[ExI] Driverless cars for law enforcement
atymes at gmail.com
Thu Feb 26 00:53:43 UTC 2015
On Feb 25, 2015 8:28 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" <foozler83 at gmail.com>
> Restricting others' 'rights' to drive drunk, or without seat belts, or
with Alzheimer's or with a stereo at 120dB, etc. is not contrary to
libertarianism. If these people affected only themselves, then fine, off
yourself any way you want. But when society has to clean up your mess
(support for your wife children, towing your wreck, etc.) then it's not a
question of individual rights, is it? You have no more right to hit my
pocketbook and the taxes I pay than my nose.
> There are not many things that we do that do not affect others, and we
have the responsibility to consider that.
> Calling it a nanny state is specious logic.
This is true, but if you go down this line of thought much further...
* If your actions lead you to be poor and desperate, you may find yourself
apparently forced to take actions, such as theft, to feed yourself and your
loved ones that are suboptimal for society's collective well-being. If
this can easily be foreseen, then is it not in my interest to stop you from
doing things, such as foregoing basic education or consuming recreational
drugs in quantities that will significantly impair your long-term
functionality, that will put you in that situation?
* Your not working for my benefit means that I have a lower quality of life
than I otherwise would. Granted, that might impair your quality of life,
but what about actions that benefit you by a lesser total amount than
actions that would benefit you and me? (Among the problems here is
quantifying the benefit of unequal labor: some people perform better at
certain tasks than others.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat