Black Wolf Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 I've had wondered about the self-interest regarding dying to acquire true laissez-faire capitalism. No state rights, and a constitutional amendment of separation of economy and state. I know there will be a lot of reference to politics in this thread, but the main issue is ethics. Let's assume, somehow, that as a result of your life ending, for whatever reason, an amendment gets passed stating that the government shall not establish or disestablish the economy in what you hope to be at least two years. On the other hand, if you choose not to end your life*, you still have the same amount of regulations placed on you, economically and politically, and it's unclear when you'll ever see the day without end your life* = not through suicide, but perhaps you have known about a planned assassination attempt, and you attend anyway. But let's not assume that you don't survive the assassination attempt. Let's assume there are only two choices in this situation. You die, and laissez faire capitalism that you'll never get to enjoy becomes constitutionally protected. Or, you don't die, and laissez faire capitalism is not achieved, and you continue to live in an unfree society. Which decision would be the most ethical? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.