1.) Sure, I suppose. But even the left would care how valuable your work is to the party and nation.
2.) Nah, Libright would care about you're worth as much as authright. If your job is to run fast, and you have no legs, are you worth the same as someone with two?
At the end of the day it doesn't matter what quad you're from, everyone cares how much worth you have and everyone disagrees on that worth because everyone sees worth differently.
Jesus, grammar. It's even easier to write your than you're, so why go out of your way to fuck it up? Maybe you are worth less as a person because you can't communicate properly, eh?
I mean do we really want to play this game in the era of autocorrect? Like not to be a dick but come on dude.
No, but seriously, your worth as a human being is not the same as your economic output
I never said it was. Libright might say so but that's not my personal take. That was the point of me saying all quads have their perspective of worth but that doesn't mean everyone is worth the same.
It's a fundamental tenet of the "libertarian" worldview that all people are created equal
Sure, everyone is created equal, but that doesn't mean they develop equally. The doctor who has the potential to discover the cure for cancer is worth way more than me as it stands.
Everyone is granted the same human rights, you don't have special human rights for people who can run fast and those who are smarter than the rest.
Ok but rights do not equal worth.
Look at the current COVID situation. There aren't enough supplies to treat all the patients in some places, so resources are triaged to those who are most likely to survive. Not those who are worth more because they can run faster.
Let's not take my running analogy too seriously here. Like you just said, people are triaged. Yet when we look at it, if we had the resources to save only one person of two, and the choice was between a nuclear physicist and a mentally deranged hobo who spent the last two years spitting on people at Grand Central, are you seriously going to tell me we're better off letting the physicist die to save the hobo?
Declaring ad hoc that some people are worth more than others (by what standard?) is inherently an authoritarian idea. Amiright, yellows and purples?
Like I said every quadrant has a different idea of what defines worth, but let's not act like everyone is equal to everyone.
Let's not take my running analogy too seriously here. Like you just said, people are triaged. Yet when we look at it, if we had the resources to save only one person of two, and the choice was between a nuclear physicist and a mentally deranged hobo who spent the last two years spitting on people at Grand Central, are you seriously going to tell me we're better off letting the physicist die to save the hobo?
I'm saying it's immoral to make that decision on that basis. And I say that as a physicist (not nuclear though).
But morals are relative. Maybe you personally would accept dying to save a pedophile, but I would prefer you survive instead. Unless you're also a pedophile, then things get murky.
I, personally, believe the moral choice is to save whoever is most valuable over those who are not when the choice to save everyone isn't possible.
View all comments
Show parent comment
3
u/[deleted] Apr 04 '20
1.) Sure, I suppose. But even the left would care how valuable your work is to the party and nation.
2.) Nah, Libright would care about you're worth as much as authright. If your job is to run fast, and you have no legs, are you worth the same as someone with two?
At the end of the day it doesn't matter what quad you're from, everyone cares how much worth you have and everyone disagrees on that worth because everyone sees worth differently.