Government interference
This article deals with old issues, so it may not seem timely, but this misunderstanding needs to be addressed, and I was reminded of it by something I read just last minute.
Leftists sometimes ask why right-wingers claim to oppose government interference in people's lives, then demand it when it suits them. An example of this was said to be Terri Schiavo's case, wherein some conservatives (myself included) wanted government to stop her feeding tube from being removed. "Aha!" a leftist might say. "There you are supporting government interference into people's lives you hypocrite!" (And it is true that I don't support government forcing dying people to continue living.) But what would have happened without government interference? Her parents would have paid the cost of her hospital room and feeding tube. Why not allow them to do this? Because her husband, Michael Schiavo, had power of attorney over her, and she had the right to die - which her husband exercised for her. So he not only had the legal right to stop provinding for her, he had the legal right to block her parents from doing so also.
Maybe Terri Schiavo had told her husband and members of his family years ago that she would want to die in such a situation, maybe she didn't. Maybe she said she wanted to die if she was severely brain-damaged, but her idea of what "brain-damaged" meant differed from Michael's idea of what that meant. We don't know. The point is, in every other case of someone needing life support where we don't know the patient's wishes, we err on the side of life. The only reason to do differently in this case is because her husband, who was living and procreating with another woman, said to. Who says that he gets to decide what happens to Terri Schiavo when he clearly is behaving like he's married to someone else? The government. Who says Terri's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler, aren't allowed to pony up their own money and keep her on the feeding tube and hope for a miracle? The government.
So who supported government interference? Only those who wanted her to die. Everyone else would have be happy for the government to back off and let her parents take care of her the way they see fit. Maybe Michael Schiavo fought to remove her feeding tube because he really thought that's what she wanted. Maybe the reason was nefarious. It doesn't matter: the fact is, he relied upon government interference to get it done. So who's the libertarian now?
While I'm on it: Republicans relied on a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to end the presidential ballot recounts in Florida in 2000. So how hypocritical was it for them to rely on an over-stepping judicial branch for their victory? Surprise answer: not very. See, the Florida state Supreme Court had already ruled against the rules, effectively legislating from the bench that recounts would go on as long as necessary to find a way for Gore to win. This abomination of a ruling was appealed to federal courts which quickly overturned it, with Gore's people appealing it from their until the US supremes put it to rest once and for all. Rehnquist and his bunch didn't "select" Bush. They did their duty in getting the damnably corrupt Florida supremes out of the election process so it could continue as it was, by law, supposed to. And according to the laws of this country and of Florida, Bush won the 2000 presidential election. According to a popular vote, Gore won. According to people in Florida who claimed they voted for Buchanan by mistake (and why else would any Jew or minority vote for Buchanan), Gore won. According to the Florida Supreme Court and the New York Times, Gore won. But according to the Constitution, the laws of this country and of the state of Florida, due process, and the five or six most reliable counts of the ballots of Florida, Bush won. Move on, as they say.
So who supports government interference? I suppose if you think that government interference has already screwed things up, you might support government stepping in to stop mistakes in another part of government. Pretty convoluted, huh? Here's hoping that someday this country will be free again, and we won't have to deal with the omnipresence of government anymore.
SRS
Leftists sometimes ask why right-wingers claim to oppose government interference in people's lives, then demand it when it suits them. An example of this was said to be Terri Schiavo's case, wherein some conservatives (myself included) wanted government to stop her feeding tube from being removed. "Aha!" a leftist might say. "There you are supporting government interference into people's lives you hypocrite!" (And it is true that I don't support government forcing dying people to continue living.) But what would have happened without government interference? Her parents would have paid the cost of her hospital room and feeding tube. Why not allow them to do this? Because her husband, Michael Schiavo, had power of attorney over her, and she had the right to die - which her husband exercised for her. So he not only had the legal right to stop provinding for her, he had the legal right to block her parents from doing so also.
Maybe Terri Schiavo had told her husband and members of his family years ago that she would want to die in such a situation, maybe she didn't. Maybe she said she wanted to die if she was severely brain-damaged, but her idea of what "brain-damaged" meant differed from Michael's idea of what that meant. We don't know. The point is, in every other case of someone needing life support where we don't know the patient's wishes, we err on the side of life. The only reason to do differently in this case is because her husband, who was living and procreating with another woman, said to. Who says that he gets to decide what happens to Terri Schiavo when he clearly is behaving like he's married to someone else? The government. Who says Terri's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler, aren't allowed to pony up their own money and keep her on the feeding tube and hope for a miracle? The government.
So who supported government interference? Only those who wanted her to die. Everyone else would have be happy for the government to back off and let her parents take care of her the way they see fit. Maybe Michael Schiavo fought to remove her feeding tube because he really thought that's what she wanted. Maybe the reason was nefarious. It doesn't matter: the fact is, he relied upon government interference to get it done. So who's the libertarian now?
While I'm on it: Republicans relied on a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to end the presidential ballot recounts in Florida in 2000. So how hypocritical was it for them to rely on an over-stepping judicial branch for their victory? Surprise answer: not very. See, the Florida state Supreme Court had already ruled against the rules, effectively legislating from the bench that recounts would go on as long as necessary to find a way for Gore to win. This abomination of a ruling was appealed to federal courts which quickly overturned it, with Gore's people appealing it from their until the US supremes put it to rest once and for all. Rehnquist and his bunch didn't "select" Bush. They did their duty in getting the damnably corrupt Florida supremes out of the election process so it could continue as it was, by law, supposed to. And according to the laws of this country and of Florida, Bush won the 2000 presidential election. According to a popular vote, Gore won. According to people in Florida who claimed they voted for Buchanan by mistake (and why else would any Jew or minority vote for Buchanan), Gore won. According to the Florida Supreme Court and the New York Times, Gore won. But according to the Constitution, the laws of this country and of the state of Florida, due process, and the five or six most reliable counts of the ballots of Florida, Bush won. Move on, as they say.
So who supports government interference? I suppose if you think that government interference has already screwed things up, you might support government stepping in to stop mistakes in another part of government. Pretty convoluted, huh? Here's hoping that someday this country will be free again, and we won't have to deal with the omnipresence of government anymore.
SRS
posted by weblogbob83 at 2:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home