| | TK: "The problem with a supposed right to have someone kill you is not that it violates your rights, but that it poses an insuperable problem for a civil society. "Excuse me Mr. Simpson, we're arresting you for chopping your wife's head off. Oh, no, Mr. Darden. She said she wanted me to kill her. I will swear to that under oath. Oh, okay, if you had her consent, no problem..."
That is a non-sequitar. Certainly, if there is a line of reasoning, it must be presented more fully and consistently.
The problem with a supposed right to exchange corn for gold is not that it violates your rights, but that it poses an insuperable problem for a civil society. "Excuse me Mr. Simpson, we're arresting you for taking your wife's corn. Oh, no, Mr. Darden. She said she accepted gold in exchange. I will swear to that under oath. Oh, okay, if you had her consent, no problem..."
My wife has a legally binding statement from me that no extraordinary measures are to be employed to keep me alive in the event that I cannot make that decision for myself. My mother had the same legally binding statement in a different jurisdiction and we went there to sit with her while she passed away. Civil society continues nonetheless.
|
|
