Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Jul 1999 01:23:03 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@novera#NoMoreSpam#.com
|
Viewed:
|
1044 times
|
| |
|
|
Jeff Stembel wrote:
> we humans *need* to respect and feel compassion
> for people, who for reasons beyond their control, can't afford to take care of
> themselves.
OK, OK, I give in. I'll feel compassion for those people in the US that
for reasons beyond their control can't afford to take care of
themselves. All 2 of them.
That was a flippant remark, but it makes a point. If you want my help,
you have to DESERVE it under my morality, which is superior (see below)
to yours and anyone elses who uses need as a yardstick. Most of the
rotters out there (including Ed's "A" if "A" is anything like many
factory workers I know) don't deserve it.
CARE right now is helping the Kosovars that we screwed over so badly
with our bogus air war. They're a 85%+ efficient charity according to my
somewhat cursory investigation. I gave .25% of my annual income to them
just last week, how much did you give? I've given 3 gallons of my blood
so far in my life, because the ARC is very good with administering blood
donations. Habitat for Humanity has received over 3 thousand dollars
from me so far in my life, and I could go on for quite a while longer
listing off causes I support. So I'll stack my compassion against
anyone's.
But it's my choice who I support voluntarily. I'm not keen on
involutarily supporting a government that throws its weight around in
foreign adventures, CAUSING suffering, so that the president can hide
his moral failings behind improved poll numbers. (George Bush, call your
office, please... you screwed the Kurds over pretty good, and the
Somalians too)
> How can something fail a moral argument? Wouldn't that mean those morals are
> wrong? How do you determine what morals are wrong?
My morality and my world view is superior to the looters code because
it's life affirming, not life denying. The looters code tries to repeal
cause and effect by usurping the rights of the productive to aid the
rotters.
> Or better yet, what gives you the right to determine which morals are wrong?
I'd say I have more right to make that determination than you do to my
property. And those are inextricably intertwined.
You can't have it both ways, if you claim I don't have the right to
determine my morals and how good they are, then you don't either. That
is, you don't have the right to force me to support your causes because
you've determined they are morally superior to the causes I choose to
voluntarily support. I'd like to see you work your way out of THAT one.
A key point of Libertarianism that I haven't been articulating very
clearly is that Libertarianism, per se (not to be confused with me and
my strict/harsh sense of right and wrong) mostly makes a utilitarian
argument, and welcomes anyone to follow any moral code they choose IN SO
LONG AS IN SO FOLLOWING IT THEY DO NOT INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF
OTHERS... <emphasis mine>
You're welcome to support whatever causes you choose to, give as little
or as much of your property to whoever you choose to, you just are not
similarly free with mine.
Libertarianism, unlike, say redneck-Republicanism (only one brand of it,
but a rather dominant one) is at the root a very tolerant and pacifistic
philosophy, believing that the majority of people, properly incented,
are basically honest and good, and will do the right thing. For the
rest, justice must be swift and sure, but it will be justice, not
kangaroo-courting such as the Branch Davidians got at the hands of
Murderer Reno.
> I guess humanity isn't in your vocabulary?
Actually it's not in yours, for to be completely altruistic is to be
evil and inhuman. I value achievement, effort, fair play, honesty and
greatness, the good qualities that are our defining human qualities. The
looters code values shiftlessness, avoidance, lies and treachery. To be
a looter is to be, in the final analysis, not fully human.
> How does one earn the "good" of medical attention? Hold a job, make money
> and pay for it? So only fully functional, successful adults should get medical
> attention? Babies, children, and some disabled and senior citizens don't
> usually hold jobs and earn an income, so how can they earn the "good" of
> medical attention?
Ah, yes... THIS tired old polemic. Slowly now, try to keep up here. I
have a job and I provide care for myself, my babies, my children, and my
dependent senior citizens. If I had any disabled, and I had been selfish
enough not to check for that via genetic testing or amniocentesis before
I fathered them, why, it would be my responsiblity to care for them too.
In libertopia, jobs would be so plentiful and the economy so bountiful,
that all who wished to exert themselves productively would be able to
provide for themselves and those they cherished. Including setting aside
money for health insurance and disability insurance, and retirement.
That leaves only those who choose not to do so, who must face the
consequences of their decision, and those who through no fault of their
own have no one that loves them (all 2 of them). Those folks I am sure
will do OK... good hearted citizens such as you (and I) will take care
of them voluntarily.
> Personally, I believe medical attention is part of a
> person's right to life and the pursuit of happiness.
Bully for you. Spend your goods on it. I believe no one has a right to
unearned goods. There is no guarantee of equality of outcomes.
> And I *know* that my
> morals are *not* flawed, because only *I* can determine that. They are *my*
> morals, after all, and all morals are are opinions on what is right and wrong.
No, morals are the internal compass that guide decisions. If your morals
are life denying, they're wrong by definition.
> Don't you believe in virtues? Compassion is a Virtue! Some people didn't get
> the same oportunities that you have gotten. So we should just ignore their
> needs and rights?
Compassion is not necessarily a virtue. I certainly believe in virtues,
I have them all. Just ask me, I'll tell you. Or ask Mike. And
Libertarianism is all about ensuring the rights of all are respected.
But rights are about behaviours, not goods. Uncle Sugar won't be
delivering the mana to your neighborhood any more.
> So you think they government would kill you if you didn't pay taxes?
Yes. Really. Stick with me here, I'll try to go slowly. I guess I'm not
too surprised I need to spell this out given your general level of
comprehension of cause and effect, but hey...
Take person J who feels (and is morally justified in doing so) that he
should not have to pay taxes. Unlike say, person L, who has decided to
pay some taxes anyway, without granting the sanction of the victim to
the tax collector, because it's easier to go along with the thugs, J
decides not to pay. So come April 15th J in effect (maybe he just
doesn't file) sends in a letter saying "this year I ain't paying, what
are you going to do about it?".
Sooner or later a US marshal is going to arrive at J's house and take
him away, or try. If J decides not to go, sooner or later more marshals
will come, with bigger guns, and make him. If J still resists arrest,
they shoot him. He's dead.
What exactly is so complicated about that?
Now usually it doesn't come to this, we have arrests, trials, jails,
etc., but what exactly is it that you think the government, in the
person of the police, uses to enforce its will, daisies? It's force.
In a well regulated government that's a GOOD THING. We NEED the
government to be able to respond in force against the looters that are
usurping rights of citizens. That's why we have a government, after all,
to use force against those that would use it against us.
> I'm sorry, but that has got to be one the most idiotically paranoid statements
> I've ever heard.
I'm sorry but "the government WOULDN'T kill you if you didn't pay taxes"
has got to be one of the most idiotically naiive statement's I've ever
heard.
> Why the hell are you living here, then?
It's better than everywhere else, my parents paid to be here with their
blood, and I'm peacefully working within the system for change. Don't
forget, the tide is turning. The US is becoming more Libertarian each
day, no matter whether the looters like it or not.
What's your excuse for being here?
> As far as I'm concerned, you're just a rabble-rouser.
Thanks. That's the nicest thing you've said so far. Somebody has to
rouse the rabble, you know.
> Oh, and if the Government was reformed into your views of how
> it should work, not only would I be out of a job, I'd leave.
See ya. I dunno what your job is, but I imagine you have useful skills.
So if your current job is counting gargoyles on the outside of the HHS
building in DC, ya, your job might be toast. But if you have skills and
are willing to work you'll do fine. If you're scared at the thought of
having to work for a living, I understand completely if you want to go
somewhere else.
> Why? In the
> state you propose, Anarchy would reign, and all the gun nuts with assault
> rifles and uzis and such would rule.
Why would that be? See, this is the part of the "usual attacks" that
gets me steamed.
Please demonsrate how having police focus on the key common law crimes
(assault, murder, robbery, rape, etc.) instead of arresting people for
victimless crimes, harrassing people for their sexual preferences or
thoughts and busting people for Driving While Black will lead to some
sort of increase in crime or anarchy.
Go read our program and platform on crime and refute that, if you can,
instead of these straw dogs you raise.
> How does it help those who don't get the same oportunities as you get? Does it
> guarentee anything for them?
It guarantees no outcomes for anyone. There are no guarantees in life,
Ifni's dice don't roll that way. I can guarantee you the worlds best
shot at equality of opportunity in libertopia, just as the founding
fathers did here in the US before we strayed. If you want equality of
outcomes, sorry. Go repeal cause and effect, then come back and we'll
talk.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
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 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
|
|
|
|
