Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 823072" data-attributes="member: 2189">The example you gave I understand but the problem in relating this scenario to Libya is that you are describing a situation in which all parties are private and not public in nature. And the other problem is that private persons in these type situations are held to a vastly higher standard than state actors in a similar setting. Case in point would be if a innocent by-stander was hit and killed, you would have to stand and account for that as a private person. In the case of the state, it&#039;s collateral damage and the mission moves onward.&nbsp;If all men are created and judged equal, why the different standards for men as private persons verses men who collectivise into public persons? This to me is where the morality of statism runs head on into moral and ethical conflict with natural law. Remove the state fictions of immunity protections on public persons and then rephrase the whole question again!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 823072, member: 2189"] The example you gave I understand but the problem in relating this scenario to Libya is that you are describing a situation in which all parties are private and not public in nature. And the other problem is that private persons in these type situations are held to a vastly higher standard than state actors in a similar setting. Case in point would be if a innocent by-stander was hit and killed, you would have to stand and account for that as a private person. In the case of the state, it's collateral damage and the mission moves onward. If all men are created and judged equal, why the different standards for men as private persons verses men who collectivise into public persons? This to me is where the morality of statism runs head on into moral and ethical conflict with natural law. Remove the state fictions of immunity protections on public persons and then rephrase the whole question again! [/QUOTE]

Verification