are people really smart enough to care for themselves?

[Grave_n_idle]

Most people are too stupid to know what's best for them, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be autonomous anyway.

I disagree. Most people are not smart enough to engineer and build a bridge - does not mean they shouldn't have access to one.

Social security was invented to prevent careless people from ending up elderly and impoverished. For better or worse regarding the program details - I applaud the goal.

Every day I see people who have no retirement savings, no emergency reserve. Inadequate or non-existant insurance; but have four cell phones in their house, xbox, PS3, Wii, cable deluxe and other unnecessary expenses. I see people suffering preventable health problems (due to their fitness issues) which cost them substantially both in cash and quality of life. We've all seen examples of short-sighted mistakes and lots of times. Many of us have made them and or continue to.

If this is common to a majority of people, then is it fair to hang over 50% of people out to dry? Wouldn't it be more compassionate to legislate behavior (such as my social security example) that will prevent them from future disaster? If the majority of people need it - then isn't a nanny-state appropriate, suitable and necessary?

No. Heath and wealth are not the most important things in life. Freedom, the promotion of virtue, and the punishment of wickedness, are much more important.

Five things there, and health is the only one that seems worthy of any mention...

[Unhealthy2]

Five things there, and health is the only one that seems worthy of any mention...

So you don't like having any degree of control over your life?

[Mollux]

3) Insurance - Enough people went without health insurance that the government had to legislate it to being mandatory to own! Life insurance, renters insurance, etc. all are under-owned. The only insurance most mpeople own is because it is mandated.

The way insurance companies make money is by charging the consumer more than the company is statistically going to be liable for. While it is risky to not have insurance, it does in fact make some economic sense, especially if an individual sets aside their own money for a rainy day rather than pay it to some corporation who will then give it back on said rainy day (I know consumers almost never do this).

[Norstal]

I'm fat because I like food and I hate exercise. I'm also a dual major in physics and mathematics and I'm writing a paper on a general solution for the metric of isolated gravitating masses of constant density that have a compact and connected topology, which I plan on submitting to peer review sometime within the next few months. Tell me how I'm too "stupid" to know what's good for me. I know eating a lot is not healthy. I know that obesity is connected (in some cases causally) to many health problems later on in life. I also know that there's more to life than just living as long as possible, and quality is a factor. Eating healthy kinda sucks. Exercise really sucks. I've simply weighed the opportunity costs.

You win good sir and that's because you haven't turned into a string theorist yet. Have a cookie.

Better yet, have a spot in my sig.

[Grave_n_idle]

Five things there, and health is the only one that seems worthy of any mention...

So you don't like having any degree of control over your life?

So, you think you can breathe underwater?

Sorry, I thought we were playing "make stupid extrapolations that aren't consistent with what was posted".

[Unhealthy2]

So, you think you can breathe underwater?

If given the proper equipment, certainly.

Sorry, I thought we were playing "make stupid extrapolations that aren't consistent with what was posted".

You said only health was important. This implies that you think freedom isn't. Now remember, the degree to which you are in control of variables in your life is the degree to which you are free. Since you claim to think that freedom is unimportant, you therefore are not concerned with the degree of control you exercise over your life.

[Grave_n_idle]

You said only health was important.

I don't believe I did.

This implies that you think freedom isn't.

No, it implies that 'freedom' is meaningless.

[Unhealthy2]

I don't believe I did.

You said it was the only one there worth mentioning.

No, it implies that 'freedom' is meaningless.

It has several coherent definitions. How is it without meaning?

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't believe I did.

You said it was the only one there worth mentioning.

No, it implies that 'freedom' is meaningless.

It has several coherent definitions. How is it without meaning?

'Cloud' has several different definitions, too. That doesn't mean you can catch it in a jar.

(Of course, technically speaking, you could generate a cloud effect 'in a jar', so it's not a perfect comparison...)

[Idashda]

I'm very disorganized and lazy, so it always amazes me that there are people who can't take care of themselves as well as I do. How can such people still exist after millions of years of evolution? It's actually the best argument I can think of for creationism.

I think we do enough to save the stupid from themselves, but I get the feeling our society is drifting in a direction where we will do more and more to coddle them. That has been the trend for the last couple of centuries -- more and more coddling all the time.

An explanation would be nice? I'm not sure what you mean by the world coddling people.

More welfare, unemployment checks, etc. It's good to have a little bit of welfare and/or charity out there so people do not starve in the streets, but if we keep people too comfortable on government handouts, it takes away their motivation to take responsibility for supporting themselves. I feel like the U.S. right now is moving toward more government intervention in the economy aimed at providing more of a safety net to the poor. So far it is reasonable, but I am afraid that it will get unreasonable in my lifetime if we continue moving in this direction.

Ah, alright I get you.

[Lacadaemon]

Fat smokers should be given medals for their service to retirement annuities.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Do you believe the majority of people are smart enough to care for themselves?

No, that's why we have to force harsh socialism on the masses.

[Central Slavia]

i think this is somewhat relevant
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... binge.html
Some people really are a danger to themselves.
And no, this didn't save taxpayers money - the cash the state splurged on her is same as my grandmother gets in 15 years as pension

[Mystic Skeptic]

I'm fat because I like food and I hate exercise. I'm also a dual major in physics and mathematics and I'm writing a paper on a general solution for the metric of isolated gravitating masses of constant density that have a compact and connected topology, which I plan on submitting to peer review sometime within the next few months. Tell me how I'm too "stupid" to know what's good for me. I know eating a lot is not healthy. I know that obesity is connected (in some cases causally) to many health problems later on in life. I also know that there's more to life than just living as long as possible, and quality is a factor. Eating healthy kinda sucks. Exercise really sucks. I've simply weighed the opportunity costs.

You don't have to be stupid to make stupid decisions - and not planning for your future is a stupid decision. You claim you don't care a wit about your fitness - which certainly is not something I would consider the result of intelligent accounting. However, if you indeed decide that your fitness is of secondary concern to your own slothfulness and gluttony, that is your prerogative - but then what are you doing to prepare for the substantial medical expenses you will face later in life? Are you selfish enough to expect other people (taxpayers) to subsidize your healthcare after years of intentionally abusing yourself? Will you have life insurance to provide for your family since obesity makes you much more likely to die prematurely? Maybe you have set aside substantial funds to cover the considerable costs from the myriad of health issues your obesity makes more likely to face. If so then you have adequately and intelligently planned. If not then you are living in a state of denial - much like congress believing that an ever ballooning deficit will somehow just take care of itself and disappear someday. And we all know that is stupid.

[Faith Hope Charity]

hey look, a zombie thread has been revived, QUICK! KILL IT!!

[Mystic Skeptic]

The way insurance companies make money is by charging the consumer more than the company is statistically going to be liable for. While it is risky to not have insurance, it does in fact make some economic sense, especially if an individual sets aside their own money for a rainy day rather than pay it to some corporation who will then give it back on said rainy day (I know consumers almost never do this).

That is an incorrect and ignorant description of insurance. Insurance is *NOT* and alternate way to pay for your healthcare. In fact - most people WILL pay more in order to have insurance than if they did not. That is true for all types of insurance. For example - imagine how much money you could save if you didn't have homeowners insurance. (presuming you are a homeowner)
The trouble is - if you are one of the unfortunate people who suffer a catastrophic loss - you are quite hozed without insuance. If you had adequate insurance you would not experience a substantial financial loss and you would receive substantially higher benefit that the amount you paid in. '*THAT* is what insurance is for ; to protect you from catastrophic losses - not as an alternative payment method.