the resource allocation model.
They have taken it on themselves to buckle me in my seat while I'm driving, where else might they use they same incentive to control other personal risks?
Some say the purpose behind a nanny state is financial, which might be true.[/QUOTE]
To a certain degree it's financial. But that's the thing: Somebody's gotta pay for it.
Sorry, that's an old joke I have with my father. It had to do with newspapers and advertising, and I did, actually, think of it recently because one of the local newspapers has taken a note from the internet and is now covering its content with advert stickers.
But that's the thing. That's driven by the chambers of commerce crowd. It's not going to be the communists who bring the step-time, gloomy, behavioral dystopia; it will be the private sector. Watch for imposed behavioral economics; they're getting so goddamn naked about it, and that's what blows my mind about the politics. Two-thirds of what pisses people off about government, at least, is more properly blamed on the private sector.
And it is some manner or morbid comedy; Americans have been doing this most of the time I've been politically aware. People vote for business, inherently voting against themselves. Business screws up, augmenting the damage. People blame government, and thus vote for business, inherently voting for themselves ....
We do it over and over again.
In this case, per behavior, if you happen to have Comcast, consider that the experience is only going to get worse. Everything that's wrong with their X1 platform has to do with the fact that serving television is a secondary priority. Everything else is about training you as a customer to click and buy.
What you buy, how you buy it, and why you want it will all be more greatly affected by the private sector than government.
In the end, if they really want you to quit smoking, insurance companies will rely on the mandate and jack your rates for being a smoker. And maybe you'll blame Obamacare, for instance, even though they could have done the same thing before.