[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming the US has a population of 300 million and the wealth it now owns, should a baby born with no arms and no legs, (with no chance of being fixed), but otherwise healthy, be kept alive and healthy by the government if no one else will do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The government should do this only if the people want them to do it. Most people would have no problem taking care of a few babies like this (or whatever handicap), but as the expenses increase, the degree of discomfort to the taxpayers will increase. Eventually it will get to the point that a majority will think it not worth the expenses. Then the government shouldn't do this (or find some other means).

FWIW, I think almost all political debates are on the implications, not the underlying axioms. Even the slavery issue was (I think) based on the Confederate States concern about the impact on their economies, not because Southerners felt Africans should be slaves. And the issue is almost always money, power or religion when it comes right down to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good point. There is a big difference between a person's honest political beliefs and what they wish would happen.

For example, I smoke. I do not believe the gov't should outlaw cigarettes. That's my political belief.

But I think it would be good if they did. It would make it easy for me to quit smoking.

But some people (if not most) replace their true beliefs with what they want to happen. ie, the ends justify the means.