3 ms·

Compelling to do good things and compelling to prevent bad things are a duality. They're equivalent in their effects, and you can easily transform one to the ot

by Retra 11y ago

Compelling to do good things and compelling to prevent bad things are a duality. They're equivalent in their effects, and you can easily transform one to the other. Punishing people for doing wrong is compelling them to receive a punishment deemed good. "Thou must go to jail." "Personal autonomy. Your body, your choice." That's a nice slogan, but it isn't actually realized anywhere. It's always your choice when there's a clear advantage -- that is, when the state doesn't "know best" about your body. And it absolutely reserves the right control your body for the greater good. "Can the state compel everyone to be a vegan unless they can show proof of a medical condition that would make it unworkable?" They can if there is good evidence to show a vegan diet is strictly superior to all others. So for a more appropriate example, it can compel you to use a seatbelt in an automobile, because there are real social costs to not doing so. It doesn't matter if you want to take a risk, once you go to the hospital, you are utilizing a public resource. And the state has a responsibility to ensure those resources are available and used efficiently, which means preventing unnecessary emergencies. (Like what would occur if you contracted something like polio.)

LordKano 11y ago
And the state has a responsibility to ensure those resources are available and used efficiently Can the state be sued for failing to fulfill that responsibility? The state may well have an interest in doing that but it does not have that responsibility.
- Retra 11y ago
  The reason we have states is to manage public resources, including the people who make up the state. But really, you might sue them, but that's not the only way to fix that kind of problem. You could also elect a new government, or create laws or regulations to prevent mismanagement, or usurp the government. Suing is only one way to interact with a government that makes mistakes, and it's certainly not a necessary mechanism for doing so.
duaneb 11y ago
> That's a nice slogan, but it isn't actually realized anywhere. It's always your choice when there's a clear advantage -- that is, when the state doesn't "know best" about your body. And it absolutely reserves the right control your body for the greater good. That's true legally, and in theory, but if someone tries to medicate me without my permission I'll leave the country. I can't trust the government with my health given its track record on drugs, the tuskegee experiment, the whole nasty eugenics business, the miserable mess that is psychiatric drugs, and doctor assisted suicide laws, and visitation/commitment rights. It's extremely clear the government does not have my health in its sights but is rather driven by a paternalistic morality supporting existing social and industrial entities. Even paternalistic forces must earn respect before the subordinate cooperates. NOTE: I was on Risperdal (risperidone) for two years. It made me lactate painfully (I'm male) and I couldn't work well. My thoughts were scattered. I never should have been prescribed it; the positive effects of the drugs I was taking was mostly from the SSRI stabilizing my emotions. Even that is hard to justify given the subtle nature of the perceptual change, its low effect on my actual depression, and the large physical side effects.
- Retra 11y ago
  Well, one might agree with you were they able to distinguish between paranoia and an actual problem. I highly suspect that your experiences with that drug weren't a result of a government mandate that you could not exclude yourself from. An adverse reaction to medication is exactly the kind of information that is needed to circumvent its use. Nobody is arguing against that.
  - duaneb 11y ago
    No, but it's a sign that we need drug reform that it was on the market at all. If they can't even validate the psychiatric drugs we're giving to people, how can we expect them to make sweeping decisions for an entire population? It's not paranoia at that scale, it's just kicking the tires to see if our government actually has the wherewithal to make these kinds of decisions. It seems extremely obvious to me they don't, and we've only seen positive change on this front in the last ~seven years at the NIH, FDA, and DEA in terms of recognizing and resolving these past issues. And it's not so much that there was a mandate to prescribe risperidone, more that they prescribed me a very, very shitty medication when I was a ward of the state. It's their responsibility to ensure the doctors and RNs have accurate, up to date knowledge of the medication they're educated to prescribe by the FDA. IMHO they failed with risperidone.

by Retra 11y ago

LordKano 11y ago

And the state has a responsibility to ensure those resources are available and used efficiently Can the state be sued for failing to fulfill that responsibility? The state may well have an interest in doing that but it does not have that responsibility.

Retra 11y ago
The reason we have states is to manage public resources, including the people who make up the state. But really, you might sue them, but that's not the only way to fix that kind of problem. You could also elect a new government, or create laws or regulations to prevent mismanagement, or usurp the government. Suing is only one way to interact with a government that makes mistakes, and it's certainly not a necessary mechanism for doing so.

duaneb 11y ago

> That's a nice slogan, but it isn't actually realized anywhere. It's always your choice when there's a clear advantage -- that is, when the state doesn't "know best" about your body. And it absolutely reserves the right control your body for the greater good. That's true legally, and in theory, but if someone tries to medicate me without my permission I'll leave the country. I can't trust the government with my health given its track record on drugs, the tuskegee experiment, the whole nasty eugenics business, the miserable mess that is psychiatric drugs, and doctor assisted suicide laws, and visitation/commitment rights. It's extremely clear the government does not have my health in its sights but is rather driven by a paternalistic morality supporting existing social and industrial entities. Even paternalistic forces must earn respect before the subordinate cooperates. NOTE: I was on Risperdal (risperidone) for two years. It made me lactate painfully (I'm male) and I couldn't work well. My thoughts were scattered. I never should have been prescribed it; the positive effects of the drugs I was taking was mostly from the SSRI stabilizing my emotions. Even that is hard to justify given the subtle nature of the perceptual change, its low effect on my actual depression, and the large physical side effects.

Retra 11y ago
Well, one might agree with you were they able to distinguish between paranoia and an actual problem. I highly suspect that your experiences with that drug weren't a result of a government mandate that you could not exclude yourself from. An adverse reaction to medication is exactly the kind of information that is needed to circumvent its use. Nobody is arguing against that.
- duaneb 11y ago
  No, but it's a sign that we need drug reform that it was on the market at all. If they can't even validate the psychiatric drugs we're giving to people, how can we expect them to make sweeping decisions for an entire population? It's not paranoia at that scale, it's just kicking the tires to see if our government actually has the wherewithal to make these kinds of decisions. It seems extremely obvious to me they don't, and we've only seen positive change on this front in the last ~seven years at the NIH, FDA, and DEA in terms of recognizing and resolving these past issues. And it's not so much that there was a mandate to prescribe risperidone, more that they prescribed me a very, very shitty medication when I was a ward of the state. It's their responsibility to ensure the doctors and RNs have accurate, up to date knowledge of the medication they're educated to prescribe by the FDA. IMHO they failed with risperidone.