 | | Re: War
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: Oh, and further, in the general case, it is the parent that is at fault when the parent does not adequately provide for the minor child. Not external factors or causes that the parent could have (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Freedom vs. Wellfare (was: War)
|
|
(...) I agree with most of that, including that it is not just that the child suffer for the fault of the father. But I could imagine some other ways of ensuring that he doesn't, besides allowing adoption. Isn't there quite possibly a mother who (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare (was: War)
|
|
(...) Potentially, if that's what the mother wants to do. (...) Where does this money come from? Taxpayers, or voluntary contributions? If the former, it is *less* just to extort funds from yet more victims (the taxpayers) to allow the father to (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare
|
|
Hello Larry, (...) Now, this is exactly where we differ. While you seem to always look at the situation from the imprisoned father's perspective, I see the child to be an innocent victim of the father. And if you feel as a victim just because you (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare
|
|
(...) I would *not* want to pay. He should pay for his own incarceration to the maximum extent possible, but when he cannot we must pay to keep him there in order to protect ourselves. (...) The child starves to death. (...) No they should not. But (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare
|
|
Hello Larry, hello everybody, (...) So the goods you need to be kept alive (in a decent way, I would add) are not rights? What value does the right to live have, then, if it is OK for others to just let me starve, without any fault on my side (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare
|
|
(...) Please don't move it to email, Horst. Your contributions have been extremely well thought out and useful and you are now getting to a point that I have been looking for a reasonable way to raise to hear Larry's 'total free market' view on. (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare
|
|
(...) I think the issue here is the fact that the state collects taxes, and uses them as *it* sees fit. In a free market, everyone would still have the right to help the abandoned child as they see fit, without the state "forcing" them to. Where (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare
|
|
(...) That is a correct restatement of what I said, yes. There are no rights to free goods. This is a fundamental tenet of my belief system. It is not held by all americans (witness those who feel a tithe to their church is a mandatory moral (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | not sure what to call this
|
|
Hmm... not sure if you are referring to whence resource property rights, or is it the luck factor that you are wondering about. (...) Chris has alluded to this problem in the past. Asserting labor mixin as a mechanism to getting title to previously (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The value of environmental assets (was Re: not sure what to call this)
|
|
(...) I think it's both actually: (...) Yes, this is exactly the problem. It was solved in Antarctica by dividing up among nations that were close or had 'discovered' it and this has worked mainly because they also all agreed to leave the natural (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The value of environmental assets (was Re: not sure what to call this)
|
|
(...) I think it's both actually: (...) Yes, this is exactly the problem. It was solved in Antarctica by dividing up among nations that were close or had 'discovered' it and this has worked mainly because they also all agreed to leave the natural (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: not sure what to call this
|
|
(...) I agree. (...) I agree. (...) I don't agree. Not that I have to offer a better system, but how can you prove it's impossible? (...) I agree on freedom, but then, isn't there also a price others in the world have to pay for our freedom? If so, (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare
|
|
(...) This is probably the best statement I have read here on the topic ... Thanks for it, Ross, and greetings Horst (who is a bit behind in reading news ...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare
|
|
(...) And you would hold that even if what they take away from you is pure luxury, whereas they need it to survive? Well, a humanistic attitude IMO goes a bit more towards enabling a decent life for everybody. It also does not contain a right to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The value of environmental assets (was Re: not sure what to call this)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Simon Bennett writes: If you had placed Aboriginal Australians in (...) Although this is wrong from a human point of view, genetically it is of course correct. The genes of the conqueror's thrive more than those of the (...) (21 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
