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:
|
Fri, 10 Sep 1999 00:21:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1626 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Right. I read it. I just don't agree. I DO think that there is some
> amount of muddy thinking about rights in redistributionist thinking,
> we'll get to that in a bit. My concern, and I will persist in holding it
> to be valid in my situation, is that once you think it's OK to violate
> rights by having government take, or for you personally to steal "for a
> good cause" where does it stop?
I thought I'd made it clear that I do not believe in theft. I think all of
us here respect property rights. Where we
disagree is that the money that you claim you should not be paying
in tax is money that I believe was never rightfully yours to claim
in the first place. It belongs to the community as a whole and
taxation is the way in which it reaches the community.
We are going to disagree about that - that's fair enough. If you want
to put it down to muddy thinking on my part then I wouldn't agree but
that's fair enough too. I'm sure we'll have many
arguments about it in the future. But don't keep putting words in my
mouth that I haven't said by making out that I claim to support theft.
> > I think part of the reason I found what you said a bit offensive was that
> > there seemed to be a tone in it of 'anyone who agrees with me must
> > be intrinsically more trustworthy' Sorry if that wasn't what you intended -
> > but I think you can probably see the problem with that attitude without me
> > commenting on it :).
>
> Yes, if that were my attitude (that is, I would trust some guy off the
> street I had never traded with who happened to be waving a don't tread
> on me flag and wearing a Marrou for president button more than I trusted
> people who I had a long history of successful trades with who happened
> to hold redistributionist views) you'd certainly be justified in getting
> your back up. I would too.
OK - I think I understand that and respect that, though I suspect what
you're talking about is more a difference of degree rather than substance.
But anyway - this is by way of a troll. Do I detect a contradiction here?
You argue that you have the right to use whatever criteria you want, but
then you indicate that there are certain criteria that - IF you did reason
that way (accepted that you don't) THEN I would be justified in being
upset. Don't your own arguments imply that you have every right to
trust a stranger because they're wearing a Marrou for President button
more than someone with a long trading history with you?
> > As an example, a few people have discussed the fact that blacks are in
> > general more likely to commit crimes. Whatever the reasons for that,
> > that means that I would presumably be quite correct to trust a black man
> > whom I didn't know less than I would trust a white man that I didn't know -
> > because the truth is that the black man _is_ statistically more likely to
> > turn out to be someone who's going to beat me up[2]. Your argument seems
> > to suggest that I'm quite within my rights to take that attitude.
>
> Yes, it does suggest that, and you are within them. We must be careful
> to distinguish between the free acts of commerce between free
> individuals, and the monopolistic use of force by government ostensibly
> in the service of enforcing rights. I guess I would ask you why you
> would NOT in fact trust someone you had no other information about but
> who was statistically more likely to do you wrong less than someone you
> had no other information about but who was statisticially less likey to
> do you wrong? To ignore information available to you seems counter
> survival. (1)
I could see a situation in which I instinctively would be inclined not
to trust someone as much because of what I know about the crime
statistics, but that I would make a deliberate effort to consciously
override that and act as if I trusted them anyway because I do not want
to do something that interferes with their rights or increases
discrimination.
> I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Discrimination by private
> individuals, while sometimes reprehensible, must be allowed.
> Discrimination by government, which has a monopoly, must be prohibited.
But what if private individuals carry out discrimination in such numbers
as to seriously interfere with the lives of others. Take South Africa
for example. Suppose hypothetically the Government hadn't
itself discriminated against blacks, but all the companies that
employed people, and everyone who owned land or property, and
all the shopkeepers, had systematically discriminated against
blacks in a way that achieved virtually the same effect. Should
that be allowed?
Simon
http://www.SimonRobinson.com
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
