Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:03:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1163 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > >
> > > > You seem to be confusing between choosing from what's available, with having
> > > > a right to choose from what's available, with somehow expecting that you
> > > > should be offered whatever happens to suit your fancy.
> > > > So, yes, I can argue it.
> > >
> > > Sorry if I haven't been clear. I don't have any expectation that the market
> > > will provide me whatever I fancy, in this market or any other. What my
> > > expectation is, though, is that for it to be a free market, there cannot be
> > > unreasonable coercive barriers to entry. I argue that the "market for
> > > governments" has unreasonable coercive barriers to entry.
> >
> > I'm still not getting where you are going with this, Larry. Free market of
> > governments? What in the world does that have to do with inheritable
> > contracts as a system of stable (or coercive) government? Unreasonable
> > coercive barriers to entry into government? That would seem to be arguing
> > the particulars of a system rather than a broad concept behind continuity
> > (or about getting into government). I said this at the start: I don't see
> > how any of this relates - perhaps it would be better to start a new thread
> > and divorce this from the current one entirely and maybe I'll get it then?
>
> This subthread got a start when someone said "if you don't like it (that you
> inherited a contract), vote with your feet". Perfectly valid statement. What
> I was trying to point out was that it is not a perfect solution. Life isn't
> perfect, of course, but in this case it's not a free market, the existing
> governments act in ways that prevent new governments from forming. All of
> them do this.
>
> So the "vote with your feet" argument isn't perfect.
News Flash--nothing is perfect. Not to bring religion into it, but we live
in a fallen world. Beyond the religions scope, Democracy is the 'lesser of
all evils". Heck, you and I don't even live in a pure democratic society,
and basically used the 3 in a "mostly" balanced way--monarchy, aristocracy,
and democracy as the way for governing our countries.
But what we can hope to achieve is not perfection, but what is Just and right.
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
164 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
|
|
|
|
