quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I agree with what you have said in your first paragraph, for the most part, and under normal circumstances. I would also like to clarify that I am talking about the AIDS/HIV epidemic in Africa, not the United States. I believe that here, with education and the prevention techniques available, for the most part the spread of AIDS is (relatively speaking) under control. In some areas of Africa however, this is most definately not the case. There you have situations where the majority of individuals carry HIV/AIDS and the number continues to grow. At that point you have to ask yourself what good the government, or the rights it protects would be if every member of that society was dead. In that case I think it has none. What I'm getting at is the government is, in my opinion, in the business of insuring rights as well as life, as in times of war, famine and disease. If it gets to the point that the only way to insure survival is to remove the rights of some, in order to guarantee the survival of a society/culture, then that is what, in my opinion, needs to be done. In times of war, we have rationing, the draft, etc. all set in place to remove some rights/civil liberties, in order to help insure the survival of the group. If I were the part of the governing body of an African nation that could foresee its own demise, as well as a way to circumvent said destruction, I believe the only ethical thing to do would be to suspend the liberties of some in order to ensure the survival of the whole. I am a libertarian, and I am very much opposed to ANYONE who would choose to take away my, or any other individuals, freedoms. However, I also realize that without anyone to enjoy those freedoms, they are useless.

Well, I can't really comment on the Africa situation since I know virtually nothing about what their society is willing to do, and how much they're willing to sacrifice to accomplish that. I typically am against segregating or discriminating a segment of society without good reason since there ar etypically a number of better ideas. For instance, why not put the ability to reveal medical history in the hands of the individual? Start up a public testing agency that gathers data for display to others. It could show your last test, whether you have any stds, etc. It seems that the healthy segments of society would be quite willing to prove they're disease free, without compromising the privacy of others. If a person you're interested in isn't in the database, then it is an assumed risk. Therefore free will, choice, and responsibility all lay where they belong ... with the individual.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by nic01445 guys: God created AIDS...to PUNISH THE GAYS.

it appears that you all support the quarantine of the HIV addled. if the addicted make it with the addicted it seems alright with you.


virus' do mutate tho, and exposure is exposure.

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

quote:

Originally posted by biznology it appears that you all support the quarantine of the HIV addled. if the addicted make it with the addicted it seems alright with you. virus' do mutate tho, and exposure is exposure.

I would of supported quarantine when it first broke out, its too late now

quote:

Originally posted by biznology it appears that you all support the quarantine of the HIV addled. if the addicted make it with the addicted it seems alright with you. virus' do mutate tho, and exposure is exposure.

I never did.

quote:

I would of supported quarantine when it first broke out, its too late now

Why? Has some sort of magic number been reached such that it's not ok to remove civil liberties now as opposed to back then? Sorry, but to me that logic doesn't fly.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Why? Has some sort of magic number been reached such that it's not ok to remove civil liberties now as opposed to back then? Sorry, but to me that logic doesn't fly.

Well, in hopes of not sounding like a broken record, civil liberties are vital, but only if you have people around to enjoy them. Unfortunatly there is a time and a place for those liberties to be temporarily or voluntarily suspended in order to insure survival. It's a tragic reality, but it seems that Africa as a whole is not able to voluntarily work towards lowering the sexual transmission of the HIV virus, so I really see no other choice but to use other means to lower its spread.

By the way, here is a good website for world as well as African AIDS facts and statistics.

LINK

I would also like to add, although I definatly don't believe AIDS is some sort of God-made punishment, I do think it is a very natural means of population control. That does not mean we should just let it run its course with no hope or desire to find a cure, but it is found in densely populated areas, where most virulant diseases are spread. I do think this makes it more difficult to find a cure, as a disease naturally has increased virulance in high population centers.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Well, in hopes of not sounding like a broken record, civil liberties are vital, but only if you have people around to enjoy them. Unfortunatly there is a time and a place for those liberties to be temporarily or voluntarily suspended in order to insure survival. It's a tragic reality, but it seems that Africa as a whole is not able to voluntarily work towards lowering the sexual transmission of the HIV virus, so I really see no other choice but to use other means to lower its spread.

Ok well fine, let's take that idea of removing civil liberties for the "greater public good" and run with it for a little bit. One can safely say that a great purveyor of communicable diseases that threaten society is poverty. Therefore, according to the reasoning that civil liberties are only safe until the point that society is at threat, we could logically arrive at the conclusion that the right to private property is null and void and therefore a redistribution of wealth program is ethically justifiable for the furtherance of the survival of society. If there aren't poor people, we're going to have a lot less sick people. Or another example would be that if the country were at war (like we are now) is the government ethically justified in removing civil liberties (such as property rights once again) in order to have the economic means necessary to fight the war in order to ensure the "survival" of society? I'm specifically using property rights as an example because I know exactly what you think about that because we often share the same stance when it comes to property rights . Ultimately, each case needs to be looked at individually and when I look at the case of quarantines with AIDs, it simply doesn't pass the ethical test of being the "correct" thing to do. It unfairly distributes the burden of responsibility on the AIDs victim as opposed to addressing the societal issues of WHY it is such a prevalent problem to begin with and it fails to hold society accountable for its actions as well.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider It unfairly distributes the burden of responsibility on the AIDs victim as opposed to addressing the societal issues of WHY it is such a prevalent problem to begin with and it fails to hold society accountable for its actions as well.

Socialist .

The Great Cookie Monster does advocate socialism, provided there be enough cookies for all to consume, including Himself......

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Socialist . The Great Cookie Monster does advocate socialism, provided there be enough cookies for all to consume, including Himself......

You take that back!!! I've been a GOOD capitalist my entire life! I like money, I worship money, I want more money, I don't like giivng away money, and I watch the Apprentice! Adam Smith would be proud!

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ok well fine, let's take that idea of removing civil liberties for the "greater public good" and run with it for a little bit. One can safely say that a great purveyor of communicable diseases that threaten society is poverty. Therefore, according to the reasoning that civil liberties are only safe until the point that society is at threat, we could logically arrive at the conclusion that the right to private property is null and void and therefore a redistribution of wealth program is ethically justifiable for the furtherance of the survival of society. If there aren't poor people, we're going to have a lot less sick people. Or another example would be that if the country were at war (like we are now) is the government ethically justified in removing civil liberties (such as property rights once again) in order to have the economic means necessary to fight the war in order to ensure the "survival" of society? I'm specifically using property rights as an example because I know exactly what you think about that because we often share the same stance when it comes to property rights . Ultimately, each case needs to be looked at individually and when I look at the case of quarantines with AIDs, it simply doesn't pass the ethical test of being the "correct" thing to do. It unfairly distributes the burden of responsibility on the AIDs victim as opposed to addressing the societal issues of WHY it is such a prevalent problem to begin with and it fails to hold society accountable for its actions as well.

Dealing with poverty, I see two factors that seperate a person living in poverty from someone living with AIDS. First would be that poverty is not a disease in the sense that it cannot be passed on due to contact. A middle-class individual does not become poor simply by having direct physical contact with someone with AIDS even if that individual wishes to have sex with the impoverished. Secondly, there is a "cure" for poverty, in fact an individual living below the poverty line can even "cure" themselves (at least in my utopian society ) through work and education, freely available to all citizens. I would also argue that the rate at which poverty spreads disease throughout a society, at least the American society, is much too low to deam a threat to the population as a whole. Therefore, removing their property rights, or any other rights, is not justified in my opinion. If there was an army of mutant diseased poor people running around, then it would probably be a different story.

War and the removal of rights is also based on its degree of severity. Right now in Iraq, Afghanistan, where ever, our troops are well-fed, well-armed and for all intents and purposes winning (no sarcastic comments, please). However, if it came to the point, similar to WWII, where we could see a loss in supplies and troops that could ultimately lead to our defeat, then the suspension of rights might be necissary. Even as a libertarian I would give up some rights, knowing they would be restored later, then let the country that gave me those rights be over-run.

Getting back to AIDS, I don't believe that my quarantine system is necissarily a fair one, however I believe it is a logical one. As we have both said before, I think the individual should take it upon themselves to make sure they do not have sex with someone not having AIDS, and they do not have sex with someone carrying AIDS if they are not a carrier. In some parts of Africa however, this is obviously not happening and as a result you have several countries that have 1/3 or more of their population currently infected. At this level of infection you are reaching the point where if the spread continues, in all reality you will have a dead society in only a few more generations. To me, it would be unacceptable to allow things to continue the way they are, leading to the destruction of a society, when there was a way to prevent it.

To open up another can of worms, I am picky as to what rights can and cannot be removed, even in dire circumstances. For instance, during war I have no problem with rationing or the draft. I do have a problem with suspending the writ of habeas corpus, however. So yes, I do think that Lincoln was very over rated (on many levels), especially since in order "protect" the constitution, he violated it. Am I contradicting myself, maybe? But I can justify it in my crazy little head.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Dealing with poverty, I see two factors that seperate a person living in poverty from someone living with AIDS. First would be that poverty is not a disease in the sense that it cannot be passed on due to contact. A middle-class individual does not become poor simply by having direct physical contact with someone with AIDS even if that individual wishes to have sex with the impoverished. Secondly, there is a "cure" for poverty, in fact an individual living below the poverty line can even "cure" themselves (at least in my utopian society ) through work and education, freely available to all citizens. I would also argue that the rate at which poverty spreads disease throughout a society, at least the American society, is much too low to deam a threat to the population as a whole. Therefore, removing their property rights, or any other rights, is not justified in my opinion. If there was an army of mutant diseased poor people running around, then it would probably be a different story. War and the removal of rights is also based on its degree of severity. Right now in Iraq, Afghanistan, where ever, our troops are well-fed, well-armed and for all intents and purposes winning (no sarcastic comments, please). However, if it came to the point, similar to WWII, where we could see a loss in supplies and troops that could ultimately lead to our defeat, then the suspension of rights might be necissary. Even as a libertarian I would give up some rights, knowing they would be restored later, then let the country that gave me those rights be over-run. Getting back to AIDS, I don't believe that my quarantine system is necissarily a fair one, however I believe it is a logical one. As we have both said before, I think the individual should take it upon themselves to make sure they do not have sex with someone not having AIDS, and they do not have sex with someone carrying AIDS if they are not a carrier. In some parts of Africa however, this is obviously not happening and as a result you have several countries that have 1/3 or more of their population currently infected. At this level of infection you are reaching the point where if the spread continues, in all reality you will have a dead society in only a few more generations. To me, it would be unacceptable to allow things to continue the way they are, leading to the destruction of a society, when there was a way to prevent it. To open up another can of worms, I am picky as to what rights can and cannot be removed, even in dire circumstances. For instance, during war I have no problem with rationing or the draft. I do have a problem with suspending the writ of habeas corpus, however. So yes, I do think that Lincoln was very over rated (on many levels), especially since in order "protect" the constitution, he violated it. Am I contradicting myself, maybe? But I can justify it in my crazy little head.

Well, I consider them somewhat more similar than you. First, poverty is not contagious or transferrable by contact, that is correct. Poverty is, ideally, contracted by choice. Similarly AIDS is largely a disease contracted through choice. You make the risky choice to piss away your life and you end up poor ... you make the risky choice of unprotected sex with someone you don't really know and you end up with AIDS. In my mind, I see little reason recognize choice in one situation whilst ignoring choice in the other. Second, society DOES possess a "cure" for its AIDs affliction. By making educated, informed choices society doesn't have to be scourged by this disease. Given that this "cure" is readily available, I see no justification to discriminate or remove civil liberties in my opinion.

Furthermore, what kind of feasability is there in this AIDS quarantine? How would you enforce it? Would you go about testing every member of society every month? A costly logistical nightmare. Would you publish all medical records? This would only serve to drive those afflicted with aids underground in order to avoid detection and discrimination. Furthermore, as I alluded to in my second or third post, you would only feed fuel to the fire of already reckless sexual behaviour. The best analogy I can think of is a society whereby everyone throws garbage out of their windows so the whole city is a sanitary nightmare. Eventually some people get sick. In an effort to avoid contracting the sickness from the sick, the healthy people devise a "solution" to quarantine all the sick people so they can continue their garbage throwing lifestyle with peace of mind.

___________________
Retro ...