Posted by
JDComments on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 7:53:54 PM
To understand the mindset of a Libertarian, read this
article by Jim Henley where he takes the scenario of a ticking nuclear bomb and a terrorist who admittedly knows where it is that many use as an argument for selective torture and attempts to subvert it by creating an equivalency with a detestable act , thereby proving that the argument is fallacious. All that he proves to me is that he has no clue as to what he is talking about.
His logic is that if the terrorist asked you to rape your own child and he would reveal the bomb's location, and thus spare millions of lives, you probably wouldn't, and therefore using the same argument to justify torture is dishonest and wrong. According to him the only reason that the torture scenario is used is because the government
wants to torture people, and are just looking for an excuse. This is the thinking of a Libertarian mind. Scary, isn't it?
He then goes on and postulates a whole bunch of "what if's" [what if the Terrorist wants a ride on the space shuttle, what if you could save your life by letting a million other's die, even something about the World Series] and ends with the Liberal lament about the hypothetical innocent man who is tortured and will say anything to end the pain.
Most of this is the usual drivel, but let us take his argument backwards, and say if he is right,and torture is not justifiable because you wouldn't do
anything imaginable to stop the terrorist, then why is questioning permitted at all? And if questioning is not , then why is putting someone on trial or even arresting him in the first place?
Your honor we wouldn't rape our children so we cannot ethically stop this man from blowing up Manhattan.
The point is that because we do somethings and not others doesn't invalidate the things we do. This guy's argument would eventually lead to a Libertarian paradise in which you could do whatever you want and no one could hold you responsible because they wouldn't rape their child to stop you! He uses what is obviously a detestable example and then impugns all other methods because we are not willing to perform this most heinous act to obtain our goal. This logic would lead to anarchy, but considering it comes from a Libertarian, I think he knows that already.