If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
I have always considered myself a wannabe libertarian. Not in a negative sense, but in the sense that I was still undecided on some aspects of libertarianism (the cartel can undoubtedly help!) One of the issues is that of torture. In most cases, I would abhor torture but would choose to employ torture in dire situations. I might almost be on the same side as George Bush and Dick Cheney when they rely on the "ticking bomb argument" to justify torture. I got this quote from the ever-excellent Marginal Revolution and it helped clear some of my doubts.
As Alex Tabarrok clarifies, I would accept an argument that justifies torture to prevent a greater evil. But then, as Alex writes, this should not tantamount to condoning torture in all cases or going to the extent of making it legal. A law making any subjective and controversial action legal will almost always be abused. Making use of torture liable to punishment will make its perpetrators think twice before employing it and will most likely to use it only in an emergency e.g. to elicit information regarding an incoming nuke missile from a terrorist as in Fox’s 24.
by Patrix | on Wednesday, November 16th, 2005 at 12:00 am | 
Governance . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
November 16th, 2005 at 4:14 am reply
> I would accept an argument that justifies torture to prevent a greater evil.
But the problem is that a person who is being tortured will give any information which he thinks will stop the torment. And often this information is incorrect.
If you want to elicit information regarding an incoming nuke missile, sodium pentathol would probably work better.
Cheers,
D.
November 16th, 2005 at 10:37 am reply
Dhar, Agreed! The reliability of information is always suspect but I agreed with Alex’s argument that cost of torture should be high enough to use it rarely for those who choose to employ it.