You're a traveler, walking alone through a forest carrying two hamburgers, one of which you do not need or even want, when you come across a hungry man sitting on a log. The man is starving to death, he's about to die from lack of food. You are aware that if you give him your unwanted hamburger, he'll live. But if you pass him by without giving him food, he will most likely starve to death. His life is in your hands.
Now here is the question: If you decide not to share your food with the hungry man, and the man does die, should the government have the authority and power to prosecute and convict you for the death of the hungry man? - (Y/N)
This is the one-question Libertarian Stress Test. It pits liberty against the government's duty to protect innocent life. I am interested in your answer and your reasoning.
I have edited this question from it's original version.
http://www.showmefreedom.org/2005/October/LibertarianStressTest.shtml
2006-07-03 00:31:22 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
No, You are not at fault for the man dieing. Yes you could have delayed the process by giving him your other hamburger, but that is for your own conscious to wrestle. What made you the mans provider? What's did Jesus say? Give the man a fish he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for life. Something along that order.
2006-07-03 00:49:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes , unless your lawyer can prove mental retardation on your part you are guilty of murder. Just as guilty as if you shot him. That is why we have good samaritan laws.Even though your actions killed the man the court should show leniancy because after all you had the freedom to throw your property away. Did you know the starving man was a veteran of WW2 and earned several medals for bravery and almost died so that your porky *** could have that freedom?
2006-07-03 08:01:38 · answer #2 · answered by M D 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is simple . This is a moral issue . Not a criminal . Besides if the guy was to become ill . You would be sued by him . Then you would be in the woods waiting for a hamburger . He might have an allergy to beef . Or he would claim it had mad moo moo ..
2006-07-03 08:06:57 · answer #3 · answered by J D 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't wish for that low ,Uncle Bush will be the first one,he is snapping the hamburgers what the people have and he is not worried how many millions die.
2006-07-03 07:48:42 · answer #4 · answered by lucky s 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. It is not your responsibilty to care for this man. If he were truly hungry he could sustain himself with the grubs and beetles living underneath that log that he was laying on. If he is too lazy to find his own food then it is his own fault if he perishes as a result.
2006-07-03 07:47:39 · answer #5 · answered by my brain hurts 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you can't find a burger in the forest then you should starve.
2006-07-03 07:36:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No
Nor should the man sue you for his hart disease if you give it to him.
2006-07-03 08:05:56 · answer #7 · answered by MP US Army 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think this is a good question.no I din't think they should
2006-07-03 07:44:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋