(Referring to the "Third Side of the coin" argument Anton LaVey presents in Satan Speaks)

I recently applied this principle in a paper for a college course on Biomedicine.

I wrote on the topic of voluntary sterilization of male and female drug addicts, with cash incentives of $300.

I argued that it is a pragmatic position to support such a program: the alternatives could be forced sterilization, or just letting drug addicts continue plopping out kids as they will.

Paying addicts to be sterilized doesn't interfere with individual freedom, and still gets the social good of fewer unwanted children born addicted to crack. It's to the benefit of those kids as well.

Here's the website from a charity that does it, interesting:

http://www.projectprevention.org/

Of course I have a much more hostile attitude to drug addicts than this charity does, but their presented face makes sense, regardless of whether or not it reflects the internal ideas of the organization.

I don't want to stray into politics here, but just saying that a private charity doing this is a good thing and makes sense, and most importantly here is an example of third-side perspective.

Not overbearing force or failure to act, but monetary persuasion: gets the job done, doesn't piss people off. (Too much. Some people are still pissy about exploiting the poor drug addicts *rolls eyes*)

Care to share an example of you taking a third-side perspective on an issue? (Meaning "issue" very broadly; the principle of the Satanic third-side has broad applicability.)