To die for capitalism

[Black Wolf]

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?

[Maken]

This is so weird, I was going to post a post JUST like this.

This thought came up last night because I thought it was kind of ironic that if you were to die for a free market society to take over, it would be almost altruistic of you?

I came to the conclusion that you would have to look at in terms of the Objectivist view on sacrifice. If you value the progression of society to a full free market society (which would benefit friends, family, etc) then it really wouldn't be a sacrifice. We all must realize we will die eventually, and as being a rational being, we should try to extend the length at which we will live, but I think this would be a worthy cause to die for personally, seeing as I would be making a significant contribution for a free market world.

It would, be of waste however, if the general public were not educated as to what it means to have a free market society and what it takes to maintain it. If you left the public uneducated to the process and values/morals of a free market society, the altruist would eventually consume the mind of society again.

[Iudicious]

You can't make a judge on this about which is "most ethical." Morality does not exist at the point of a gun, meaning, when force is involved - and if achieving a moral state means you must die, then neither dying nor living are more moral than the other.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Iudicious