Socialist policies are perfect examples of this. Rents are too high? Restrict rental rates. Twenty years later there are no rentals. Gee! No one could have anticipated that! In Canada there is an elderly politician fighting the mandates saying they are against the Charter of Rights. He was one of the writers of the Charter. NO! …
Socialist policies are perfect examples of this. Rents are too high? Restrict rental rates. Twenty years later there are no rentals. Gee! No one could have anticipated that! In Canada there is an elderly politician fighting the mandates saying they are against the Charter of Rights. He was one of the writers of the Charter. NO! They are fully in line with the Charter. Which gives governments tons of loopholes to work around it. Enshrined in an unchangeable document. At the time of its writing I was young and naive and I was outraged. As were many others. But we were a tiny minority. I said at the time ‘as soon as we have elected a tyrant our rights vanish’. It took 40 years, but it happened.
All your examples- which are good ones- are examples of people pulling a lever as opposed to not doing anything to disrupt a "natural" pre-existing system.
I'm reminded of the adage "don't tear down a fence until you find out exactly why it was there in the first place."
I agree that intent may play a role in how we decide to morally evaluate behavior, but I argue that it is CHOOSING TO ACT to interfere or change a state makes you truly culpable when the consequences results in harm- no matter what your intentions were.
Socialist policies are perfect examples of this. Rents are too high? Restrict rental rates. Twenty years later there are no rentals. Gee! No one could have anticipated that! In Canada there is an elderly politician fighting the mandates saying they are against the Charter of Rights. He was one of the writers of the Charter. NO! They are fully in line with the Charter. Which gives governments tons of loopholes to work around it. Enshrined in an unchangeable document. At the time of its writing I was young and naive and I was outraged. As were many others. But we were a tiny minority. I said at the time ‘as soon as we have elected a tyrant our rights vanish’. It took 40 years, but it happened.
All your examples- which are good ones- are examples of people pulling a lever as opposed to not doing anything to disrupt a "natural" pre-existing system.
I'm reminded of the adage "don't tear down a fence until you find out exactly why it was there in the first place."
I agree that intent may play a role in how we decide to morally evaluate behavior, but I argue that it is CHOOSING TO ACT to interfere or change a state makes you truly culpable when the consequences results in harm- no matter what your intentions were.
Re: Canada *Eyes are opened now, what a disaster! You said it perfectly.