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 00:58:13 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@novera.NOSPAMcom
|
Viewed:
|
1455 times
|
| |
|
|
<37D44B67.BC996AD6@voyager.net> <FHtIB8.M2G@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Simon Robinson wrote:
>
> I thought I'd made it clear that I do not believe in theft.
I'm replying to you in this thread so it may seem like I'm picking on
you. I don't intend that it seem that way and I believe that you
sincerely believe that you don't believe in theft, and further that you
sincerely believe that taxation is not theft. Sorry if that's not coming
through very clearly.
> I think all of
> us here respect property rights.
However I don't actually think that is the case. Moz has been quoted as
saying what I consider to be the opposite...
Lar:
> > Do you or do you not believe that it's right to take ("by force or
> > fraud") money from those who have?
Moz:
> I believe it is not merely right, it is a moral imperitive.
He did not qualify that to say "it's OK when governments do it but not
when people do"...
> 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.
Point well taken. To be precise then: it is my perception that your
support of taxation and your support of the notion that property rights
can be violated for the good of the community is theft. It is not your
perception that it is theft. Under my moral system, your morals are
therefore flawed. You can validly claim that they are not flawed under
your moral system because you do not accept the same basic premises that
I do.
Fair enough?
> 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?
Yes.
However, and maybe I'm rising to troll bait here, you don't have a right
not to be upset by my otherwise lawful actions. That is, while I can
understand that you may be upset by my applying criteria that you find
arbitrary or even ludicroous, and while I may of my own free will choose
to take that you are upset into account, or not, I nevertheless can do
as I will and you yourself are doing the choosing of whether to be upset
or not. I cannot force you to be upset or happy, that is your own doing.
> 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.
Me too. It is important to distinguish between behaviours that one would
advocate and behaviours that one must tolerate if one is to honor
rights.
> 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?
In that hypothetical situation, yes. (1)
However in practice that level of discrimination (where EVERYONE
discriminates against a group) is not likely. The free market is after
all about freedom. Some enterprising person will soon begin serving the
underserved market. It requires government action to enforce the level
of discrimination that SA had against blacks and soon will against
whites (my prediction).
1 - This is why I dislike these hypothetical questions. One starts from
ludicrous premises, and unsurprisingly, arrives at a ludicrous result. I
let John DiR tackle that whole lifeboat/loaf of bread thread, which he
did, admirably, because it is so far removed from reality as to not be
an instructive example.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
