This seems like complete nonsense to me, BlackRose. Do you have some Conservative Manifesto that you’re referring to which makes state-guaranteed protection of the ‘weak’ anathema to conservative thought, or that makes ‘bodily sovereignty’ an absolute value, such that I can completely destroy another human beings bodily sovereignty if I deem that they are infringing on mine?? Please share.
In the context of vulnerability to being murdered, we are all ‘weak.’ And where ‘weakness’ refers to a susceptibility to being unjustly killed, no conservative will deny that one of the core purposes of the state is indeed to protect ‘the weak’ (obviously!). Like I said to Tony, you may as well add the absurd claim that conservatives ought not to favor legal sanctions against child prostitution. Can’t you see that that’s an incredibly crude and inaccurate way of viewing conservatism?
My view isn’t that conservatives believe that state protection of the weak is an anathema; just that liberty is a higher value than protection of the weak. Conservatives are unlikely to admit this candidly, but in practice conservatives favor liberty over state intervention that protects the weak.
But if conservatives really care about protecting the weak, why don’t they advocate for more government assistance for the homeless (since they are a weak economic group)? The justification is that the citizen’s right to enjoy their income and property (without it being redistributed to support economically disadvantage groups) trumps the welfare of the homeless people. (Again, this is not stated explicitly by conservatives, but one can infer this message through political rhetoric and the policies enacted.) Supporting the homeless through charities is consistent with liberty and probably an expression of personal virtue, but it is an ineffective approach.
One could then retort that the mature and mentally competent woman’s right to bodily sovereignty trumps the fetus’ life if a pregnant women chooses to have an abortion.
If the state perceives my life as having intrinsic value (which is presupposed by the notion of moral human rights), then in order to remain consistent, they must equally value the processes that went in to my development pending my birth, from the moment of conception to the person that is now typing this post. Conception represents an intrinsic part of what I am, since, my being who I am now, is the result of a process that began from the moment of conception and was ordered to the intrinsic end of that which the state values as a person. Thus, in retrospect, I can say that it was the beginning of me; it is my conception; the embryo is me in development. Therefore i should have been considered a person from the moment of my conception. And that should be circular law.
You make the assumption that because we value the lives of conscientious people in the present, we then must equally value it all of its stages of development. In other words, the “value” of “conscientious” people did not increase during their development (in the womb), but remained constant throughout their lifetime. This assumption obviously is not true in investing (since macroeconomic and firm-specific events can alter the value of the discounted cash flows such as an increase or decrease in interest rates, or the proliferation of its competitors.) Just because the lives of conscientious people are valued now, it does not necessarily follow it has intrinsic value. It would, though, if your assumption is correct.
Here is an illustrative example of how something with a low intrinsic value may increase in value in the future and that value isn’t a constant:
Consider that I win a round of Texas hold’em with the two pocket cards (2D and 7C) and that the
flop is (2C 5S 2H), the
turn (10D) and the
river (2S). After the river, I would have the best possible hand, four of a kind, because possessing my pocket 2D precludes anyone else from having quads in a standard 52 card deck, while the community cards preclude any straight flush that would beat quads.
But what would be the “intrinsic value” of my hand pre-flop? Most competent poker players would just not play that hand after the cards are dealt pre-flop and it is obvious that pocket KK and AA have a higher value than my pocket cards since they have a much higher chance of yielding better hands later on than my pocket cards.
After the flop, my hand significantly increased in value, yielding me a three-of-a-kind. I still could have an inferior hand though because my opponent may have a “2S” in their hand along with a card higher than “7”. Also my opponent could have pocket 5s. I would still beat an opponent with two pair on the flop (let’s say they have KS KC along with the pair of twos on the flop). Such an opponent could reasonably expect that they have the highest hand, and that the turn and river could further improve their hand to a full house if an ace or 2 were revealed later, four of a kind if the turn and river reveal a pair of aces or twos, or a backdoor flush if two spades or clubs showed later.
The turn (10D) would not improve my hand, but it can improve a hand holding one or a pair of 10s. It would also close a backdoor flush.
The river gave me
the nuts as explained above.
It would turn out that my opponent had a pair of kings in her pocket and despite my opponent initially possessing pocket cards with a higher intrinsic value than mine, I win that round.
