Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 29 Jun 1999 19:21:48 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
LPIENIAZEK@NOVERA.stopspammersCOM
|
Viewed:
|
1065 times
|
| |
|
|
Thomas Main wrote:
> Larry, as I think we all know, is a masterdebater.
Please please please, don't anyone remove that key syllable, thank you.
The new Victoria's Secret catalog just came, you'll have to excuse me
while I go study it closely. (1)
> I can't begin to understand insurance companies and how they operate and
> how they're regulated.
> Each can pay according to his or her ability. All will be treated
> according to their need.
I certainly understand the first quoted statement you make in light of
the second.
To have a debate you have to have a common ground, and I have no common
ground with those who espouse the second statement. There are only two
reasons for espousing it. Either you believe it to be true, or you
don't, but you espouse it anyway.
To truly believe that it is valid, workable, or moral means that your
morals are flawed, as you have no respect whatever for property rights.
As you may recall at the time of the great RTL price tag debate, my
standing on this point is rather firm and unalterable. All rights are
property rights and anyone who claims that they have the right to
redistribute my property or anyone else's property as they see fit
("according to need") is morally flawed. Until and unless you repudiate
this evil morality, we have no basis for discussion. Come and get my
property, if you think you're tough enough.
Thomas, we have done deals before. Would it have been OK if I promised
to send you goods, took your money, then claimed that my need for the
goods was greater than your need for the money you sent me and did not
send them? Suppose I had a perfectly valid reason for claiming it to be
the case, at least from my perspective. It's irrelevant whether you
agreed or not, after all... my need is paramount, isn't it. If you can't
see the parallel to free goods that society provides then you need to go
off and think a while.
Those who espouse that statement and believe it have been brainwashed,
have not thought it through, or are evil. It's that simple, that cut and
dried, that easy, at least under my moral code. Those who really espouse
it are not to be trusted, so if you really mean it, you just moved to my
Cash In Advance list. Sorry about that.
Now, those who espouse it and do NOT believe it are in some respects
worse. They have figured out how to ride the gravy train of pain,
skimming off a little (2) off the top while doling out lump free gravy
to the needy. I'm sure Stalin didn't buy it, he just went along for the
ride.
1 - I'm back. That felt better.
2 - 65 cents on the dollar according to a recent study of the
administrative costs of delivering welfare benefits in NY state.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
433 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
|
|
|
|
