Necessity is entirely subjective. What is necessary for me might not
be for you. It is therefore not a useful principle for the ordering
of society - it is pure ends justifying means. "It was necessary" has
been the excuse of many an oppressive government over the years.
I am all in favor of allowing the individual rational person do act as
they see necessary, constrained by law. That is different from me
telling you what it is necessary for you to do, and using government
to force you to do it.
Ethically, I believe I am compelled to help my neighbor in time of
need. I reject any notion that I have the right to compel you to help
your neighbor. Its a freedom thing.
On Feb 1, 2009, at 5:13 PM, Tom Piwowar wrote:
It implies that necessity is the highest principle, that is what is
wrong with it.
You need to explain your objection to "necessity." Seems to me that
the
rational person will first do the necessary and then do the
unnecessary
as time and resources permit.
Is this some con/neocon argument for standing by why others die? The
other person's necessary is your unnecessary. So: "Your problem is
not my
problem."
If all a human deserved is what they need, what is the motivation for
the human animal to produce more than they need if they will be
prevented by government from keeping it?
Why do you define "need" so narrowly in this context, but when it
comes
to your "need" avarice seems to have no bound?
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
