From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun May 12 2002 - 15:52:20 MDT
Dr. Smigrodzki had also written
### Now, practically speaking, would you really idly stand
### by, seeing your neighbor drown her five kids in a bathtub?
and I wrote
>> No, you've got me there: I'd assume that it was an aberration
>> of some kind. In an emergency, who knows what I'd do? But I
>> might indeed believe that some temporary insanity was involved
>> (why would he or she be doing in front of the neighbors, after
>> all?).
so he asks
### What do you mean by an aberration? A new ethical category?
### Like "It's unusual, so it might be wrong but if it happens
### every day, it must be OK"?
I suspect that you don't really think that I mean to propose
a new ethical category! I think that you are writing without
trying to give me much credit. We should make an effort to
read each other's remarks with understanding.
I think that you know what I meant, but I'll explain again
anyway, just in case. By an "aberration" I meant only to
describe a certain kind of emergency or extreme situation;
after all, you had cast me in the role of a neighbor who
happened to observe a woman drowning her kids---something
that one certainly doesn't see every day. You asked how
I would act, and I told you that I would probably intervene.
That's all.
### And what if she is not doing it in front of the neighbors,
### you just happen to hear screams?
I wouldn't intrude. Neighbors scream at each other all
the time. Especially children. It's none of my business.
Do you assault the neighbors whenever you hear someone
scream? I suppose that if the scream sounds terrible
enough, you'd call the police. (That's all right in
our present society---they can legally investigate.
You're supposed to call them in cases like that.)
### Does it mean she is possibly sane, therefore has the
### inalienable right to kill her kids?
Her alleged sanity has nothing to do with it. We are far
to quick to label as "insane" that behavior which we don't
condone or don't understand. Did you ever read "The Myth of
Mental Illness" by Dr. Szasz?
When you ask, "does she have the inalienable right to kill
her children?", I must object to all the illogic inherent in
the question. In the first place, it happens to *be* illegal
in the U.S. and in every country that I can think of. Secondly,
show me an "inalienable right" and I'll name a society that has
"alienated" it. No such thing exists. Third, like I say, I
reject abstract "rights"---so your question reduces to the
question: do I favor removing the law that would prevent one
from killing one's children. Yes, I do. And I'm not the only
libertarian who believes that, legally, children should be
considered to be the property of their parents.
### You, seem to accept a reified concept of "Freedom" (in adults),
### as the supreme value, trumping the value of life, under the
### assumption that violation of freedom as defined by you must
### result in unfavorable outcomes.
Well, I'm hardly alone in seeing freedom as the supreme value
(within a society). Long ago, it used was commonplace. Recall
that before the year 1900, every politician spiced his speeches
with plenty of praise for liberty. No more. You simply *never*
hear about it now. The concept is obsolete, unfortunately.
Did you know that the Statue of Liberty once stood for the
idea of liberty? The French noticed how drunk on liberty
people here seemed to be, and they sent the Americans a
nice statue. But it no longer means anything about liberty.
It means something about how Americans will take care of
other people's huddled masses. Now, it's about immigration.
### Your ideas about the functioning of democratic and near-
### democratic societies sound like you have never seen one.
Oh, I know how democratic societies function. I live in one.
They are (today) just as you approve of: we all vote to see
whose legal rights are taken away, and how much the government
gets to extort from our wages. We vote to decide who may have
sex with whom, what drugs one may personally inject into his
or her own body, whether or not one may give medical advice,
whether or not one will wear helmets when riding a bicycle,
car, or motorcycle, and who we may hire, who we may fire, and
so on ad nauseam. In a democratic society with few principles,
like ours, everything is up for grabs.
### You also have a strong but inconsistent legalistic attitude
### - at one point you say you may not interfere with legal
### guardians of a child [no---I should not be allowed to so
### interfere, that's all], a bit later you worry about the
### possibility of laws being passed, with which you might disagree.
You're losing me. Don't we all worry about laws being passed
that we disagree with? I'm not saying you are wrong here---
I just don't know what you are saying. Let me specify
that (a) I would approve of our society changing so that I
could not legally interfere with the legal guardians' treatment
of a child (b) I hope we don't pass laws that take away any
more liberties, and I hope that we repeal as many laws as we
can (within obvious limits---namely where one's nose starts).
### This is coupled with an appalling amount of callousness, a
### readiness to see a child bleed slowly to death, if needed
### for you "Freedom" to continue.
You make a good point. Suppose that some parents decide to
snuff their kids publicly, and televise it via the internet.
Would I then want to pass any laws stopping that?
The answer is no. You know why. But if it's any help to
your intuition, note that this would be *extremely* uncommon
in any society. It so happens that propensity towards child
sacrifice doesn't get passed on in the genes very well.
Second, can you imagine the ton of bricks---metaphorically
speaking---that would descend on those parents? That is,
even if some people didn't willingly break the law and
transgress into their house while it was being televised,
convinced that it was some emergency situation? Can you
imagine how discriminated against (which should be legal)
such persons would become?
Next, you'll probably ask if I *approve* of neighbors
taking the law into their own hands (in such an extremely
hypothetical, rare-to-the-point-of-non-existence scenario).
The answer is: I disapprove. People should obey the law.
Lee Corbin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:01 MST