The State v. Free Will

Ross Douthat has an intriguing post about - I think - when exactly does an act become immoral enough to warrant state intervention. I think Ross hits the nail on the head when he points out that the disagreement is one of when, not if.

I think everyone agrees that the immoral act of murder should be addressed by state action. "Envy," defined as a sin or vice, should not. Ross says, "we have a disagreement about (surprise!) the nature of abortion - whether, like other acts of violence, it's the sort of crime that the civil as well as the moral law should sanction, or whether it's a sin along the lines of gossip, say, or sloth, which the civil authorities can't and shouldn't regulate."

Not quite. I think you have a legitimate conflict between the rights of the unborn child and the rights of the mother to control her body. Assisted suicide is another area where there is this conflict between the will of the individual and the law.

I guess, I would ask Ross, "is this this disagreement so clear cut in your mind to warrant state action?" It might be to him, but I am torn on this issue prior to the viability of the baby. So, in my mind, God gave us free will to make these decisions and face Him on judgment day. Same with assisted suicide. It is not so clear in my mind to warrant taking away the choice if the individual to end his or her life.

Spelling Divorce S-H-O-T-G-U-N

Mary Winkler is free. Who says divorce has to be hard? Just shoot your husband in the back and claim abuse. And dressing "slutty." And watching porn. Boo - freakin' - hoo!

When asked about these accusations, Matthew said, "...." Oh, yeah. He said nothing, he was dead. She could say anything she wanted without fear of contradiction.

No fault divorce or shooting your husband in the back. Your choice, ladies.

Just brush up on the acting skills...

Whoa, Trigger

I guess my response is "I don't care." I am just saying that having broken down in the travel lane, it is reasonable to assume that someone might be coming and take extra care. Late at night, it is possible that the person might be impaired. What precautions (flares, reflectors, etc.), if any, the tow truck driver took are important to understand before you say he is off the hook.

Hold on a Sec

Wait, while I do not agree with the "sue the world" approach and believe Josh Hancock was responsible for his drinking, I understand the towing truck was in the travel lane, not off to the side. I think the towing service has some 'splaining to do.

As for your other "issue", dude, you just got Porky'd. It sucks being a sex object...

Stupidity, Yes, But Whose?

Thew asks an interesting question: is there liability there? I will put aside the issue for now as to WHO is liable, because Speaker claims he was told traveling was fine.

First off, to be liable, someone has had to suffer damages. It is not enough to be anxious you might have caught TB, but you must have caught it. (That said, if one could prove demonstrable suffering based on the incident, it MIGHT be compensable.)

But even if someone catches TB and dies, I am unclear if the law will award damages. One could claim civil assault (an intentional act which causes a reasonable and imminent apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact which is unconsented), but the "intention" has to be there. (Battery of assault & battery fame is the physical contact part.) In addition, I don't know how much time can pass before "reasonable and imminent" is no longer applicable. (Someone shoots an arrow at you, but misses...you do not notice, but find out later. Assault?) Here you would have to argue that "imminent" extends through the phase of being tested and cleared of TB...a logical position.

Now "intention" can also be a disregard for safety so reckless that any reasonable man (that term, again) would have understood the action to pose a threat. But on the facts as I know them...I am not sure that is the case. The tests did not come back showing the drug resistant strain until he was in Europe. So anyone on the flights until that point he can't be accused of reckless endangerment.

But I would also point out that this is a very slippery slope. Suing someone you catch a cold from? That forces you out of your hourly job for three days? I am just not sure we want to go there.