Subject:
|
Re: Blue Hopper Car Mania...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Oct 1999 00:02:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1216 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > > Wrong? I'd call it unsavory, but I wouldn't legislate against it.
> > > Unless you mean they're addicting their customers by force.
> >
> > or fraud. But of course I hold fraud to be a kind of force.
>
> I know that Libertarians are into the Force 'n' Fraud phrase, and I
> guess I mostly agree, but I know that while I can easily define force,
> fraud isn't quite so easy.
>
> In the case of drug dealers, is saying "hey, it isn't that bad for you,
> just try it and see" fraud? Is it fraud to sell it at a certain price
> and raise the price once your customers are addicted?
>
> I would say no. It's still unsavory - and I would be very retributive
> if someone duped a loved one that way - but I don't think it's fraud or
> should be illegal.
You seem to imply
there's a difference between being 'wrong' and being 'unsavoury',
but I can't see any difference in principle - perhaps a small difference
of degree in that 'unsavoury' implies a smaller amount of wrongness.
Also, aren't you contradicting yourself here? If you don't see the
drug-dealing example being discussed as 'wrong' then how can
you possibly justify being retributive over it?
Simon
http://www.SimonRobinson.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Blue Hopper Car Mania...
|
| (...) Well, I sort of meant that if everyone affected by the deal agrees to it, then nothing else matters. I assume you agree that you can waive your rights if you so choose. (...) I know that Libertarians are into the Force 'n' Fraud phrase, and I (...) (25 years ago, 15-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
178 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
|
|
|
|
