For my Libertarian friends

stonebeard wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: This question came up in my office hours today. I'm pretty sure we've discussed it before on this forum, but I don't think in this thread. Suppose Dr. Selfish invents a cure to AIDS in his basement laboratory. For some illogical reason, he decides to not share the formula for the vaccine with the public. Does the government have the right to forcibly take the vaccine from him and produce it for the good of humanity? No, but I sure hope someone does, if it's against their rights or not. I fully support industrial espionage or plain old stealing in this case. It's that important.

Epignosis wrote: stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: This question came up in my office hours today. I'm pretty sure we've discussed it before on this forum, but I don't think in this thread. Suppose Dr. Selfish invents a cure to AIDS in his basement laboratory. For some illogical reason, he decides to not share the formula for the vaccine with the public. Does the government have the right to forcibly take the vaccine from him and produce it for the good of humanity? Just over a month ago: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=60863&PID=3865063#3865063 And you just convinced me I support slavery, under very extreme circumstances. I have libertarian principles at times, but I am also pragmatic and utilitarian at times, and I'm not willing to let millions or billions of people die in order to preserve a lofty goal and have absolutist morals under 100% of all scenarios thinkable. Well that was the point of the question.    At what point do you believe it is acceptable to deprive an innocent citizen of his freedom? By your own admission, you are okay with stealing too and think rights are something that may be ignored given certain circumstances. stonebeard wrote: No, but I sure hope someone does, if it's against their rights or not. I fully support industrial espionage or plain old stealing in this case. It's that important.

By my own admission before, human don't have any intrinsic rights upon birth or otherwise, only things that society agrees people should be given a chance to (possibly, people might agree, under all but the most dire circumstances). The language of "rights" doesn't really mesh with my perception of morality, as I don't believe there is any way other than de facto consensus that any moral system is better than another. Most western countries agree on a certain set of moral obligations or what have you, more or less enshrined in the Bill of Rights. But I have yet to find a way other than consensus and persuasion that any action is ethical or otherwise. In the best of times, I think individual rights should triumph. We could discuss the significance of "best of times" and "individual rights," but that would probably be tiresome and it's intuitive anyway. When things are dire and, for instance 1) the survival of millions/billions is at risk 2) we have a chance to wipe a major disease off the planet, then individuals should step aside and let the interests of the many overtake their selfishness. If they don't step, they should be pushed. This kind of thing has occured in the past, with the near-eradication of polio I believe it was, and how the refusal of primitive people to take the vaccine led to its spread in the Middle East again. Muslim propaganda was to blame.

stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote: stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: This question came up in my office hours today. I'm pretty sure we've discussed it before on this forum, but I don't think in this thread. Suppose Dr. Selfish invents a cure to AIDS in his basement laboratory. For some illogical reason, he decides to not share the formula for the vaccine with the public. Does the government have the right to forcibly take the vaccine from him and produce it for the good of humanity? Just over a month ago: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=60863&PID=3865063#3865063 And you just convinced me I support slavery, under very extreme circumstances. I have libertarian principles at times, but I am also pragmatic and utilitarian at times, and I'm not willing to let millions or billions of people die in order to preserve a lofty goal and have absolutist morals under 100% of all scenarios thinkable. Well that was the point of the question.    At what point do you believe it is acceptable to deprive an innocent citizen of his freedom? By your own admission, you are okay with stealing too and think rights are something that may be ignored given certain circumstances. stonebeard wrote: No, but I sure hope someone does, if it's against their rights or not. I fully support industrial espionage or plain old stealing in this case. It's that important. By my own admission before, human don't have any intrinsic rights upon birth or otherwise, only things that society agrees people should be given a chance to (possibly, people might agree, under all but the most dire circumstances). The language of "rights" doesn't really mesh with my perception of morality, as I don't believe there is any way other than de facto consensus that any moral system is better than another. Most western countries agree on a certain set of moral obligations or what have you, more or less enshrined in the Bill of Rights. But I have yet to find a way other than consensus and persuasion that any action is ethical or otherwise. In the best of times, I think individual rights should triumph. We could discuss the significance of "best of times" and "individual rights," but that would probably be tiresome and it's intuitive anyway. When things are dire and, for instance 1) the survival of millions/billions is at risk 2) we have a chance to wipe a major disease off the planet, then individuals should step aside and let the interests of the many overtake their selfishness. If they don't step, they should be pushed. This kind of thing has occured in the past, with the near-eradication of polio I believe it was, and how the refusal of primitive people to take the vaccine led to its spread in the Middle East again. Muslim propaganda was to blame.

So much I could say here, but I want to keep it simple, and point out the murky insidiousness of what you just said.

Who gets to decide when things become "dire?"  And who gets to decide when individuals have not stepped far enough aside?

^ 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: But you see, that's the rub T.  You would steal a vaccine to "make life better for everybody" (which, by the way, isn't exactly true, because not everyone has or will get AIDS).  But anyway: If I owned multiple apartment complexes and rented them out, would you (as government) confiscate one or more of my buildings so homeless people would have a place to live?

Epignosis wrote: The T wrote: Epignosis wrote: But you see, that's the rub T.  You would steal a vaccine to "make life better for everybody" (which, by the way, isn't exactly true, because not everyone has or will get AIDS).  But anyway: If I owned multiple apartment complexes and rented them out, would you (as government) confiscate one or more of my buildings so homeless people would have a place to live? No I wouldn't. I don't see the same thing here. I see you owning stuff and renting it to whom you want to have some monetary gain. I see the other case as a nut who practically has lost of all what was left of human in him...  I wouldn't force it anyway, even in the AIDS case... I'd just hire someone private and deal with it privately. I wouldn't use government power but my own. Again, no penny-less man ever becomes president so I assure I'd have the money and connections to make sure this b*****d lets the secret out...  Ah, vigilante style.  We already have cures and treatments for certain diseases that are very expensive that people can't afford.  Would you (if you had money) now hire espionage experts to get those cures and treatments to those who need them?

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.

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.

Epignosis wrote: Padraic wrote: Epignosis wrote:   In Pat's hypothetical, the treatment exists. Bad terminology on my part - in your question, the cures/treatments are available:  the producers of the treatments are willing to provide one with them for (presumably) some amount of money.  In Pat's scenario (presumably), the treatment is unavailable:  the producer will not distribute the treatment at all. That doesn't change the thrust of my question.  Let me go at it a better way...let's say a cure is available, but costs $1 trillion a dose.  No amount of feasible fundraising will get that, and certainly not for more than one person.  Thus, a cure is available, but for a very high cost.  At what point is something so expensive that it is considered "unavailable" and T would be willing to steal the cure for people?  He (evidently) would not try to steal a cure that is available for $10, so where is that line?

Edited by Padraic - November 04 2010 at 15:28

Oh, Rob, you Godwin'd the discussion.