Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:51:07 -0500, Shay wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I'm done with this discussion.  You know you're right and my position
>>> is stupid, I know I'm right and your position is stupid.  We're getting
>>> nowhere and not going to get anywhere.
>>>
>>>
>> But we HAVE gotten somewhere. We've gotten to the point that any
>> discussion of a new government expansion eventually reaches: the point
>> where the proponents of that expansion reveal that absolutist majority
>> control is the true and only reason for their support of that expansion.
>>
>> And as this discussion is had over and over in different places,
>> undecided witnesses will realize that, no matter how eloquently the
>> expansion proponent presents his specific case for any single piece of
>> legislation, the true argument is not about the allocation of resources
>> at all, but about their control.
>>
>> We've arrived. You and I both want control of my resources. We've both
>> stated this explicitly. Until next time.
> 
> I guess in a sense, yes, we have come to the crux of what the discussion 
> is about: (To borrow from, of all things, Star Trek) whether the needs of 
> the many outweigh the needs of the few, or whether the needs of the one 
> outweigh the needs of the many.
> 
> What it boils down to is a difference of opinion as to whether society's 
> needs are paramount, or whether the needs of the individual are 
> paramount.  Or put another way, if strong individuals make a strong 
> society, or a strong society makes for strong individuals.  You believe 
> the former, I believe the latter.  Neither is probably 100% correct, and 
> the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
> 
> Maybe there is something we can agree upon there. :-)
> 
> Jim

We agree 100%. As a logical concept, the needs of the many outweigh the 
needs of the few. If I had a magic button that could save one life or 
save ten, I would of course save ten.

Great, so there we have it. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of 
the few. So let's start euthanizing the handicapped and harvesting their 
organs.

No? Yeah, there's something I forgot? Isn't there? Sure, those 
handicapped people have rights, so closer to what we're arguing about is 
whether the rights of the people outweigh the rights of the few. You say 
almost always and I say almost never.

But that's still not precisely what we're arguing about. The precise 
thing we're arguing about is how to decide /when/ the rights of he many 
should outweigh the rights of the few. You believe the majority should 
decide when the majority's rights should impede upon the minority's. 
That's where I can't see your logic. I believe with the system you 
propose, two people will too often (always?) elect to eat the third.

  -Shay

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message