Comments on: I Hate My Government Part I: Contacts

By: x1134x

x1134x — Wed, 10 May 2006 03:47:18 +0000

You need to look at it from a different perspective. We’ve come a long way toward personal freedom. Backup 250 years. The A-holes whos lives aren’t full unless they are controlling other people’s lives were way worse back then. Back then they would burn you at the stake for doing something that you could not have possibly been doing. (witchcraft) Need I mention slavery? The real delusion is that you were ever free. At no time in this country was anyone EVER free to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Some other A-hole has always been there with the power to put their nose in your business. With the arcane medical laws being enacted however, I’ll agree that we’re taking a step in the wrong direction.

Our forefathers, as brilliant as they were did not forsee this amount of meddling with other’s pursuits of happiness. Had they done that a “self-medication” amendment would have made tremendous advances for personal freedom. Everyone should have the right to doctor THEMSELVES, they know way better than a doctor how they actually FEEL. If you’re going to doctor OTHERS, then perhaps laws are needed. How you FEEL means nothing in this country however, all that matters is who you pay.

I hate my country as well.

x1134x

By: nordsieck

nordsieck — Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:17:11 +0000

Absolutely not. Just like in other biological systems, there are classes of organisms called parasites. They survive by exploiting vulnrabilities in the system – living off of what they can steal or strong arm from their environment while giving nothing back.

A prime example of this is the Michael Jackson trial – while I have no opinion of the case (I know next to nothing about the trial), the parents of the child are professional parasites – they live by abusing rules that are set in place.

Infact, by definition, each rule that is created creates a new rule that a parasite can exploit. This has nothing to do with dumb/smart and rich/poor. This is straight Machivelli vs Jesus(or Buddha/etc.). In most peoples’ dealings the Machivellis lose over time to “grudgers” – people who have nothing to do with dishonest people. Laws, no matter how carefully crafted, have the effect of dampening this effect.

This has nothing to do with anyone protecting themselves. This is all about people using the system to prey on others. With out the system in place, there would be no predation in this manner.

By: dc

dc — Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:03:13 +0000

1) there are smart people
2) there are dumb people
3) there are rich people
4) there are poor people

dumb, rich people who manage to damage themselves have the capital to bring individuals or institutions to court and then to victory suing for damages. Forced to protect themselves, the gov’t or firms or whathaveyou end up erecting needless rings of fires to make sure they are protected from, well, bs lawsuits.

There are of course smart rich people or smart poor people or dumb poor people that this stuff happens to, but in the case of the first two, I’m guessing not too often, and in the case of the latter, well, they won’t have the cash to drag you through the dirt.

It sounds like this isn’t so much a “protect people from themselves” law as a “protect yourself by protecting people from themselves”.

By: nordsieck

nordsieck — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:25:48 +0000

dc: explanation?

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:37:18 +0000

Scissors are quite capable of permanently damaging my eyes under the right circumstances as well :-).

By: dc

dc — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:18:40 +0000

Who will be harmed if I order the incorrect contacts?

The average SAT score in the US is 1000 :)

Your “liberties” are being infringed upon because of how much liberty there is in pursuing “justice.”

By: Daniel Marsh

Daniel Marsh — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:15:55 +0000

Contacts are prescription devices, as they are quite capable of permanently damaging your eyes under the right circumstances, and their use should be regularly supervised by an eye doctor. By law, an eye doctor is required to give you your glasses prescription (which you could then have filled anywhere) after an exam if you ask for it, but they are not required to do so for contact lenses. Many make their money by selling you the first year’s worth of contacts at inflated prices as a “trial” and not providing you with a prescription which you could get filled elsewhere. If you find your eye doctor is doing this, it is time to find a new eye doctor…

All that aside, I don’t think there should be laws to “protect people from themselves.” While I think it is a good idea to get regular eye exams, I certainly don’t think there should be laws like the one in question.

By: nordsieck

nordsieck — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:40:13 +0000

I think that the worse case is in the regular medical industry. It would certainly help out everyone if people didn’t have to be licensed doctors to “practice” medicine; if independant nurses were a sort of first line defense against poor health, instead of having to see a doctor for everything, healthcare costs would be much lower.

The same thing that you are talking about goes for perscription drugs.