From: Russell Wallace (russell.wallace@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Jan 20 2006 - 12:58:41 MST
On 1/20/06, Kevin Osborne <kevin.osborne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> - surely one obvious option is that we are all monitored and directed
> for the 'greater good'? In the liberty-scales of this decision, does
> the raping-to-death of one child outweigh the outlawing of
> risk-creating freedoms of the rest of the populace? how about a
> thousand children? a million?
> - Is there another way to enforce the creation of a society free from
> acts of malignancy apart from stripping its members of privacy and
> volition?
>
The implication being smuggled in here is that preserving civil liberty will
result in a million children being raped to death. To put it mildly, this
claim is indefensible. If you look at real-life history, it is precisely in
those states which lacked civil liberty, which attempted to "_enforce_ the
creation of a society..." (emphasis added), that rape, torture and murder on
truly large scales have taken place. Look at South Korea and North Korea
today - in which of the two countries are children safer, as a matter of
empirical fact?
Let us not get so carried away with flights of abstract fancy that we lose
track of reality.
- Russell
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT