?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Unspeakable Conversations - Open Knowledge — LiveJournal

Feb. 15th, 2003

02:35 pm - Unspeakable Conversations

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:ehintz
Date:February 17th, 2003 09:47 am (UTC)
(Link)
I suspect you're no different than most people. Claim to place infinite value on individual human life, as long as they're talking about other people's money, but are perfectly capable of making shrewd economic decisions in that regard when it's their own money at stake.
Ahh, the money where the mouth is argument. Can't say I've had the opportunity to spend wads of cash on a human, so I guess the next best is animal, eh? Some years back, when I was a college student sans cash, I spent about $2500 (roughly 20% of my years income) trying to save my cat. I think most people would have put him down for $50 or so, but I went all the way to the end. I've also been known to drop $5-600 on the dog when presented with illness. Money is replaceable, individuals are not(and I do consider my pets individuals, though I do not expect others to share that point of view). When I take on a pet, I am entering into a binding contract to care for them, and killing them because surgery is too expensive is breaking that contract. Given my track record with animals I think it's reasonable to assume that I would fork over the dough for a person.

For that matter, I'd much rather see all the damn taxes I pay going to help people rather than find new and creative ways to kill them. Not to mention the pork. Presented with 3 choices-1 no taxes, 2 taxes and strong military, 3 taxes and strong education/healthcare, I suppose I'd probably go for 1, with 3 being a close second and 2 not an option. I'd prefer an individual responsibility type setup, but if I'm going to be stuck with a government taking my money and dealing out "public policy" then option 3 is at least a noble place for the money to go.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:ernunnos
Date:February 18th, 2003 07:39 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Can't say I've had the opportunity to spend wads of cash on a human, so I guess the next best is animal, eh?
No indication. I think infanticide should be legalized, and I spent lots of money on my pet.
...a noble place for the money to go.
Feel-good concepts like nobility have no place in public policy. That way lies ruin.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:ehintz
Date:February 18th, 2003 09:56 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Public policy has no place in public policy. That way also lies ruin... There's no government like no government. ;-)

The American Heritage Dictionary defines nobility as "The state or quality of being exalted in character." While I would be the first to point out that the overwhelming majority of those involved with defining public policy are about as antithetical to that description as is humanly possible, I would argue that it's a helluva lot more desirable than money grubbing slackers whose main goal is to further the interests of those few with large wads of cash who financed their campaign.

Anyway, it looks like the only way for me to prove to you that I'm not a socialist pinko democrat is to finance some gimp's hospital bill, so if and when it happens I'll be sure to let you know.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)