 | | Re: Libertarian stuff
|
|
(...) Liberama is disqualified because it relies on the assumption that in its great society people and corporations will be motivated by higher ethics and community responsibility--an assumption which is fine on paper but has never come close to (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: RFC: An Alternative..
|
|
Need to dig in deeper (over the weekend?) but... I think this has a lot of merit. Not perfect. Nothing is. But better, perhaps than what we have now. And not that different from Libertopia! Where I see an area in need of further exploration is in (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote in message ... (...) up (...) Great point, Dave! The people should have nothing to do with it. Let the cows pay for it. Or maybe the mice will pick up the tab. But, absolutely, positively don't let the people pay for anything! -- (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) too, (...) that (...) I should control myself, but I'm evil! (1) Sorry about that. Seriously, why don't you answer his question??? Or, was "more government spending" the correct answer? 1 - I admit, I am not (...) (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 ... (...) to (...) Your posts are moving from annoying to hilarious. What have we got now? Teachers who could care less! Why? I care about kids, and I know most people do. I know most people can't live off a teacher's (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | RFC: An Alternative..
|
|
Disclaimers ===...=== First off, I don't have the benefit of being incredibly smart, so there are bound to be holes. But even the simplest idea can spark others into greater feats of insight and imagination - hopefully that will be the case. I (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote in message ... (...) sense. (...) through (...) agree, (...) I (...) sizable (...) get (...) So what's the problem here? If a child's parents are so incapable of nurturing the child for success, why should they have much if any (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote in message ... (...) in (...) family) (...) If no one wanted to help them, then how in heck do we end up with a law helping them? Who passed the law in the first place if no one wanted to help them? I really doubt ANYONE (no (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
|
(...) I'm not sure at what level of detail you want these answered, but I'll take a stab at it. (What does it mean to manipulate matter?) It means, at the most basic of levels, that I am exercising my will on my surroundings. (What does it mean to (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Living in Scotland and all.. you'd think I'd be the one with that message ;) I have a lot (maybe total) sympathy with that viewpoint though. (...) Because I spent my mid-to-latter teenage years doing so before deciding that it was a wrong and (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Yeah, actually, I thought the reason they do stuff like mandatory leaves and long vacations was to keep the unemployment rate low. I think we have to agree on higher taxes though (not like they're low here in the US). (...) For those of us who (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) You're right, I'd actually turned off, and was about sleep when I had these same thoughts - it was a total cop out and I am afraid to air some of my tentative ideas. But I turned on the light an logged back on so that I could, as it's only (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) What a cop out. Why wait? You'll NEVER figure out ALL the details, nor will anyone else. All you can do is set up a system in which there is a clear, and just, way to resolve issues, and rights are protected. That's what Libertarians are (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) No, I don't think I could agree with that.. but I guess finding someone who has worked with the homeless could provide a more substantial opinion. (...) If I ever figure out all of the details I'll be sure to let you know. Richard (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Perhaps you misread my post, but I'll answer anyway. I'm saying that the children of people (none of whom I've called, even by implication, "crack smokers") who are unable to meet their responsibilities can't realistically expect support from (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) I think this would be a very bad thing for the Red Cross to do. The Red Cross gets a lot of respect because it remains neutral in conflicts. That doesn't mean that other organizations wouldn't do well to do this. Of course current US poilicy (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) How many countries have you lived in??? It must be an awful lot to make that assertion. (...) Okay, but the point that I'm making for the third time is that there are homeless children all over America - does that make you less life-affirming, (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Well, if I'm silly then I may as well enjoy it, big nose! (...) Nope, then the Red Cross wouldn't be able to go into war-zones and treat the sick (which is their mission) as then they would be an army too. Richard (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) To provide any clarification - I agree with this as well.. I just want to find the *best* path to utopia. Richard (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) What I'd really like to see is some sort of.. visualised plan. Like - stage 1, remove some taxes, implement dollar for dollar tax credit charity.. this is what we expect to happen, what has happened? If different then replan. Stage 2, abolish (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian splurf (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Gosh. The point that is that if you are uneducated, and can't afford to educate your children, then they won't be able to educate theirs.. and you're condemning generations to poverty.. that truely is only liberty for the rich, which is (...) (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 ... (...) of (...) at (...) the (...) rely on (...) Hey man, You don't need to show me that, I have already looked. I try to point out reality to others whenever possible (often to their disdain), and I have shown (...) (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 ... (...) this (...) suffer (...) street (...) life-affirming is (...) is (...) other (...) of (...) worry - (...) More silliness, but couldn't the Red Cross hire mercenaries if it thought it was the right thing to (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) That's a lovely notion, but it seems at best unrealistic. "Whatever it takes" is a lot more than academic ability or even a knack for succeeding on tests; it stems from a solid upbringing and a sound family unit, and there are demographic (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) One point here: This says that the _United States_ government has no moral authority to intervene. It doesn't say "no government may intervene". It even mentions why: because no existing government has a clean record. (...) Like there aren't (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) I haven't seen Pocahontas. Why should the organizations necessarily be run by corporations? They aren't now. Even so, what is necessarily wrong with organizations run by buisiness? Buisiness is more accountable than the government (for (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) If having access to Lego provides a better [1] society, than it's probably something we want to work towards. (Having Lego in schools might be a good way.) Since I think that universal education is very beneficial, it's something I think (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) the (...) sensible (...) more (...) I posted a message to RTL that said, WTB 4558, 4536, 4547, 4549, 4554, 2150 in boxes or sealed. Unfortunately, I can't afford them all right now. Will you buy them for me? (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Long and boring, yet plenty controversial... Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) library, (...) were (...) set (...) that (...) not (...) Why not? Those who can climb out of the "mines" will. Those who can't are a monkey on the world's back (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Sorry, this got long, and you probably won't like it, but there is plenty to argue with. Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) a (...) of? (...) lot (...) recieve? (...) tax (...) up (...) millions of (...) it (...) Very likely, depending on (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Hope you stay well! (...) Brazil has a massive problem too. I think I'd laid off Libertarianism in this one, and I was focussing on the assertion made that children wouldn't suffer because of life-affirmation, that people wouldn't walk past a (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) I think a large part of what I'm reacting to is the concept that these will be profit-driven organizations, perhaps sponsored by large corporations looking for more skilled workers. That seems dangerous -- have you seen Disney's Pocahontas? (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) But are those children any better off now? If a child has whatever it takes to succeed in school when the parents have no care, they ought to still do well. There will be organizations working with these children (there are now). They will (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
I've been out of it for a little while (I've been home sick, and the threading got too complex for me), but here I am back again... (...) One point of note: none of the societies with large numbers of street children are anywhere near Libertarian, (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) What he really said was that a watered down version of Libertarianism is spreading. What Larry could be referring to is the reduction of laws and privatisation of services. It's like saying, well the fuel burns, this rocket will take us to (...) (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 ... (...) It hasn't been proven, but hasn't seen its chance yet either. Larry made a very good point last night - Libertarianism is working, despite all the regulation in the world. It can/will work. (...) ideas (...) (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Sounds more Metallic(a) to me.. Jasper (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian theory and altruism (was: some incorrectly spelled thing not worth repeating
|
|
(...) Tell me where the government interfered to make tulips more expensive. Tell me where the government interfered to make M:tG or Pokemon cards more expensive. (...) Does that include charity to non-organisations? Like, giving money right where (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Screw leaded gasoline - look at the dumping of heavy metals in every-place-they-can-find, historically. And lead, cadmium, and all the rest are much more heinous in those sorts of concentrations than in leaded gasoline. There's less problems (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) This is what I meant in specific: (URL) there's actually two true/false statements which go before that. Just give an agree/disagree (or a mostly agree/mostly disagree) (I mostly disagree with both, btw -- see my reply to the above post for (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Hiya John, (...) Only if it is true, and I've had some thoughts on this.. (...) An interesting point - both sources have at least a few bits that *everyone* should be able to get something from. (...) From an evolutionary point of view, babies (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Matthew, give me the link to the post you needed answered. It is long gone... Thanks -- Have fun! John The Legos you've been dreaming of... (URL) weird Lego site: (URL) DiRienzo wrote in message ... (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) every (...) probably (...) a (...) Thanks, we will. Good night. -- Have fun! John The Legos you've been dreaming of... (URL) weird Lego site: (URL) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Yes, I posted some things in a sarcastic tone. That doesn't mean I wasn't serious. But the fact that you weren't amused underlines the point that we disagree at an extremely basic level. So discussing the question of rights makes a lot of (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
In the hopes that this can actually still be productive: (...) I don't find it funny. A long string of important thinkers throughout the history of western civilization have spent a lot of time thinking about what a right is exactly. (I could give (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Yes, you're right. John, I was out of line and I'm sorry I said that. (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) I agree. IMO Johns attitude came out of no-where, totally out of order - I'm guessing he's having a bad night, and that's fair enough. I say this because I feel he should be aware of the consequences of his posting, and how people felt reading (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Melancholia
|
|
(...) refrain.(2) Sounds kinda Floyd-y, to me! In any case, the more you ignore me, the closer I'll get! Dave! (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Oh, I know.. and the offense has now gone but the sadness and disappointment still remain {1}. Richard {1} Which somehow reminds me of a Smiths lyric, from which I should refrain.(2) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) "Leftist elitist"? Bit of a contradiction-in-terms, don't you think? Here's an idea, drop all the gratuitous namecalling and actually _reason_. Jasper (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Wars don't count. Have you heard the statistics recently on shootings in .uk or .nl? (...) You are sadly misinformed (Actually, "prejudiced" would be the word I'd use. Ever lived in Europe?). The countries that have these policies usually have (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Okay, lets get very real. (5 URLs) There are, according to the UN, around 150 million children on the streets at present. Or is this reality not the one you like to face, instead embracing the puesdo-reality of a system that is still at this (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) think (...) Thank you for noticing. And you probably didn't realize what a jerk you were, before, either. The reason I've been so impolite in these past few posts (moreso than is typical for my normally (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Don't sweat it, Richard--John obviously has issues far in excess of this particular discussion, and I'm not going to be flustered by his shotgun-style attempts at wit or wisdom. Dave! (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Actually, they removed it from their product when there was a law passed against cocaine. Or so I'd heard. (...) Nor do they even seem willing to admit that nicotine is addictive. I mean, for crying out loud: "I, personally, do not believe (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) "Now back to the _old_ old formula!" Jasper (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Making you grow up. I must say I'm getting to be sorely tempted to throw you in the Plink-bin myself. That'd be a first on lugnet for me. (...) Oh, lord. What is it about "Your way of dealing with this is less than ideal" that makes you read (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) John, can you actually _read_? You sure don't act like it. And then you have the nerve to call others 'imbecile'. Of all things. Cool it or can it. Jasper (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) See my reasoning as to "libertarian = feudal" now? Jasper (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) And some will send their children to school not at all, which is the whole crux of the argument. Jasper (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Uh, no. The paperless office is a big myth. The ease with which paper is created id one of the biggest problems of our times, IMHO. Let printer ink and toner be taxed at an additional $2.50 per page, I say. _THEN_ we'll see a paperless office. (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) What experiment? (...) Thats pretty much what I said. there are much better ways to deal with "the problem" (when it is one) than the current ways. If you don't accept that, we don't need to talk to each (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian theory and altruism (was: some incorrectly spelled thing not worth repeating
|
|
(...) Yes. Have you? I'd go with no you haven't really "studied" it, if you're positing tulip mania as some sort of actual free market thing or example of why business cycles are inevitable. (...) The most free societies are the most charitable. (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
I don't have time to participate as I'd like to, this week, and probably not next week either... so I'll be brief. This is not directed at anyone in particular, but let's try to calm down, shall we? There is no reason to be snotty to each other, (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
We all have good and bad days I guess. Richard (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Wow. I didn't realize what a jerk you were before. (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) I'm not sure of the mechanism by which this works. All corporate meetings must be in public? No one is allowed walls on their offices? What is the enforcement mechanism? (...) It may do a "piss poor" job, but at least it's there to do (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) "Deluded" is still pretty strong name calling. If this were Usenet, I'd put you in my killfile now. It being LUGnet, I'll see if the social experiment is working. (...) Let me get this 100% clear. You are saying to me: Get real. Not 100% of (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) think (...) I (...) I looked at those eariler. Thought I should give it some thought before answering. One wrong word and there'd be hell to pay. :-) Its funny, though, that you don't know what a right is. (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Swearing? {Was: Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])}
|
|
(...) And who said that debate was circlar? Richard (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) I disagree :) As just because Marx described a system that involved 100% tax, it doesn't mean that 100% tax is Marxist. Leaving aside questions of how, if a sustainable Utopia was created that had 100% tax, then why not? In principle I'm (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) convince (...) Simple, don't hold corporations accountable, but human beings. As it is now, corporations are running amuck, because the people who run them are able to hide. Take away their "immunity" and (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) Wrong. You are deluded. Crack smokers are not "necessarily" bad parents. Just like social drinkers or pot smokers are not necessarily bad parents. Some people are effected by drugs differently than others. (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) It's an interesting idea, but the legal companies you mention that thrive upon such cases are not likely to make the courts any less decongested. It's not even almost in their interest. (...) That's 2 times in 7 minutes - both times I've been (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) HEY. That is totally uncalled for. There's no reason to be calling me names. And it makes me respect you a lot less. But, to answer your question: Althought may I sound flippant, for which I apologize, I'm totally serious. People who smoke (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) That's not what I'm saying at all, my statement above could easily have read "I believe that most people aren't part of such a community". (...) I believe that they get to spend their leave as they wish - some weeks before, some after.. go to (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote in message ... (...) "responsibility" (...) then? (...) from (...) fiscal (...) wealthy (...) Because man. There would be other rich people, who make money off of poorer people by suing the hell out of rich people or corporations (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
So people who smoke crack are bad? Don't you? You act like it. Look, if a person wants to use crack, thats fine. If he can't manage his responsibilities, thats when his crack use becomes less than fine. Thats when he starts breaking laws and (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
John DiRienzo <ig88888888@stlnet.com> wrote: [snip] (...) Hey John -- I started to reply to this message, but then realized I can't really. I don't understand what you mean by "right", or by "free good". Could you repond to my questions in the (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38cbca36.283882876@...et.com>... (...) bit (...) I'm (...) seem (...) Do you mean you back slid Jasper? You were catching on, then refused to accept anymore of it? Well, thats cool with me. At least you still debate (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
