Texting and Driving is a RIGHT!

[Darth Xena]

Absolutely!



So her right to be free from the temporary state of pregnancy trumps the right right to life of another person? Think about that really hard.

That is not the way I would argue it. A right to life is a negative right, not a positive one, unless there is a reason/obligation to make it so. That the helpless condition was created by her body (and usually consensual sex) creates a positive obligation that doesn't naturally exist.

No, actually, they don't. There are laws against that, and they may be ticketed, fined, and possibly even lose their license. Especially if their reckless operation of a vehicle injures or kills another person, or places them at risk of injury or death.

License. So triggered.

In the case of your really really bad analogy - it's already settled. The reckless operation of a motor vehicle on public roadways is most certainly illegal.

Directly threatening behavior is a aggression.

[Sparko]

In the Stateless world with everyone a libertarian (who upholds the No-aggression principle), all major roads can be owned by an individual or a group. It's possible that texting is prohibited on some roads but not others.

Sounds good, but you know what would happen? The rich people would end up owning the roads because nobody else can afford it, and would gouge everyone using the roads to become richer.

[Darth Xena]

Sounds good, but you know what would happen? The rich people would end up owning the roads because nobody else can afford it, and would gouge everyone using the roads to become richer.

That actually is very silly. Rich do not get rich through osmosis and the motivation to have and build roads is to improve trade. It would be counterproductive to make it so no one could use them- no one gets Rich. It also presumes the same power structure today that isn't a truly free market so that the Rich tend to be protected. It would take hours of regurgitating Tom Woods to unpack this myth...

So we have a coercive state own roads which is the biggest abuser of rights and protector of crony capitalism and back room deals. Stockholm at its best.

[Darth Xena]

The odd capitalization is because my phone insists Rich is a name

[Sparko]

That actually is very silly. Rich do not get rich through osmosis and the motivation to have and build roads is to improve trade. It would be counterproductive to make it so no one could use them- no one gets Rich. It also presumes the same power structure today that isn't a truly free market so that the Rich tend to be protected. It would take hours of regurgitating Tom Woods to unpack this myth...

So we have a coercive state own roads which is the biggest abuser of rights and protector of crony capitalism and back room deals. Stockholm at its best.

well if someone owns a key stretch of road, they can charge what they want to. Sure they could price themselves out of business, but generally if it is a key road, they have no competition to worry about. Most roads pass through privately owned property, so it would be pretty hard for someone to come along and build an alternate path or detour in order to compete with the original key stretch. And even if they could, what then? someone comes along and builds another detour around the detour to compete with them? Pretty soon all you would have is a giant spaghetti system of roads. It all just seems idealist but impracticable.

[Cow Poke]

That actually is very silly. Rich do not get rich through osmosis and the motivation to have and build roads is to improve trade.

You obviously have never been rich. Rich people don't necessarily do things "to get rich" - sometimes the motivation is simply "because I can".

[Darth Xena]

lcat.gif

[Truthseeker]

Absolutely!



So her right to be free from the temporary state of pregnancy trumps the right right to life of another person? Think about that really hard.



And when the clash results in the death of an innocent person, dire consequences should result.



No, actually, they don't. There are laws against that, and they may be ticketed, fined, and possibly even lose their license. Especially if their reckless operation of a vehicle injures or kills another person, or places them at risk of injury or death.



Which is why we have police officers patrolling the streets and highways watching out for those who don't obey the law.



In the case of your really really bad analogy - it's already settled. The reckless operation of a motor vehicle on public roadways is most certainly illegal.



Perhaps you can try another analogy which stinks less loudly?

CP, Sparko, Cerebrum apparently all failed to see the hypothetical nature of my post. A person advocates right X but then that is opposed by another person who advocates Y so that X and Y are put in opposition to each other. The only way to resolve that dilemma is to agree that X or Y should take the precedence over the other "right."

Now, let's agree to leave things here, not much would be gained so that time spent on it is well used.

[Truthseeker]

Sounds good, but you know what would happen? The rich people would end up owning the roads because nobody else can afford it, and would gouge everyone using the roads to become richer.

Do you have a reason why maintaining and operating one's road is costless or low cost? And a reason why there would be virtually no competition?

[Cow Poke]

CP, Sparko, Cerebrum apparently all failed to see the hypothetical nature of my post.

Then, obviously, you did a horrible job at making the case.

[Cow Poke]

CP, Sparko, Cerebrum apparently all failed to see the hypothetical nature of my post. A person advocates right X but then that is opposed by another person who advocates Y so that X and Y are put in opposition to each other. The only way to resolve that dilemma is to agree that X or Y should take the precedence over the other "right."

Now, let's agree to leave things here, not much would be gained so that time spent on it is well used.

I missed that last line. It's always a hoot when somebody does their last shot in, then says "let's agree to leave things here".

[Cow Poke]

Meh, there comes a point where one can be so rich that they can live off their interest and dividends.

Being rich isn't normative.

[Teallaura]

I think the case of rape is more difficult than many other pro-lifers seem to think it is.
Let's grant that it would be immoral for the woman to abort. That still leaves another question: Is it morally okay for someone else to forcibly prevent the woman from aborting (or to punish after the fact)?

In the case of rape, the unwanted pregnancy is a continuation of the aggression of the rapist against the woman. For someone else to forcibly prevent the woman from aborting is to perpetuate that element of the rapist's aggression against the woman. In this case, it would seem that saving the baby's life requires committing an wrong against the woman. Is it still okay because it's a lesser evil? And if you forced the woman in that case, it seems that you would then have a debt of restitution to pay to the woman (probably at least including the obligation to pay for the costs of the pregnancy, any loss of wages, etc.)

And then assuming that that i.s the case (that it morally okay for you to force the woman if you provide that support/restitution to her), there still is a question of whether the government ought to do that forcing and force the tax payers to pay that support (which would be yet another act of injustice). Or perhaps the government could just allow people to choose to force the woman by choosing to accept the legal obligation to support her?

Before tackling this, in this hypothetical does the woman have the right to kill the rapist?

[Joel]

Before tackling this, in this hypothetical does the woman have the right to kill the rapist?

She may be justified in using lethal defensive force during the attack. After the fact, is the death penalty justified? I don't know. Probably not. Might depend on the circumstances? At the very least, the punishment should involve forcing the rapist to provide support for the woman and child.

[Teallaura]

She may be justified in using lethal defensive force during the attack. After the fact, is the death penalty justified? I don't know. Probably not. Might depend on the circumstances? At the very least, the punishment should involve forcing the rapist to provide support for the woman and child.

Afterwards - the attack is a separate issue. If not then your argument fails entirely. The child is not guilty in any legal, ethical or moral sense of or for the attack. The rapist unquestionably is guilty in all three senses since we are dealing with rape per se and not any of the gray areas. If she has no right to kill the guilty then it follows that she also has no right to kill the innocent.