(February 18, 2011 at 9:37 am)Tiberius Wrote: You wouldn't be starving them; they would be starving themselves. People in society know that in order to eat, they have to work. The same should be the case in prison. If a person refuses to work, they don't get food, simple as that.
I get where you're going now. I agree.
Quote:Libertarianism holds that certain rights are undeniable, and that includes the right to life.
This is the part I don't so much agree with, these concrete rights are naive, some comparative value statement works much better, for example: In circumstances where you could kill 100 to save 1,000 you will ultimately be denying 100 people the right to life despite the fact that the decision promoted more desires to live than the alternative scenario.
Another scenario where you may be forced to deny someone else there right to live is as follows: You return home to find a man holding a baseball bat, ready to swing it at your child, the blow will certainly kill the child, your only option is to shoot the offender - killing him. You either actively deny this offender his life or you let him deny your child their life.
There are many other such scenarios where the intentional killing of one person benefits the greater number of people, scenarios where you deny someone their right to life, I think that is a good case against a single undeniable right to life that must be upheld.
Also, conceptually, where does this undeniable right to life come from?
Quote: Just because you take someone's right to life doesn't mean the government (or anyone else) has the right to take yours.
Of course not, you would need a more compelling reason than "person x killed person y", such as "person x will kill person y unless I kill person x first", in that case I would be justified in taking someone's right to life to prevent another loss of life.
Quote: If we accept this right, then we are left with only two choices: lock them up to protect society, or maroon them somewhere.
These are still good options, regardless of the right being undeniable or not.
Quote: Of course, the second option always runs the risk of them finding a way back, and I don't think many families of the victims would appreciate that idea, so the only viable option is to lock them away.
Highly unlikely I would think, but it could happen.
Quote:It's a bit like national defense. In a Libertarian society we would spend money on training the armed forces, not so that we can invade, but so that we are ready for the worst possible scenario. You can see it as a waste of money, but it does have benefits in the long run.
Agreed.
.
