Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaskan John
I really like your Liberarian values JAF (i.e. - the government that governs least governs best)! You would probably get along with most of us long-time Alaskans pretty darn well! Unfortunately in this instance, I think your suggestion sets up a classic Catch-22. If you're sane enough to know you need a conservator, then you might be too sane to convince the court that you really do! Up here the civil courts are very cautious and conservative about imposing on anyone's personal life with impositions like court-ordered conservators, guardians, involuntary hospitalizations, etc, and the request for such impositions are NEVER initiated by the court - the court must receive a petition from a concerned party and have a hearing with all parties (includng the alleged needy person or their legal representative) before it can rule. I still see a definite time and place where such impositions are appropriate, but I am grateful that our local court leans away from doing so except in the direst of circumstances. Maybe we will end up disagreeing on the details here, but I definitely like your Libertarian biases just the same! 
|
Well thank you. And I definitely understand what you're saying about the catch-22, but the CA courts are known for their wild judgments. Though, either way, I will say you make a good point.
As a side note, I also find it interesting that (even though it's only been six people) everyone who has voted in the pole leans to one or the other extreme. No one, as of yet, has said that it should be a case by case basis.