Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 3 Jul 1999 03:21:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1202 times
|
| |
|
|
John DiRienzo wrote in message ...
> Frank Filz wrote in message <377A8667.334E@mindspring.com>...
> > Ed Jones wrote:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > > > I think that in a perfect liberatopia, all three of these people would
> > > > have no problem getting the care they need, through charity.
> > > So you are saying that these people have the right to the care that they • need.
> >
> > No.
>
>
> No, he did not say that. Its funny how people who like to take other
> people's property also like to take other people's words and misuse them.
Are you commenting on my words or Ed's here?
> > > Isn't charity the giving of free goods?
> >
> > Yes and no.
>
>
> Frank is catching on quick, but I do not see how the answer is yes and
> no. PLMK.
My "yes and no" was that in one sense, charity is the giving of goods
without expecting something in return (shorthand "free goods"), but it is
also a "no" because many (most?) charities don't give without expecting
_something_ in return (in fact, in the strictest sense, no charity gives
without expectation of _something_ in return, even if the only thing they
expect in return is to "feel good", and yes, happiness is also a good (so in
a sense, you really can buy happiness).
> That is one of the virtues of selfishness (thats a pun for any one who
> missed it) - its more of a trait. All of us who hold selfishness as a
> virtue are seen as cold and uncaring, when that really is untrue. I am
> selfish (you have to love your self) and the higher society rises,
> inevitably the higher I can. Our current society is, in fact, much more
> cold and uncaring than the libertopia these guys are wishing for. If
> society becomes a better place for the people at the top, it also becomes a
> better place for those in between and at the bottom. Just compare the
> luxuries of wealth now to 100 years ago, and do the same for the
> impoverished now and 100 years ago - all have escalated. The gap may be
> larger, but EVERYONE is better off now. Of course life is what you make of
> it, if you choose to make nothing of it, you will obtain your goal,
> regardless of how well society manages.
By the definition of "selfish" in my dictionary (Random House Unabridged),
I don't think Libertarians are selfish:
selfish, adj. 1. devoted to or caring only for oneself;
concerned primarily for one's own interests, benefits,
welfare, etc., regardless of others.
That last "regardless of others" doesn't jibe with Libertarianism (at least
from what I am understanding). In fact, I'd use selfish more to describe the
"thieves" Larry is talking about.
Frank
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
