| sapphi_snake said: From a strictly economical POV, disregarding human beings and considering them mere figures on some table, your ideea is perfect. If that's the answer you wanted to hear then there it is. Sadly for you, it's a very limited POV, but alas, we all must chose which lords to serve. |
Saving more lives is disregarding human beings? I think we have very different definitions of what "disregarding human beings" means.
For me... it's letting people die for meaningless ideals that aren't even served by the laws inacted. (Since the poor are still likely to be screwed, and more poor will die under such a system.)
Ask most family memebers, and i think they'd say they'd rather people save their relatives then their inheretance.
Most would rather live out of government emergency shelters as a family, then be missing people and have their possessions largely intact.
The only issue is, most people are ignorant to the economic realties of the situation and don't realize that price gouging laws actually do cause more deaths... and polticians love to pander.
The difference between us is you are taking an initial emotional response to an issuse. While I am rationally observing it, then applying my emotions to the situation to see if the rational situation is the more beneficial one... and I'd say saving more lives is emotionally more beneficial.
You are placing money ahead of human life. Your just looking at things too irationally to see it.
Aside from which, one thing in which I think you seem to miss is, that while Rich peoples lives aren't worth anymore then poor peoples lives... they also aren't worth any less.
