Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 14 May 2001 15:17:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1465 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > Minerva is but one of many failed attempts. They go to prove Larry's claim
> > > that there is an impermiable barrier to entry. Unfortunate.
> >
> > I know that this isn't what you or Larry meant,
>
> While I do agree with where you're going, once you get there (see below, I
> don't just start at the beginning of a post and insert bon mots without
> going back and seeing if they make sense or not in the context of the whole
> post) why bring it up, though? Isn't it a bit of a straw dog argument? I'm
> trying hard not to do these things, anyway...
I suppose I didn't phrase my intent very clearly. What I meant was that,
although I know you and Chris aren't proposing things in this
(non-falsifiable, et al) way, there are those who would do so, thereby
damaging the credibility of what could be at least partially a viable
system. Even if the system in toto wouldn't work in the real world, we can
all agree that elements of it could work nicely even as applied to the
current system.
> > Other claims follow the route that failed attempts at Libertopian
> > structures failed because they weren't real Libertarian structures. This,
> > too, is problematic, since it's non-falsifiable
> Which is why I tend to say things like Libertopia is an idealized system not
> a real proposal.
Well, in that regard (and how many others! 8^) you're something of an
anomaly. Many Libertarians I've heard on TV and in real life espouse a much
more drastic and unrealistic "it must be this way, and right now" sort of
view. These, I believe, are the macho-flash Libertarians you've mentioned
previously, and I think we both agree that they're damaging to the larger
discussion regardless of my agreement or disagreement with either side.
> Nevertheless I do think it would be interesting to conduct an experiment and
> try to identify all the "why it failed" excuses in advance and eliminate all
> of them in advance if we can. Interesting, probably not practical.
Interesting indeed, and anyone honestly interested in the discussion
should whole-heartedly support such an experiment.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
