Subject:
|
Re: Justice for all.....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:43:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1400 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> > > When people are involved, nothing works as well in practice as it
> > > does in theory. Look at economics. You can do all sorts of nifty
> > > mathematical extrapolations with supply and demand, but once you
> > > involve actual people the rules don't work because they introduce
> > > too much chaos.
> >
> > Since it's Christmas^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hthe Holidays, I figure I
> > should throw in this nugget for you debators. I also think
> > this is the problem with Libertarianism (is that a word?) In Theory
> > it sounds like a really good system, but it falls apart in practice
>
> It (in pure form) hasn't been tried in practice.
>
> > because of people.
>
> Why? Take as your base assumption that people are basically good, with
> some exceptions,
I think that's a bad assumption. Human beings didn't evolve to what
we are by being nice to all the other furry creatures, or for that matter,
other local tribes of human beings. Goodness came later, when we
had time for that sort of thing. You're not a creationist are you?
> and set up your system to reward goodness and punish badness.
> Suffering the consequences of your actions in my view is such a system.
What about escalating revenge because of the application of the
consequences?
> The devil is in the details of course but it's hard to dismiss
> Libertarianism outright when the empirical evidence suggests that
> freer systems work better than less free ones and the freer you
> get the better they tend to work (what was the unemployment rate
> in Germany again??)
No argument there. I notice you used the words "suggests" and "tend".
implying that things don't always live up to the ideal.
> > Plus maybe it needs to be a closed system like
> > those pesky thermodynamics thingies.
>
> Why? Not exactly following you there. Better to make the system open,
> that is, allow external inputs such as power and resources from elsewhere
> in the solar system, rather than closed.
If you have people working outside the Libertarian system they can break
the rules without any consequences. Who will apply the consequences on
behalf of the Libertarians if they're all dead. That sort of thing.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Justice for all.....
|
| (...) I agree. I once read that the nearest we have ever come to libertarianism was Pinochet's Chile… OK if you were rich I suppose. Check past posts in this very group and you'll see that libertarianism been comprehensively rubbished by everyone (...) (21 years ago, 22-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Justice for all.....
|
| (...) It (in pure form) hasn't been tried in practice. (...) Why? Take as your base assumption that people are basically good, with some exceptions, and set up your system to reward goodness and punish badness. Suffering the consequences of your (...) (21 years ago, 22-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
52 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
|
|
|
|
