3 ms·
Attacker = Overreeaching Govt/Collectivism. Victim = Individual. > how does that respond to my point? You just asked an individual to justify why its not okey
by wav-part 9y ago
Attacker = Overreeaching Govt/Collectivism.
Victim = Individual.
> how does that respond to my point?
You just asked an individual to justify why its not okey for govt/people to interfere between two consenting adults.
But then I think the debate would turn into battle of axioms which is pointless.
The question should be, can/how would people with contradictory political axioms co-exist ? I think its not possible, people can only vote with feet and hope for best. Political debate is not an intellectual debate like scientific/programming debate but war with real losses and HN now is a battlefield.
- dsacco 9y agoAh, I understand. I disagree with the analogy then. If the two consenting adults are not harming each other they can still be a liability to other people. Risk can be introduced indirectly even if no individual is directly harmed. How can you adjust your analogy to account for that?
- wav-part 9y agoAs I said this is battle of axioms. The issue cannot be solved with debate.