LTS: I appreciate your inviting me to a conversation, and when I reluctantly oblige, you insult me and think to scoot.
I do to know a hanging is hanging.
Rather than explore the example you brought, you run to your mantra: <Suffice it is to say, I have no moral obligation to act in a manner to sustain your life- I am only obligated to refrain from acting to take your life or property.> Followup is to hurl another unexamined insult. A life unreflected seems to suit you well. Unfortunately it is not what your saint calls you to. For her, every action must be integrated into one's existing philosophy. So says her son on the Ayn Rand website. Few people I know would be willing to put up with that, and certainly not on the command or good idea of some guru.
Fictional characters from bestsellers 30 years ago do not carry much weight except to fellow cultists.
I wrote the following in anticipation for you. I will post it for you anyway. There is a real world example you can play with. The other is only a sketch.
~~~~~~~~~
I would offer another scenario where not to coerce is malign neglect which is worse than direct force, because the scenario can illustrate a more profound scenario that allows solutions prohibited by the Libertarian prohibitions. The first shows direct neglect, the second will point to how the very system of non-interference precludes the arising of a whole system of solutions.
In 1917, flu swept the world. There was no prevention. Every single human was affected. The bug finally died when no more fresh meat existed. We were left with 75-80% of the humanity we had just a few years prior. It's toll was similar to the black death of the middle ages. Now, we have another plague sweeping the world. It is already the foremost cause of world deaths. Decades and Billions have been invested. We have nothing to prevent or arrest it. Effective treatment is illusory. Natural survival rate is not like 75%, but more like 0.75%. Were it to infect more rapidly, we might already be extinct as a species. The billions and other commitments are not the product of individuals making choices. They are the result of coerced taxes spent for a payoff many paydays away. Were we to wait for individuals to recognize the threat, there is no reason to believe science could be rushed to product no matter how much sacrifice individuals could must. Science builds upon previous science. Maybe this is a crude summation, but still, I can't support a system that neglects a consequence such as speciecide.
A less reality based example comes from the world of the soft sciences. [Like a said, less real.] Imagine we have identified those factors leading to murderous rage. That specific, redundant behaviors could be eliminated without side effect or discomfort, at least so far as the “nurture” side of the argument. Eliminating these behaviors, eliminating rage, would result in the eradication of rage from the world, much like smallpox was eliminated by denying it any host through inoculation. We stand two generations away from a world more closely ruled by reason. For theoretical, philosophical considerations only, Libertarians would preclude an improvement, not just a remedial reaction, to the whole species, forever. Sorry, I don't "get it", it sounds like the thought police are more Draconian than the physical police.
~~~~~~~~~~
Discussions with you are worthless, indeed. If you are what BC critics offer, then he needs no supporters. Good Day. |
