Inspired by this great video:
President Obama used the “If it saves just one life it will be worth it!” rhetoric in his speech at the memorial for the victims of the Navy Yard shooting to push his deeply unpopular and scientifically proven ineffective gun control agenda.
Really this political crutch should cause EVERY political adviser in the WORLD, let alone America, shaking their heads. But it isn’t. Not only was this speech written (likely by somebody who isn’t the president) reviewed, approved, and finally spoken in public.
Its a cowardly statement, as its always made by people who have no logical ground to stand on. If they did have some facts or rational arguments, they would have lead with that instead. It also assumes a troupe of fallacies.
#1. Human life is priceless. It really isn’t. There are BILLIONS of us on this planet, and most of us, myself included, are completely replaceable.
Reminds me of this classic video:
I’m not sure if the kid in the video is the REAL Micheal Moore, irrelevant. Still this young man posed his question simply ASSUMING that all human life was priceless, and look at his outrage and confusion when he’s forced to put that fallacy to the test. You can indeed put a price on ONE human life, in terms of money, or in terms of sacrificed freedom.
#2. It assumes that the efforts that would SAVE this one life, won’t come at the expense of other life. Milton Friedman notes that spending money on auto parts is money not spend on hunger relief. In the gun issue we’re discounting lives SAVED with guns. Numbers the President should be well aware of.
#3. That the proposed changes will actually WORK. May we look at Kenya?
This technique should be stricken from the political lexicon, for it is nothing but a pile of fallacies presented as facts.
In the words of our opponents: We are Better Than This!
You can indeed put a price on ONE human life, in terms of money, or in terms of sacrificed freedom.
I think that bold part really should be #2 — just because some effort could save lives, doesn’t mean it is worth the sacrificed freedom. We could save lives by mandating that everyone walk around naked, with chastity belts and chains — fewer people would be attacked, less chance to hide a weapon etc. But is it really how we want to live?
I don’t.
At one point we have to accept that living involves risk, even the risk of death.
Maybe we are approaching the issue backwards; let’s clear out a prison of the non-violent criminals and open it up for those pushing gun control.
They have to live in the prison just like the previous occupants did — they would be safe (mostly). Wonder how many would move in.
Adding on to Bob S. above: It could be argued that freedom is what makes life valuable in the first place. Historically, any place with a profound LACK of freedom also has a profound lack of respect for the value of human life. It truly is “priceless” in that it has no price, no value; a better word would be “worthless.”
[segue to my own related-yet-stand-alone thoughts]
I, too, am tired of the whole “If it saves just one life” argument. In the case of the WNY shooting, the Gun-Free Zone rules COSTED several-if-not-all of those lives. There were Marines there – with weapons but no ammunition – IN THAT BUILDING that could have cleared it and taken the guy down. He’d only shot three people at that point, so it wouldn’t even have been a “Mass Shooting.” “Gun Control” in action!
There’s a reason some of us refer to collectivist anti-freedom types as “hive insects.” They want all governmental power consolidated into a small group or individual – the metaphorical “Queen.” Individuals then necessarily become the workers/soldiers/drones. But as to the “value” of life: in an insect hive, do they really think the Queen gives a flying rip about the life of one “priceless” worker? The Queen looks to the survival and well-being of the HIVE. The hive is paramount; the individual, inconsequential.
For all they pontificate about the “value of human life,” they are collectivists. To the core. They want power to be consolidated so the masses can be ruled. This hierarchy is completely antithetical to holding human life at a high value. Only the leadership and the survival of the collective matter; the individual is expendable and easily replaced.
Notions of freedom – real honest-to-God liberty – are dangerous to the collective because they emphasize the value of the individual over the collective. The two are fundamentally incompatible.