Our National Papers have been actively following the story of a Registered Nurse (RN) charged with the murder of a dozen nursing home elderlies under her care.
With Euthanasia the new norm ...and more and more countries opting to make it legal, it is not surprising that the numbers of assisted suicide (legal murder) are snowballing.
This causes me to wonder if the above-noted RN is simply a bit ahead of the curve and that one day soon she will be seen as the Matron Saint of this abhorrent practice.
I say that since current polling indicates that a majority is in favour of it.
That's what brings me back to today's title regarding Legalized Gambling.
For years, governments professed to abhor all aspects of gambling and the 'unsavory' people who engaged in this 'immoral practice'.
But that was then - today is now... where cash strapped governments are only too willing to dirty their hands in this. I laugh out loud when I see a small gambling outfit - i.e. not pre-blessed by government, prosecuted to the full extent of the law for the temerity to ...well..gamble.
It seems to me that governments' ire has more to do with it losing profits than it does with any concern for morality.
Simply stated, how in hell can government claim to fight against 'illegal gambling' when it is up to its collective armpits in this tawdry business. Of course it can't.
To be clear, as a Libertarian, I am not opposed to an individual gambling - heck I have succumbed to buying the odd lotto ticket and in my younger years went occasionally to the track with a $20 Bill in my pocket. It's just that I do not see it to be governments' role to be actively involved in it.
But what is clear ...whether it reigns in money from a plethora of lotteries or from skimming off profits from legal casinos, governments come out it Winning Big Time.
So what does this have to do with Euthanasia?
Well it wasn't that long ago when one of government's most important jobs was to protect the lives and welfare of its citizens...all of them. Why laws have been on the books from time immoral to outlaw murder and since the time Before Christ, Doctors have pledged to 'do no harm to their patients'.
Again, that was then and today is now.
I am particularly concerned because I am near the top of the Baby Boom and as such, am fully conscious of the fact that government health care systems will not be able to cope with our aging populace.
What better way to deal with our influx than by seeing us prematurely 'offed'. Not only will the heirs rejoice, but governments will save Big Bucks in the process while basking in the knowledge that the bulk of the populace is supportive.
And do not think for a minute the dirty deed will be limited to oldies - in many countries where Euthanasia is legal it applies equally to the infirm as well as to children.
As I have said before, either life is sacred or it is not. Once you give into Assisted Murder you are Gambling on it being judiciously applied. It won't be.
Why I'd even say you can safely Bet On It.
As I see it...
'K.D. Galagher'
Saturday, January 14, 2017
Thursday, January 12, 2017
IT BRINGS OUT THE LIBERTARIAN IN ME...
That is to say, the latest craze going the rounds is to provide safe injection sites for drug users and even more recently, to provide vending machines to dispense...free drug paraphernalia.
This is in addition to supplying addicts with Free Methadone which costs our taxpayers close to $200 Million Dollars per year.
Nothing though for drug treatment. (Talk about coming at a social problem from the wrong end).
I say this since, as a Libertarian, I defend the individual's right to do what he/she wants when it comes to their own person as long as their actions do not hurt others including unborn babies. So, if an individual wants to take drugs,... that is their decision, but don't expect society to either assist them in their activity or pay for their habit.
The same with Tobacco, if you insist on smoking - go to it, even though I personally would not smoke and even though the evils of smoking have been well and truly documented.
Free Will includes the right to do what others perceive to be not in your best interest.
For example, the other day a friend of mine put forward the old adage that smokers should be denied government funded health care because they have compromised their own health through their reckless behaviour.
There are lots of reasons available to refute this suggestion many of which I have set-out in earlier Blogs, so I will simply focus on the main one...if you value freedom, as I do, you do not want Big Government or any Government for that matter telling you or me what you or I can do / not do with respect to our own personal welfare.
That kind of paternalism is only appropriate in the rearing of young children by their parents.
More recently, the glare of Government is coming to rest on the issue of Obesity. Again I say, if someone wants to eat themselves into poor health ...that is their business. The Government has no place in their mouths or in their stomachs.
And dear Readers, this intrusive role began in the 1970s with the mandatory requirement to wear seatbelts. Governments got away with it then and have ever since looked for new ways to meddle and interfere with one's own personal rights.
And of course realize, Governments usually have good reasons to support any of their proferred restrictions - certainly seatbelt use does save lives, and restrictions on what one can / cannot eat will have positive health effects... But again it comes at the expense of an individual's Personal Free-Will.
And it is an expense I personally am not prepared to pay.
Its a slippery slope ...seat belts today, smoking tomorrow, what you can/cannot eat the next day, helmets.... and one day no doubt we'll all be required to try to get around in a plastic bubble.
Once a right is lost...it is lost forever.
So is there a Role for Government in all of this?
Of course... and it is an important one. In fact, it is two-fold:
First - Education.
Government to me has a responsibility to its citizens to identify the pros and cons of various activities. For instance, they have certainly done a magnificent job in explaining the dangers attached to smoking. Smokers can no longer say that they were not pre-warned when they succumb to lung cancer. Same with druggies, they too know the harmful effects of taking street drugs.
For those who heed the warnings..good for them. For those who don't ... they are adults and are entitled to do what they wish... again as long as it does not injure others.
Second - Treatment
Governments' other important role is to provide timely and effective treatment when it comes to activities that addict - most notably street drug use. If after advertising the ill-effects of drug use an individual still succumbs to its usage, Governments need to have in place treatment centres to help those who try to shake their addictions. But it needs to be treatment ... and not enabling.
These two important roles, in turn, will help empower Society to raise the overall health and welfare of its members.
It will also leave intact the individual's right of free will.
As I see it...
'K.D. Galagher'
This is in addition to supplying addicts with Free Methadone which costs our taxpayers close to $200 Million Dollars per year.
Nothing though for drug treatment. (Talk about coming at a social problem from the wrong end).
I say this since, as a Libertarian, I defend the individual's right to do what he/she wants when it comes to their own person as long as their actions do not hurt others including unborn babies. So, if an individual wants to take drugs,... that is their decision, but don't expect society to either assist them in their activity or pay for their habit.
The same with Tobacco, if you insist on smoking - go to it, even though I personally would not smoke and even though the evils of smoking have been well and truly documented.
Free Will includes the right to do what others perceive to be not in your best interest.
For example, the other day a friend of mine put forward the old adage that smokers should be denied government funded health care because they have compromised their own health through their reckless behaviour.
There are lots of reasons available to refute this suggestion many of which I have set-out in earlier Blogs, so I will simply focus on the main one...if you value freedom, as I do, you do not want Big Government or any Government for that matter telling you or me what you or I can do / not do with respect to our own personal welfare.
That kind of paternalism is only appropriate in the rearing of young children by their parents.
More recently, the glare of Government is coming to rest on the issue of Obesity. Again I say, if someone wants to eat themselves into poor health ...that is their business. The Government has no place in their mouths or in their stomachs.
And dear Readers, this intrusive role began in the 1970s with the mandatory requirement to wear seatbelts. Governments got away with it then and have ever since looked for new ways to meddle and interfere with one's own personal rights.
And of course realize, Governments usually have good reasons to support any of their proferred restrictions - certainly seatbelt use does save lives, and restrictions on what one can / cannot eat will have positive health effects... But again it comes at the expense of an individual's Personal Free-Will.
And it is an expense I personally am not prepared to pay.
Its a slippery slope ...seat belts today, smoking tomorrow, what you can/cannot eat the next day, helmets.... and one day no doubt we'll all be required to try to get around in a plastic bubble.
Once a right is lost...it is lost forever.
So is there a Role for Government in all of this?
Of course... and it is an important one. In fact, it is two-fold:
First - Education.
Government to me has a responsibility to its citizens to identify the pros and cons of various activities. For instance, they have certainly done a magnificent job in explaining the dangers attached to smoking. Smokers can no longer say that they were not pre-warned when they succumb to lung cancer. Same with druggies, they too know the harmful effects of taking street drugs.
For those who heed the warnings..good for them. For those who don't ... they are adults and are entitled to do what they wish... again as long as it does not injure others.
Second - Treatment
Governments' other important role is to provide timely and effective treatment when it comes to activities that addict - most notably street drug use. If after advertising the ill-effects of drug use an individual still succumbs to its usage, Governments need to have in place treatment centres to help those who try to shake their addictions. But it needs to be treatment ... and not enabling.
These two important roles, in turn, will help empower Society to raise the overall health and welfare of its members.
It will also leave intact the individual's right of free will.
As I see it...
'K.D. Galagher'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)