From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu May 02 2002 - 01:06:04 MDT
Hal writes
> Lee writes
>> ...my strong outrage at the activity in question. And that
>> certainly includes child abuse! But unlike most people, *my*
>> outrage does not automatically translate into action.
>
> So you are saying that you would not "automatically" intervene to stop
> child abuse. But that does not answer the question of whether you
> would actually intervene or not - I don't know what the qualifier
> "automatically" means in this instance.
Sorry for being unclear: I meant only to slam those whose disapproval
of something invariably translates to action.
> Suppose you saw some thugs fall upon a pedestrian and begin to beat
> and rob him, you would not try to help, because of your belief in the
> freedom of the robbers? I can't believe that.
You're right! Indeed I would intervene (in general). Beating
and robbing someone is against the law in any civilized society
(because a citizen's legal rights are being violated---you know
very well that all of us libertarians believe that government
must stop the initial use of force---and bystanders should
help too). "Freedom of the robbers"? Be serious.
> Would you personally intervene to try to stop your neighbor's
> abuse of his child?
No. Moreover, I would try to persuade everyone that we should
not have laws against it. Just what is "child abuse", anyway?
For some, it's spanking. For others, it's making children work.
For others, it's lending out the children for sexual gratification.
These may all be appalling, but they're rare, and again, we lose
far more by failing to foster an atmosphere of liberty than we do
by writing meddling laws.
> Would you personally intervene to try to stop your neighbor from
> genetically engineering his yet-to-be-born child in some abusive way?
No, and for the same reason. Does the stress that Mike Lorrey or
someone might put his child through amount to abuse? What about
genetically engineered lower-IQ say in exchange for greater
happiness? Will you decide what constitutes "an abusive way" by
majority rule?
MOST IMPORTANTLY: What about all the things that *we* cannot even
dream of today? Shall we indeed have a society where that which is
not specifically allowed is forbidden? I think that you would
rather simply sit in collective judgment over every new thing
under the sun. But that is not how humans finally became so
rich and prosperous.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:45 MST