 | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Trot them out, then. Or far better, and far far far more relevant, answer the main point, that most (not all!!!) homeless Americans deserve it because of the choices they made. Unlike almost all homeless Ugandans or Tibetians or Kurds or (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) that (...) Certainly true. But I guess I'm a little frustrated by the way .debate is lately. It seems to be a few libertarians trying to explain how to make the world a better place vs. several times as many people saying "what if this, what (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | vacation
|
|
I'm going to be going on vacation for the next two weeks. I'll try to catch up when I get back. I'm particularly interested in hearing what people have to say about the nature of property/property rights: (URL) Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Which is good, but doesn't mean that they are not there. (...) As LUGNET is an international forum, that statement is hardly going to go without comment! Best for somethings, not best for others... (...) I'm not arguing (m)any of those points (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) I don't think that asking questions, or even giving examples of situations that might give a particular idea problems can really be called potshots. A lot of the other stuff that's been flying around certainly could be. Richard (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Um, you know those links that you said that you'd read.. did you really? I don't know how you can deny this fact, but still, you seem willing to deny most things. Richard (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) So let me see... your point is, these putative people who are dependent on the kindness of strangers because they're what, chronic crack smokers, deserve some sort of say in what morality their children are shown? I guess if you want things (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Oki, I got that bit. (...) Neither good or bad, either having no understanding of ones actions, or having no particular alignment to either paradigm. Thats my working definition.. disprove it. (...) Because if you don't know what you are (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) with (...) Wait, are you saying that the S&L problem wasn't directly caused and directly made worse by Government? Let's review, the FSLIC is a GOVERNMENT agency that charges each and every S&L the SAME premium no matter what the risk profile (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) This, yet again, sounds like "forget the stragglers" reasoning. What if "people" (whoever they might be--I'm dying to hear some suggestions, since in Libertopia a person's responsibility seems to be to himself and/or his family) don't feel (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Just for clarity's sake, I wasn't referring to a genetic "whatever it takes;" I was using a more metaphorical meaning of hereditary, like hereditary royalty, or a generational history of child abuse. Dave! (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) life-affirming, or (...) So you admit to lying three times now? (...) of (...) At the moment it is mandatory. (...) if (...) would (...) at (...) I live in a city. You must be right, I am blind, because I (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Frank Filz wrote in message <387CEFEB.6799@minds...ng.com>... (...) thought (...) thing (...) more (...) Red Cross was a pretty dumb organization to pick, but there are plenty of others, and the idea that "we'd" fight wars for non political reasons (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) would (...) Beside the point, really, and I ought to be debugging my example instead of posting, but mostly when I see the homeless, they're adults. They are the deranged, the crackheads and mostly, the winos, mixed in with a few people who (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) I think you already have enough people btw :) Looking at (URL) I see lots of research into the types of action they want to affect, but not too much research into the actual consequences that it could have. IMO it would be a good thing, as it (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Agreed, studies of synaptic development favour the 'nurture' in nurture vs nature. (...) Sadly, as the wages go up, teachers who care less will be attracted the the profession. Not that teachers shouldn't be paid more, it's just a problem to (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Bwahahhahahah! That's perfect. If I can engage in some cheap and unnecessary ad hominem commentary: I can't think of any single statement that sums up your approach to these topics than that line right there, John. Thanks for the laugh. -- (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
<Fo8LLM.K4F@lugnet.com> <Fo8q9s.8p7@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Well, stage 0 is get enough people on the boat so that a reasonable plan can be worked out that won't be immediately (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) If the kids don't have whatever it takes, they don't have it. No amount of government posturing is going to fix it. If people really feel these kids deserve a break (and perhaps if this REALY is the case, they do), then charity will step in. I (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) up (...) much (...) the (...) lines. (...) concept (...) is (...) Read it again (there is more below). Life affirming is good, definitely not evil, and doesn't relate to lawfulness. Regarding neutral... did (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
