Subject:
|
Re: Patriotism or Mass Hysteria?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 25 Apr 2003 21:10:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
383 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > You're kidding, right? You're saying, in effect, that you are free to
> > assert your opinions as facts, but I'm held to a higher rhetorical standard?
>
> No, we're to the same standard I would say.
Pardon? If we're held to the same standard, then why do you feel free to
dispense little nuggets as if they're revealed truth, but you require me to
prove my arguments?
> > Since you're the one on the outside making the claim contrary to the
> > existing system, it is up to you to prove your point; it is not up to me to
> > disprove it.
> > I will consider the point ceded if you merely hit me with a bunch of links
> > or simply declare matter "ploughed ground" or "already decided by the market
> > of ideas" without giving a better defense.
>
> There's no better defense than the market of ideas in this sphere but I do
> not have to prove a point to your satisfaction or else "cede" it. There are
> other possible outcomes.
Let's hear them. Perhaps, instead of saying "you" in that context, I
should have address the question to Libertarianism-at-large. Regardless, I
didn't say anything about proving it to me; the market of ideas has
generated a system in which government regulation exists. That's all the
proof that we can currently accept, unless you can point to another
contemporary, US-sized example. If something else exists that is better,
let it demonstrate itself at the scale of the US economy--one can't usefully
stand on the sidelines and declare it-should-be-so.
I don't know if you're wiggling per se, but you certainly haven't
advanced your point nor answered the question.
> Well... ISN'T it settled fact that governments have the monopoly on lawful
> force initiation? Help me out here. Don't go all Scott Arthur on me, just
> say what you're trying to say. Do they or don't they?
As I've stated clearly in several posts, it is settled fact that, within
the United States, the Federal government in a contract with its citizens,
and the enforcement of that contract can come in the form of armed response,
incarceration, financial penalty, or other forms. Part of the contract
between the Fed and the citizenry permits the Fed to use these means to
enforce the terms of the contract. It is not *initiation* of force, though
you seem avid to paint it that way.
Suppose that you and I entered a contract with one another, and in the
contract it was stated that the defaulting party would be subject to
financial penalties due he other party. Now suppose that I defaulted; would
you be initiating force if you required me to pay the agreed-upon financial
penalties?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Patriotism or Mass Hysteria?
|
| (...) No, we're to the same standard I would say. (...) There's no better defense than the market of ideas in this sphere but I do not have to prove a point to your satisfaction or else "cede" it. There are other possible outcomes. (...) Well... (...) (22 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
