If you believe in "death with dignity" and that death is a "private matter," there should be no need to lobby government for intervention. It really is that simple. I have no problem with people making personal decisions I find repugnant -- as long as those decisions actually stay personal.
Yes, liberals are always saying, "But of course that rule doesn't apply to ME." IN GENERAL, old people are useless burdens on society and we would all be better off if they just died and got out of the way. But the person speaking always seems to suppose that he is different. No matter how old he has, he still has special knowledge and skills that make him valuable.
"With technology change becoming more rapid, they no longer even have wisdom to offer younger generations." Well, apparently they have SOME wisdom to offer. Beginning with the insight that technology change has little to do with wisdom. Like, an old man might tell his son, "I know that right now sex seems like the most important thing in the world to you, but when choosing a wife, you should consider her character, because in the long run that will be far more important than her sexual desirability." How would the fact that today we have cell phones change that advice?
I've often heard people say that advancing technology has changed morality. Please give me some examples. Yes, today you could run someone over with an electric car while 100 years ago you would have been driving a gas-powered car. How does that change the morality of murder? Today you could arrange a meeting with a woman other than your wife by cell phone while 100 years ago you would have sent her a letter. How does that change the morality of adultery? Etc. Technology give us more efficient ways to do things, whether good or evil, but it doesn't change good into evil or evil into good.
This is one of the (many) problems of socialism. In a pure capitalist society, how much money is spent on medical care for someone depends on how much money he has and is willing to spend on his own medical care. Maybe he gets additional funds from family or charitable organizations, but all are giving freely. If you can afford the medical care, you can get it. If not, sorry, you don't. If you want to spend your life savings extending your life by one more month, that's your privilege. If you would rather die quietly and leave that money to your children, that's your decision also. In a socialist society, these become political decisions, theoretically made by "the people", in practice made by politicians and bureaucrats. Government agents decide who gets medical care and who doesn't, and who lives and who dies. And by a curious coincidence, the people who get the best medical care always turn out to be the government officials.
On the medical side ... This is one of the advantages of a free market economy. Medical resources, like almost everything in the real world, are not unlimited. There are only so many doctors available, only so many hospital rooms, only so many kidneys suitable for transplant. In a socialist economy, who gets these resources is a political question. At best the people vote on it. In real life, politicians and bureaucrats decide ... and they're decisions tend, by an astonishing coincidence, to favor themselves. When the government decides who gets that kidney, and there are two candidates, the daughter of a powerful senator and a homeless old man, who do you think is going to get it?
In a free market, if you want medical care, you pay for it. If you can afford it, you get it. If you can't afford it, you're out of luck. Well, if you can't afford it, family or friends or charity may help you out. But it's up to individual people to decide when and what they will pay.
Under socialism, everything is a political debate. Under a free market, it's what you can do for yourself.
Why stop with old people? Why not kill off everyone who you consider to be a burden on society. How about criminals. The handicapped. People on welfare. People with low IQs. People who don't know how to program in Java. People who spread misinformation on the Internet. Ugly people. Fat people. People who have hobbies that I think are a waste of time. The jerk who bullied me in high school. Where would it end?
Of course people who propose such policies always assume that they don't apply to them. They are special. They are vital to society. But personally, I can't think of many people more useless than liberal college professors. Now if you want to propose that bureaucrats and college professors should commit suicide so as not to be a burden on society, that I might consider seriously.
"With technological change becoming more rapid, they no longer even have wisdom to offer younger generations." Apparently the good doctor could use some of that wisdom he disdains. "Wisdom" does not mean "knowing how to use the latest gadget". Wisdom means understanding the philosophy behind things. Speaking as a software developer ... A technically skilled person may know how to use a cell to send a text message. A wise person knows when to call his mother versus when to call his girlfriend and what to say to each. The idea of the "brainiac" who knows all about technology but doesn't know how to deal with people is so well known that it's a stereotype.
If you believe in "death with dignity" and that death is a "private matter," there should be no need to lobby government for intervention. It really is that simple. I have no problem with people making personal decisions I find repugnant -- as long as those decisions actually stay personal.
Yes, liberals are always saying, "But of course that rule doesn't apply to ME." IN GENERAL, old people are useless burdens on society and we would all be better off if they just died and got out of the way. But the person speaking always seems to suppose that he is different. No matter how old he has, he still has special knowledge and skills that make him valuable.
"With technology change becoming more rapid, they no longer even have wisdom to offer younger generations." Well, apparently they have SOME wisdom to offer. Beginning with the insight that technology change has little to do with wisdom. Like, an old man might tell his son, "I know that right now sex seems like the most important thing in the world to you, but when choosing a wife, you should consider her character, because in the long run that will be far more important than her sexual desirability." How would the fact that today we have cell phones change that advice?
I've often heard people say that advancing technology has changed morality. Please give me some examples. Yes, today you could run someone over with an electric car while 100 years ago you would have been driving a gas-powered car. How does that change the morality of murder? Today you could arrange a meeting with a woman other than your wife by cell phone while 100 years ago you would have sent her a letter. How does that change the morality of adultery? Etc. Technology give us more efficient ways to do things, whether good or evil, but it doesn't change good into evil or evil into good.
This is one of the (many) problems of socialism. In a pure capitalist society, how much money is spent on medical care for someone depends on how much money he has and is willing to spend on his own medical care. Maybe he gets additional funds from family or charitable organizations, but all are giving freely. If you can afford the medical care, you can get it. If not, sorry, you don't. If you want to spend your life savings extending your life by one more month, that's your privilege. If you would rather die quietly and leave that money to your children, that's your decision also. In a socialist society, these become political decisions, theoretically made by "the people", in practice made by politicians and bureaucrats. Government agents decide who gets medical care and who doesn't, and who lives and who dies. And by a curious coincidence, the people who get the best medical care always turn out to be the government officials.
On the medical side ... This is one of the advantages of a free market economy. Medical resources, like almost everything in the real world, are not unlimited. There are only so many doctors available, only so many hospital rooms, only so many kidneys suitable for transplant. In a socialist economy, who gets these resources is a political question. At best the people vote on it. In real life, politicians and bureaucrats decide ... and they're decisions tend, by an astonishing coincidence, to favor themselves. When the government decides who gets that kidney, and there are two candidates, the daughter of a powerful senator and a homeless old man, who do you think is going to get it?
In a free market, if you want medical care, you pay for it. If you can afford it, you get it. If you can't afford it, you're out of luck. Well, if you can't afford it, family or friends or charity may help you out. But it's up to individual people to decide when and what they will pay.
Under socialism, everything is a political debate. Under a free market, it's what you can do for yourself.
Why stop with old people? Why not kill off everyone who you consider to be a burden on society. How about criminals. The handicapped. People on welfare. People with low IQs. People who don't know how to program in Java. People who spread misinformation on the Internet. Ugly people. Fat people. People who have hobbies that I think are a waste of time. The jerk who bullied me in high school. Where would it end?
Of course people who propose such policies always assume that they don't apply to them. They are special. They are vital to society. But personally, I can't think of many people more useless than liberal college professors. Now if you want to propose that bureaucrats and college professors should commit suicide so as not to be a burden on society, that I might consider seriously.
"With technological change becoming more rapid, they no longer even have wisdom to offer younger generations." Apparently the good doctor could use some of that wisdom he disdains. "Wisdom" does not mean "knowing how to use the latest gadget". Wisdom means understanding the philosophy behind things. Speaking as a software developer ... A technically skilled person may know how to use a cell to send a text message. A wise person knows when to call his mother versus when to call his girlfriend and what to say to each. The idea of the "brainiac" who knows all about technology but doesn't know how to deal with people is so well known that it's a stereotype.