For my Libertarian friends

Padraic wrote: Oh, Rob, you Godwin'd the discussion.

I specifically avoid such talk because of that reason, but in this case, it is not an analogy at all- it is a clear, historic, and horrific example of what happens when a regime declares that people's rights to life, liberty, and property are trumped by government.

Damned if I know - what's your answer?

Padraic wrote: Damned if I know - what's your answer?

My answer would be absolutely not- it would not be okay, for the same reason it was wrong for a nation to exterminate a group of people it honestly believed was plaguing the country.

I would never ask for anyone to fight (and possibly die) in my stead, but I'm so grateful for those who voluntarily do.  Likewise, if I got sick and it took someone dying to cure it, I would never ask that.  But if someone volunteered to it, I would be earnestly thankful if I took them up on the offer (and thankful even if I didn't).


Edited by Epignosis - November 04 2010 at 16:09

Epignosis wrote: Padraic wrote: Damned if I know - what's your answer? My answer would be absolutely not- it would not be okay, for the same reason it was wrong for a nation to exterminate a group of people it honestly believed was plaguing the country. I would never ask for anyone to fight (and possibly die) in my stead, but I'm so grateful for those who voluntarily do.  Likewise, if I got sick and it took someone dying to cure it, I would never ask that.  But if someone volunteered to it, I would be earnestly thankful if I took them up on the offer (and thankful even if I didn't).

 

akamaisondufromage wrote: Epignosis wrote: Padraic wrote: Damned if I know - what's your answer? My answer would be absolutely not- it would not be okay, for the same reason it was wrong for a nation to exterminate a group of people it honestly believed was plaguing the country. I would never ask for anyone to fight (and possibly die) in my stead, but I'm so grateful for those who voluntarily do.  Likewise, if I got sick and it took someone dying to cure it, I would never ask that.  But if someone volunteered to it, I would be earnestly thankful if I took them up on the offer (and thankful even if I didn't).   If it was your family who were dying.  And someone had the drug to cure it.  Would you steal it from them if they refused you it?   And if you had to would you hurt them to get it?

No, because I'm a lousy thief. 

I'll get back to you with a serious response (I'm cooking).

Epignosis wrote: stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote: stonebeard wrote: ^ In practical terms, whoever has the most power in the country (perhaps the world) when things go bad. The hope lies in that hopefully it will be a western people/country that wields the power, who have at least mind to respect the individual as much as possible under extreme circumstances. As with most things, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Hard-nosed libertarians might want to keep it simple and draw it at zero incursion on one's rights, but in times of really great hardship, humanity might not be able to afford the luxury of the libertarian perspective. Epignosis wrote: And if, stony, you don't see where this murky insidiousness lies, then just know that the same justification you gave for trampling individual rights to benefit everybody has been used to incredibly horrific ends. I very much realize that, but I given the choice between trampling on one person's rights and getting a cure for a horrific disease to millions when all other options have failed versus letting him keep it because of his rights, it's the best option I see. I can foresee this applied to multiple scenarios to the same result until you convince me absolute freedom under all circumstances is better not only for a small group and an isolated incident, but for all of humanity during all possible circumstances. We've had plenty of convincing just in the 20th century.  For Hitler, the dire circumstances was not a disease, but a people called Jews. Until you unequivocally assert that all innocent citizens of a nation have very specific, inalienable rights that cannot be trampled on regardless the circumstances (and people willing to defend those rights), you will continue to have Hitlers in various shapes and sizes.

I'll take that as an admission of "libertarians can't come up with anything better for the circumstances."

You can talk of Hitler all you want. The scary specter of somehow becoming Hitler by giving stealing a cure for AIDs and giving it away to people is not going to phase me. Bad things are sure to happen in your scenario; people will continue to die of AIDs as long as the singular greedy person keeps he cure away. In my situation, the roads to hell may be paved with good intentions, but at least the intentions are good and the immediate results speak for themselves, regardless of the unforeseeable future.

But, hey, you had to Godwin the argument so you lost, anyway.

stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote: stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote: stonebeard wrote: ^ In practical terms, whoever has the most power in the country (perhaps the world) when things go bad. The hope lies in that hopefully it will be a western people/country that wields the power, who have at least mind to respect the individual as much as possible under extreme circumstances. As with most things, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Hard-nosed libertarians might want to keep it simple and draw it at zero incursion on one's rights, but in times of really great hardship, humanity might not be able to afford the luxury of the libertarian perspective. Epignosis wrote: And if, stony, you don't see where this murky insidiousness lies, then just know that the same justification you gave for trampling individual rights to benefit everybody has been used to incredibly horrific ends. I very much realize that, but I given the choice between trampling on one person's rights and getting a cure for a horrific disease to millions when all other options have failed versus letting him keep it because of his rights, it's the best option I see. I can foresee this applied to multiple scenarios to the same result until you convince me absolute freedom under all circumstances is better not only for a small group and an isolated incident, but for all of humanity during all possible circumstances. We've had plenty of convincing just in the 20th century.  For Hitler, the dire circumstances was not a disease, but a people called Jews. Until you unequivocally assert that all innocent citizens of a nation have very specific, inalienable rights that cannot be trampled on regardless the circumstances (and people willing to defend those rights), you continue to have Hitlers in various shapes and sizes. I'll take that as an admission of "libertarians can't come up with anything better for the circumstances." You can talk of Hitler all you want. The scary specter of somehow becoming Hitler by giving stealing a cure for AIDs and giving it away to people is not going to phase me. Bad things are sure to happen in your scenario; people will continue to die of AIDs as long as the singular greedy person keeps he cure away. In my situation, the roads to hell may be paved with good intentions, but at least the intentions are good and the immediate results speak for themselves, regardless of the unforeseeable future. But, hey, you had to Godwin the argument so you lost, anyway.

You said nothing but, "My intentions were good according to me, so I am right." 

I didn't "Godwin" anything.  The holocaust happened.  Why did it happen?  Because someone decided an entire group of people must be disposed of to save a country.  It's unfortunate that you must replace logic with Internet memes. 

Padraic wrote: My turn for silly hypothetical. An alien ship comes down and gives you two options:  you can shoot me in the head, killing me, or they will exterminate every other human being on the planet.

Wait, if I had to shoot you?  Well that's easy then! 

Actually, it would be easy.  I would shoot you (though I would try to just hit your jaw or something not lethal ).  Seriously, you have a wife and two good looking young fellas.  I presume you would rather die and save your family.

Of course, that only forces the question further: Now the question is, "Would you shoot a homeless guy with no family and who is dying of a disease and has 24 minutes to live and has absolutely nothing to live for but wants to live anyway, in order to live to save all of humanity?"

I would not pull the trigger.  If the aliens asked me to kill myself, I reckon that'd be different.

stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote: stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote: stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote: stonebeard wrote: ^ In practical terms, whoever has the most power in the country (perhaps the world) when things go bad. The hope lies in that hopefully it will be a western people/country that wields the power, who have at least mind to respect the individual as much as possible under extreme circumstances. As with most things, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Hard-nosed libertarians might want to keep it simple and draw it at zero incursion on one's rights, but in times of really great hardship, humanity might not be able to afford the luxury of the libertarian perspective. Epignosis wrote: And if, stony, you don't see where this murky insidiousness lies, then just know that the same justification you gave for trampling individual rights to benefit everybody has been used to incredibly horrific ends. I very much realize that, but I given the choice between trampling on one person's rights and getting a cure for a horrific disease to millions when all other options have failed versus letting him keep it because of his rights, it's the best option I see. I can foresee this applied to multiple scenarios to the same result until you convince me absolute freedom under all circumstances is better not only for a small group and an isolated incident, but for all of humanity during all possible circumstances. We've had plenty of convincing just in the 20th century.  For Hitler, the dire circumstances was not a disease, but a people called Jews. Until you unequivocally assert that all innocent citizens of a nation have very specific, inalienable rights that cannot be trampled on regardless the circumstances (and people willing to defend those rights), you continue to have Hitlers in various shapes and sizes. I'll take that as an admission of "libertarians can't come up with anything better for the circumstances." You can talk of Hitler all you want. The scary specter of somehow becoming Hitler by giving stealing a cure for AIDs and giving it away to people is not going to phase me. Bad things are sure to happen in your scenario; people will continue to die of AIDs as long as the singular greedy person keeps he cure away. In my situation, the roads to hell may be paved with good intentions, but at least the intentions are good and the immediate results speak for themselves, regardless of the unforeseeable future. But, hey, you had to Godwin the argument so you lost, anyway. You said nothing but, "My intentions were good according to me, so I am right."  I didn't "Godwin" anything.  The holocaust happened.  Why did it happen?  Because someone decided an entire group of people must be disposed of to save a country.  It's unfortunate that you must replace logic with Internet memes.  I actually said my intentions were good, but on top of that I achieved an immediate positive result. On the contrary position, I state now  that your intentions achieved nothing except an AIDs plagued immediate future. Oh joy. You really haven't addressed the libertarian perspective here though, except state the abstract "freedom at any cost" mantra. You imply my position is a slippery slope, and it might well be, but there isn't even a slope with your position (at least I assume it to be yours; you never really offered anything a libertarian would do, so let's hope it's something other than let millions die for one person's freedom).

I'm not really sure what you're saying (asking?).  Am I supposed to "address the libertarian perspective here?"

I'm going to go play cards with my son.

Epignosis wrote: Padraic wrote: My turn for silly hypothetical. An alien ship comes down and gives you two options:  you can shoot me in the head, killing me, or they will exterminate every other human being on the planet. Wait, if I had to shoot you?  Well that's easy then!  Actually, it would be easy.  I would shoot you (though I would try to just hit your jaw or something not lethal ).  Seriously, you have a wife and two good looking young fellas.  I presume you would rather die and save your family.