| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > > > > That makes capitalism moral and communism immoral. That's a good enough
> > > > > argument right there.
> > > >
> > > > Excuse me? How does what you have stated above the last line make one moral
> > > > and one immoral?
> > >
> > > Unless it is moral to dispose of people and all their property however a
> > > central committee sees fit, one is moral and the other isn't.
> >
> > But it isn't clear at the extremities whether your implication of morality is
> > correct. For instance, during the recent discusion of the handling of Ender >by
> > the powers that be, you acknowledged that they were not clearly evil because >of
> > the gravity of the situation. So even you agree that in _some_ cases the
> > morality of self-disposition breaks down as an absolute. I certainly agree.
> > But how, if we're going to believe in a system with exceptions, do we >determine where the exceptions lie?
>
> OK. Fair enough. If a system fails to live by its principles in extremis and
> acts in immoral ways, then it isn't perfect. But we can still quite easily
> judge it to be morally far superior to a system that systematically acts
> immorally. Friedman addresses this when he shreds the standard Libertarian
> morals/rights based justification by showing that it fails at the
> boundaries. But the conclusion he comes to is that while it may not be
> perfectly moral it nevertheless is superior to perfectly immoral systems,
> such as the system under examination.
>
> Let me restate, unless you believe slavery and theft are OK, no matter how
> trifling the justification for them, communism is immoral. So is any mixed
> economy, actually, but less so.
Slavery and theft indeed. How objective you are. Materialism in western
society is the current norm. You should not feel that anything else is
"immoral". It must be asked why the US victimises this country due to what
you call "immoral" politics/economics, but is eager trade with others (China
& Vietnam) and defends one of the most brutal murderous of countries:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1258000/1258187.stm
Any answers?
I have one : $
Scott A
>
> > Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) Thank you. (...) No idea what you're trying to say there. (...) Yes. The US is a mixed economy, not a libertarian one, or an anarcho capitalist one, or even a plain old capitalist one. Therefore its policy is not what you would see from any of (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) I know that we've been around this bend in the river before, but what exactly are your objections to those terms? Checking the dictionary and massaging the concepts just a little (really just a tiny little bit) (actually, not much at all) they (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) OK. Fair enough. If a system fails to live by its principles in extremis and acts in immoral ways, then it isn't perfect. But we can still quite easily judge it to be morally far superior to a system that systematically acts immorally. (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
- 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
|
|
|
|
