RE: Overpopulation: You get to cast the deciding vote.
July 11, 2015 at 10:27 am
(This post was last modified: July 11, 2015 at 12:19 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(July 11, 2015 at 2:33 am)IParkers Tan Wrote: I would rather allot freedoms to individuals to decide their family life for themselves, rather than give the government the power to maim citizens in the pursuit of the alleged greater good.Except the individuals are not merely deciding for themselves. They are deciding for many others.
Firstly, the government has a regular habit of abusing any power it is granted, and this would be no different. Except -- the power to maim a citizen, the power to determine that citizen's family life, is such an intrusive power that abuses would help to establish tyranny.
The human species is bound for extinction anyway. This is a brute fact. We will die out. All struggling for survival is currently and will be meaningless because while man proposes, nature disposes. Comet, climate change, megavulcanism, microbial plague. Like well over 99.9999% of all species that have ever lived, we too shall die out. That means that draconian steps taken to forestall this inevitable dieoff are not only inhumane, they are still futile.
I would prefer to live in freedom even knowing that that freedom may be our downfall, only because I know that our downfall will happen through one means or another. Better to die free than to die a serf, sterilized by the government, cowed by authority, beaten into conformity by the fear of death.
Basically, you prefer to live in the way you prefer by letting others die who would preferred to live, then to live in ways you don't prefer and let other also live, which they prefer.
To argue that just because we are bound to all die, therefore we ought to be free to safeguard our optional abstract rights for ourselves by placing at greater jeopardy sooner the lives of others is to more completely bankrupt the concept of rights.
