Subject:
|
Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 7 Sep 1999 12:26:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1646 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote
> I know this is Larry's argument, but why would you resent that? If
> Larry is risking his money and reputation, he should be able to consider
> anything he wants when making the decisions on who is trustworthy.
Aha, but privately thinking something is different from publically stating
it. Doing so crosses a threshold of accountability, and brings responsibility.
On the one hand the statement does imply much more about Larrys thinking than
it does about anything else. On the other hand, he is saying that those
with a socialist bent are inherently dishonest, which is objectionable.
But we all understand that Larry operates from a specific set of assumptions,
and his meaning is clear as a result.
> Right? And why wouldn't political views matter? Listen to what he's saying.
I do. And I'm interested that such views excite so little comment from USAians.
> Do you or do you not believe that it's right to take ("by force or
> fraud") money from those who have?
I believe it is not merely right, it is a moral imperitive.
> If so, and particularly contrasted
> to those of us who don't believe that's right, then why does it suck to
> assume that you _might_ act in accord with those morals?
Because, like Larry, I have made my reasons clear, and also the mechanism
by which I think those morals can legitimately be employed. It is the
same reason that I don't fear that Larry will kill me and attempt to
buy off my next of kin. Doing so fits his moral outlook [1], but I think
he's sufficiently attached to the world that he realises he can't apply
his principles directly.
> If you are trustworthy, despite your politics, then I suspect you're
> uncomfortable with one of two things:
What nonsense. Most people make a clear distinction between actions by
individuals and things undertaken on behalf of a community, with the
clear sanction of that community. Why else would the USA encumber its
government with even the pretense of accountability? Even Larry seems
to regard accountability as a good thing.
> Yes, but if you did, and did so rationally, you would see that Larry's
> political views support the idea that he is a reliable trading partner.
I agree with you, because he seems to believe in the sanctity of property.
In fact, he's in many ways an ideal trading partner, because he is
meticulous about such things. People like me who regard money as a tool
and its purpose to be the provision of entertainment are generally
terrible trading partners, because we're likely to find administrivia
boring and so avoid doing it. That, to me, is a far better reason to
claim I'm not reliable than any nonsense about politics.
> Because it's not a matter of simply disagreeing. Larry (it seems)
> doesn't hold Christianity against potential trade partners, since theft
> isn't implicit in a Christian philosophy. Do you see?
No. Theft is at the core of Christian beliefs. For starters the prohibition
of ursury (that is, allowing market forces to set interest rates), the
various requirements to be your brothers keeper (the church sanctions the
theft of your property to support your brother). And don't start me on
tithing, especially as traditionally done by the church when it is very
much extortion. That's just some easy ones off the top of my head.
> > quite ironic given that my own views in politics imply that I personally,
> > given my current financial status, should be paying more tax.
So Larry claims that he himself commits theft, but his supporters refuse to
accept his word. Oh well. I suppose theft as "I am morally obliged to pay
this, but choose not to even though I could afford it" is different from
whatever sort of obligation to pay his trading partners he recognises.
Moz
[1] He belief that everything is property and can be purchased. Even after
the fact. See our discussion of speeding and compensation on Lugnet.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
277 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
|
|
|
|
