• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What can the government force you to do?

Read the scenarios in the OP carefully, and decide which punishment is acceptable.

  • A

    Votes: 1 3.6%

  • B

    Votes: 16 57.1%

  • Both A and B

    Votes: 2 7.1%

  • Neither A nor B

    Votes: 9 32.1%
  • Total voters
    28
RabidAlpaca said:
No, your kidney does not grow back. Like I said, I just don't see a slippery slope there. I'm very pragmatic when it comes to life and death situations. Saving a life over something someone grows back and isn't a risk to them.



I'm not saying it's constitutional, I'm just saying I don't care. Saving a life that person almost killed for a fluid you just grow back for free.



Read better.
Click to expand...

From the OP...


A.) If you caused a traffic accident and another person's life hung in the balance would it be acceptable for the government to force you the person who caused the traffic accident to donate blood against your will in order to save the victim of the car accident you caused?

B.) If you caused a traffic accident and another person's life hung in the balance would it be acceptable for the government to force you the person who caused the traffic accident to pay for the ambulance ride to take the victim of the accident you caused to the hospital and cover whatever medical treatments were necessary to save that person's life

Where is the word "tried"?

If you caused =/= Tried to take a life..

Tried indicate intent.

Think better.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
No, your kidney does not grow back.
Click to expand...

I see. What if the result of the accident was the loss of someone's hair? Could they require you to shave your head for a wig? What if you burned the other person? Could they force you to donate a skin graft?

What about some other type of accident... If a company was messing around with some type of energy source that gave a person living nearby Leukemia could we force the CEO of that company to donate bone marrow?
 
MrWonka said:
I see. What if the result of the accident was the loss of someone's hair? Could they require you to shave your head for a wig? What if you burned the other person? Could they force you to donate a skin graft?

What about some other type of accident... If a company was messing around with some type of energy source that gave a person living nearby Leukemia could we force the CEO of that company to donate bone marrow?
Click to expand...

One word:

Shylock.
 
MrWonka said:
Why couldn't someone's religious beliefs consider monetary compensation to be wrong for whatever reason? If it's taken against your will that could constitute theft which the Ten Commandments would suggest is a sin.
Click to expand...

While I see your point, they opt-in by accepting and using the money, don't they? It's issued by the same government that is now compelling them.

They don't get to only follow some of the rules. If they opt into the monetary system, they opt into the purpose of it (managing debts.)

It's similar the "gay wedding cake" scenarios. The baker set up a business that required they are open to the public, and then try to pick and choose which rules to follow.
 
MrWonka said:
I see. What if the result of the accident was the loss of someone's hair? Could they require you to shave your head for a wig? What if you burned the other person? Could they force you to donate a skin graft?

What about some other type of accident... If a company was messing around with some type of energy source that gave a person living nearby Leukemia could we force the CEO of that company to donate bone marrow?
Click to expand...

- If your hair could save your victim's life, sure.
- Skin graft would do physical harm to the person, so no.
- I do not know enough about bone marrow to comment but I think that's a surgery and a very invasive one at that, so also no.

You asked about what I think would be ok, not what I think is legal, so it's a purely moral question. Anytime I see a scenario where a life can be saved over something small that doesn't cause more harm or pain, I'll almost always advocate for that.
 
joko104 said:
The problem with requiring to give blood (A) is that the police instantly then become judge and jury over who caused the accident
Click to expand...
Not exactly a really complicated thing to do in any case, but either way... what if it was something less time sensitive? What if your accident injured one of the person's kidneys? Surgery may not be immediately necessary for the other person if they have one good kidney remaining, but upon determining your liability through the due process could they then require you to make the victim whole by donating your kidney to them?

joko104 said:
As for B, that's what lawsuits are for. I see nothing special about the petty ambulance bill
Click to expand...
Apparently, you've been fortunate enough to not have to ride in an ambulance recently. The bill is anything but "petty."

joko104 said:
The ambulance will transport the person whether paid or not and it is very rare ambulance companies pursue unpaid transportation costs.
Click to expand...
But as you are the cause of the accident the ambulance company could sue you to retain those costs correct? Ambulance drivers and hospitals aren't slaves, are they? You can't force them to work against their will without compensation. If you do they would certainly have to charge other customers more money in order to maintain profitability so someone has to pay for that ambulance ride.

joko104 said:
So the answer is no to both unless by "government" you mean a court judgment ruling the person owns ambulance fees.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is quite obviously what we're talking about. Not to mention the reality that last I checked every single solitary state in the union requires a licensed driver to have a minimum of liability insurance in the first place.

joko104 said:
Why do so many Democrats want to erase the Bill of Rights?
Click to expand...

Hmmm...you seem to be lacking some fundamental understanding of what that Bill of Rights actually says.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
- If your hair could save your victim's life, sure.
Click to expand...
Why would it need to save their life? If you caused them to lose their hair should it not be you that suffers to repay them?

RabidAlpaca said:
-
- A skin graft would do physical harm to the person, so no.
Click to expand...
But it would grow back? A needle stick doesn't cause physical harm? In a blood donation setting, you're taking a pint of blood out of a person's body. That's most certainly causing them physical harm. It's unlikely to hurt a lot or cause serious damage, but it does do physical harm.

So why is it okay for the government to harm someone financially, but not physically?

RabidAlpaca said:
You asked about what I think would be ok, not what I think is legal, so it's a purely moral question.
Click to expand...

No, I did not. I asked you what the government should be allowed to FORCE you to do against your will. That is a question of what SHOULD be legal.
 
MrWonka said:
Why would it need to save their life? If you caused them to lose their hair should it not be you that suffers to repay them?
But it would grow back? A needle stick doesn't cause physical harm? In a blood donation setting, you're taking a pint of blood out of a person's body. That's most certainly causing them physical harm. It's unlikely to hurt a lot or cause serious damage, but it does do physical harm.
So why is it okay for the government to harm someone financially, but not physically?
No, I did not. I asked you what the government should be allowed to FORCE you to do against your will. That is a question of what SHOULD be legal.
Click to expand...

Ok, Mr. Absolutist. You like fun little scenarios, how about this one:

A terrorist has a bomb rigged to blow up a building full of women, children and puppies. The only way to deactivate it is to insert a swab of his saliva. The cops have the terrorist in custody and the clock is ticking. Should they let everybody die because any encroachment on his bodily fluids would end up in forced government abortions, or should they just take the ****ing swab of saliva, because who cares, and save a lot of lives?

Not everything in life is black and white. Using a minor inconvenience to save a human's life is not the end of all rights.
 
The government can not [legally] force anyone to donate their blood.

The government can request that you provide a blood/urine sample if they suspect you are DUI. You can refuse of course (but your driving license is then automatically suspended in most states).

A court can rule that you are culpable for an accident and order you (or your insurance carrier by proxy) to pay medical/property/salary/punitive damages.
 
Rogue Valley said:
The government can not [legally] force anyone to donate their blood.

The government can request that you provide a blood/urine sample if they suspect you are DUI. You can refuse of course (but your driving license is then automatically suspended in most states).

A court can rule that you are culpable for an accident and order you (or your insurance carrier by proxy) to pay medical/property/salary/punitive damages.
Click to expand...

You seem to be getting overly hung up on the past tense version of the word "can" as if the goal of this post is to determine what is legal today versus what should be legal which is very clearly the intent of a poll thread.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Boo hoo, you gave blood and saved a life you tried to take. Cry me a river with your melodrama.
Click to expand...

Melodrama? You're the one wanting to take a persons blood by force AND, in an accident, no one "tried" to take anyone's life.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
A terrorist has a bomb rigged to blow up a building full of women, children, and puppies.
Click to expand...

A Terrorist is very clearly intending to cause malicious harm to another person. It's not an accident that they had no idea of causing regardless of how reckless they were being. Furthermore, a cheek swab does not even break the skin. There is likely no scenario where a swab of saliva could be life-threatening. In fact, you could make the argument that saliva itself isn't even technically a part of the person's body.
 
MrWonka said:
A Terrorist is very clearly intending to cause malicious harm to another person. It's not an accident that they had no idea of causing regardless of how reckless they were being. Furthermore, a cheek swab does not even break the skin. There is likely no scenario where a swab of saliva could be life-threatening. In fact, you could make the argument that saliva itself isn't even technically a part of the person's body.
Click to expand...

Whoa whoa whoa! You just would let the government's jack booted thugs steal someone's saliva without their explicit permission?? What kind of monster are you? It's like you hate freedom and the constitution.
 
MrWonka said:
Please read the scenarios below carefully before you respond to the poll. This centers around what form of punishment the government can impose upon you and to what extent they can hold you responsible for mistakes you have made.

A.) If you caused a traffic accident and another person's life hung in the balance would it be acceptable for the government to force you the person who caused the traffic accident to donate blood against your will in order to save the victim of the car accident you caused?

B.) If you caused a traffic accident and another person's life hung in the balance would it be acceptable for the government to force you the person who caused the traffic accident to pay for the ambulance ride to take the victim of the accident you caused to the hospital and cover whatever medical treatments were necessary to save that person's life?

Which would be an acceptable thing for the government to do, and which one would not? Is it neither, both, or one or the other and why?
Click to expand...
What if the victim needs a heart? Can they take yours?

Sent from Hillary's private email server.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Whoa whoa whoa! You just would let the government's jack-booted thugs steal someone's saliva without their explicit permission?? What kind of monster are you? It's like you hate freedom and the constitution.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should take a look at the results of this poll so far and make sure you're really the one who is being reasonable here. Even by your own admission, you recognize the reality that forcing someone to undergo a medical procedure(even a relatively safe one) is significantly different than asking them to pay restitution to make a victim whole.
 
Neither...I do not give or take blood, due to my faith...B is what a court of law is for...
 
joko104 said:
The problem with requiring to give blood (A) is that the police instantly then become judge and jury over who caused the accident, so that would never pass Constitutional rights states. Only a court can decide who caused an accident as a governmental decision. Police can only write a report or issue a ticket. Even if the person is arrested, that does not establish guilt - at least not by the Bill Of Rights.

As for B, that's what lawsuits are for. I see nothing special about the petty ambulance bill for a major accident in which a person's "life hung in the balance." The ambulance will transport the person whether paid or not and it is very rare ambulance companies pursue unpaid transportation costs.

So the answer is no to both, unless by "government" you mean a court judgment ruling the person owns ambulance fees.

Why do so many Democrats want to erase the Bill of Rights?
Click to expand...
Educate yourself.
A warrant is required for a blood draw, which satisfies the 4A.
The results are evidence gathered by police, which is their job.
Gathering evidence is not determining guilt.
Only a judge or jury determines guilt or innocence.
Your post reeks legal ignorance - read a book.
 
MrWonka said:
Please read the scenarios below carefully before you respond to the poll. This centers around what form of punishment the government can impose upon you and to what extent they can hold you responsible for mistakes you have made.

A.) If you caused a traffic accident and another person's life hung in the balance would it be acceptable for the government to force you the person who caused the traffic accident to donate blood against your will in order to save the victim of the car accident you caused?

B.) If you caused a traffic accident and another person's life hung in the balance would it be acceptable for the government to force you the person who caused the traffic accident to pay for the ambulance ride to take the victim of the accident you caused to the hospital and cover whatever medical treatments were necessary to save that person's life?

Which would be an acceptable thing for the government to do, and which one would not? Is it neither, both, or one or the other and why?
Click to expand...

B, but only after an insurance settlement was reached or it was adjudicated in the civil courts.
 
MrWonka said:
You seem to be getting overly hung up on the past tense version of the word "can" as if the goal of this post is to determine what is legal today versus what should be legal which is very clearly the intent of a poll thread.
Click to expand...

If I got hung up on the word "can", it was probably because your OP was hazy on goals.
 
Elvira said:
Neither...I do not give or take blood, due to my faith...
Click to expand...

First, your religion does not give you the right to ignore laws that are passed on valid grounds. I can't kill a man just because I think God told me to do it. Freedom of religion gives you the right to worship whatever God you wish on a personal level, but when your religion starts dictating actions which impact the lives of others around you the law takes precedence over your religion.

Second, if you don't have to give or take blood due to your faith can my faith say that I must abort any child if I am not 100% prepared and willing to be its mother, and I have a father who is 100% willing to do the same?
 
MrWonka said:
First, your religion does not give you the right to ignore laws that are passed on valid grounds. I can't kill a man just because I think God told me to do it. Freedom of religion gives you the right to worship whatever God you wish on a personal level, but when your religion starts dictating actions which impact the lives of others around you the law takes precedence over your religion.

Second, if you don't have to give or take blood due to your faith can my faith say that I must abort any child if I am not 100% prepared and willing to be its mother, and I have a father who is 100% willing to do the same?
Click to expand...

Good luck trying to enforce a law that says I must deny my faith...Acts 5:29...
 
MrWonka said:
Please read the scenarios below carefully before you respond to the poll. This centers around what form of punishment the government can impose upon you and to what extent they can hold you responsible for mistakes you have made.

A.) If you caused a traffic accident and another person's life hung in the balance would it be acceptable for the government to force you the person who caused the traffic accident to donate blood against your will in order to save the victim of the car accident you caused?

B.) If you caused a traffic accident and another person's life hung in the balance would it be acceptable for the government to force you the person who caused the traffic accident to pay for the ambulance ride to take the victim of the accident you caused to the hospital and cover whatever medical treatments were necessary to save that person's life?

Which would be an acceptable thing for the government to do, and which one would not? Is it neither, both, or one or the other and why?
Click to expand...

A is just ridiculous.

B is pretty much reality. If you cause an accident in most cases you are responsible for the damages including medical expenses.
 
MrWonka said:
Thread Title:
What can the government force you to do?
Click to expand...


Please read the scenarios below carefully before you respond to the poll. This centers around what form of punishment the government can impose upon you and to what extent they can hold you responsible for mistakes you have made.

A.) If you caused a traffic accident and another person's life hung in the balance would it be acceptable for the government to force you the person who caused the traffic accident to donate blood against your will in order to save the victim of the car accident you caused?

B.) If you caused a traffic accident and another person's life hung in the balance would it be acceptable for the government to force you the person who caused the traffic accident to pay for the ambulance ride to take the victim of the accident you caused to the hospital and cover whatever medical treatments were necessary to save that person's life?

Which would be an acceptable thing for the government to do, and which one would not? Is it neither, both, or one or the other and why?
Click to expand...
Red:

  • There're several themes introduced in your OP and some are covered in your scenarios and some are not.
    • Nothing one may do in either scenario has to do with any form of punishment, yet you said that's what they're about. The decisions/actions one may make or undertake in each scenario are merely actions/choices one makes, but there's nothing punitive about the government's bidding one to undertake/choose either of the noted tacks.
    • Freedom is such that nobody and no organization can force one to do or say anything -- outside of some situations that are, for the most part, the stuff of novels, tv and movies, and maybe that's where you're going with this, but for now, I'm operating on the assumption you're dwelling in the realm of normal, so to speak.

      There are criminal and civil procedures and judgments that simulate forcing one to do something. Backup withholding, attaching one's wages, applying liens, incarceration, etc. All those things are reactive (to whatever it be one did or didn't do/say) confiscations of something rather than things that proactively/preemptively force one to act in a given way. In other words, punishments.

      The thing is that the offender has already done "whatever;" thus s/he already chose to relinquish his/her freedom in exchange for doing "whatever" led to his/her being punished. So is the government really forcing the offender to do something s/he is unwilling to do? No, not unless the offender is truly and literally retarded. A government isn't forcing anything when it merely effects the consequences it had already stated would result should one do/say X or Y.


Blue:
No, to both questions.
  • Donating blood: This scenario strikes me as full-on outré.
    • Force --> Unless the government is going to apprehend and detain one, strap one to a bed/chair, and extract one's blood (a tv/movie scenario to be sure), the government cannot force one to donate blood.
    • Accountability --> If one's and the injured party's blood aren't compatible, how does one's donating blood hold one responsible for anything pertaining to one's having injured that person? One's donation of blood the injured person cannot use does not constitute one's making reparations for anything one did to that person.
  • Transportation and treatment:
    • Force --> (See "red" discussion regarding forcing folks to do things.)
    • Accountability --> Same theme as with "donating blood."
    • Other --> This model is what's in place in US law and regulations.

      Is there some reason you've alluded to auto insurance regulations and personal injury law? If so, would you just make your point with regard to either? The whole scenario approach is a rather oblique way to get to a point about either.
 
I voted wrong. I meant B, not A.
 
Donated blood is plentiful in supply, so maybe not A. B seems pretty fine, maybe depending on income.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom