Debate : 3068


Off-Topic / Debate / 3068

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —John DiRienzo

I am going to ~try~ to make a sensible post... John Neal wrote in message <386C54F9.20331CB5@u...st.net>... (...) think (...) definition - (...) relativism I (...) others (...) is by (...) Discerning (...) good (...) In a huge thread where I (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —John Neal

John DiRienzo wrote: <snippage> (...) Ahh, I think Libertarianism would be an excellent system; I just shared James pessimism that it would have a hard time working given today's entitlement mentality. Lazy people want things given to them rather (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Jasper Janssen

(...) Either you're nuts, or you havent read your history books. Remember what Europe was like when anarchy ruled? Think medieval times in between Charlemagne, William the Conqueror, etc.. It was _not_ fun. Even less so than with great dictators. A (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —John DiRienzo

Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38830931.919200318@...et.com>... (...) evolution) (...) I had to think about what John said for a day or two to know what he meant. I am still not sure if I took it the right way, but I don't think he is nuts. I (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Jasper Janssen

(...) Hmmmm. If that _is_ what he is saying, I would tend to agree. But I personally would tend to place strict libertarianism as quite close to anarchy on that scale (strict libertarianism, after all, is just anarchy with "something" (not the (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Will you stop? Where do you get that idea? What "higher power"? That's not it at all. My goodness what a stew of misconceptions. Do you listen to anything I say or are you just so sure you know what it is that it all blows past you? One more (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —James Brown

(...) <snipped derivation of 'all rights are property rights'> Larry, bookmark that post - you'll need it again. ;-) James (URL) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Jasper Janssen

(...) Actually, that was a derivation _from_ all rights are property rights. Very big difference. Jasper (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Jasper Janssen

(...) That, dear Larry, is what one would call "sarcasm". To restate more clearly: Pure libertarians (or so I've been led to believe)(which you obviously don't come under by this definition) want to do without government altogether. I've talked with (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —John DiRienzo

Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38aee357.975055273@...et.com>... (...) I haven't researched Libertarianism, but I think I will check the links at about.com within the next day or two. I have never heard of a brand of Libertarianism that struck me (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Frank Filz

(...) Shouldn't the airspace above your property be yours, subject to deeded covenants? Obviously if we were to switch over to Liberatopia, air rights would have to be negotiated with everyone. I would expect a few airports to be forced to close (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Frank Filz

(...) I think we would still have some public space. There would also be plenty of property owners willing to grant broad priviledge to their tenants. I know my church would offer almost complete priviledge of speech on its property. The only real (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Larry Pieniazek

My capitalist running dog lackey Frank Filz answered most of this append faster and better than I could. However a few points remain... (...) You can do that if you wish. Coke did, seems to work for them. However if someone else susses it out, (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Jeff Thompson

Random paranthetical aside: (...) Coke's formula really wasn't a secret. Pepsi long had the knowledge and ability to replicate Coke's formula. They just never bother to duplicate the formula, because they thought their own formula tasted better. (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Jasper Janssen

(...) I don't see how you can support ideas as property at all. Remember that this means that if a person happens to have the exact same idea, independently of the other guy (and this has happened before - see Gutenberg and the others as a canonical (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Larry Pieniazek

(...) OK, what's your proposal, then? If they're not property, what are they? and how do the people that come up with them get incented? I ain't gonna invent stuff for you for free, you know... and neither is anyone else. Those 20,000 failed light (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Jasper Janssen

(...) They don't get incented. (...) Noone. Except possibly, oh, I don't know, how about those people who could actually benefit from the invention? You know, just like roads should be financed by the users. And please don't come shouting about how (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Larry Pieniazek

(...) OK, go ahead and invent away. I don't invent for free. (...) So let me see here, what you're proposing is that I go out and invent something, someone else steals my idea, gets it to market first, and makes a pile from the users, and I don't (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Matthew Miller

(...) From a rights basis (the utilitarian basis is clear) does it follow that the inventor has the right to prevent other people from coming up with the exact same idea on their own? (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —James Brown

(...) Wouldn't you then have legal recourse to sue (or whatever) that person for stealing? After all, it's your goods he's profiting from, without your permission, neh? <snippage> (...) Under a Libertarian system (which is one of the premises to (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Jasper Janssen

(...) Your point being? (...) You get your R&D costs covered before you start inventing, or you don't. Simple. (...) They come from each individual mind. Any system where people can _independently_ think of the same things, and only one of them to (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Works for me. Except that you're currently apparently ignoring everyone. :-) Mail sent to you is bouncing. My mail and the mail of several other people. So you might want to look into that. I'd have mailed you but of course that wouldn't work, (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Jasper Janssen

(...) Can you send me the bounce messages (by email ;) )? I'd be interested in seeing what the errors were. (...) I rather meant ignoring the irrational urge to respond to your strange notions of society ;) (...) Anyway, here's the probable problem: (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Larry Pieniazek

Mail me so I know it works and I'll mail you the headers. But your conjecture is right, it is "MX loops back" or some similar (...) Yes, in order to get $BIGNUM you first have to transfer $BIGNUM-X to someone else. :-) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I stepped back a bit, and I suspect that what is frustrating both of us, leading to perhaps less well reasoned posts than normal on one or both sides, is that we're trying to discuss several things at once. Perhaps we should pick one topic, (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Jasper Janssen

(...) I think you could well be right. (...) I guess that's why I don't have much respect for lawyers ;=> (...) Drive-by isn't the word. Running around "Clue" manor with guns and trying to have a duel, more like. Jasper (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Larry Pieniazek

<3874CFB7.C78E8E40@voyager.net> <slrn879jtn.95s.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I'm not sure. I haven't carried out an exhaustive analysis of the rights involved. I would tend to (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Patents and IP and stuff (was Re: Goodness of Man? etc) —Matthew Miller

(...) What happens in the case of "obvious" developments? "Obvious" is of course difficult to judge (which is why it merits quotation marks) but take this theoretical example: I live in a very primitive society. We've just started developing ideas. (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Matthew Miller

(...) I think ideas are not identical to physical items, and therefore not identical to physical property. But it is very useful to extend our concepts for dealing with physical property to the realm of ideas. Tangent: this is something to be (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Frank Filz

<3874CFB7.C78E8E40@voyager.net> <FnxHxs.MKz@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Perhaps a workable patent system could be constructed which would recognize parallel development. I don't even see (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) Oh my, I have not seen this in awhile. Horrid. As an example: Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his Family, including food, clothing, housing and medical (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Matthew Miller

(...) Many rights are things we as a society make up. (As opposed to being somehow natural or god-given.) That doesn't mean that they're not good ideas! Why isn't it good to say that all people deserve be taken care of when they're sick? (...) Oh (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) The US Constitution and Bill of Rights, coined by the founding fathers, all rights are God given. As in the "rights" of health care, etc., in theory, all are good ideas, in utopia. In reality, there is a difference. What does the market do? (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Matthew Miller

(...) This sentence doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Can you rephrase/explain what you're saying? (...) Ok. So if they're good ideas in a perfect world, is there a problem with saying that those are things we want to strive for as a (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Jasper Janssen

(...) You discredit yourself completely in the first sentence. Nice going. "coined by the founding fathers" == "god-given". Whatever. (...) So now it's a bad idea to strive for utopia? Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Larry Pieniazek

<38741109.CEDCCCFC@c...anweb.net> <slrn87862s.nkk.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Insert an "under" in front and you should be able to parse it, although it may still be on shaky (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Matthew Miller

(...) Not to mention on shaky accuracy ground! The Constitution doesn't speak of either god or rights. And the first ten amendments don't attribute the rights they speak of to any specific external source. The Declaration of Independence mentions (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) OK, I just got back from Meijer, as I was pushing carts for five hours in the frozen tundra of Michigan (I could use those Arctic Minifig hoods! :) ), and I am tired. My apologies. Alright, The founding fathers concluded, when they wrote the (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Matthew Miller

(...) Yeah. But I disagree. The founding fathers may have had this belief, but they very carefully didn't write it into the constitution. (...) So if the government does something good, it's still evil? I guess I'm concerned with making things work. (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) Very shaky ground, my eyes certainly are! (...) Yes sir. Larry has the unique ability to clean up what rambling I have, and make it a clear and concise point. All hail Larry! Scott "losing the ability to type" S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Larry Pieniazek

<38741A57.AE0161C3@voyager.net> <slrn8787ug.nkk.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Well, if you don't know the difference, or don't know that some of us feel there is a difference, and (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Matthew Miller

(...) Fair enough -- I admit to joining the debate in progress. There's several thousand posts in this newsgroup; discussing them all becomes an ever-increasing burden to entry. Could you point me to several in particular that you'd like me to (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Frank Filz

(...) He also spoke against slavery, but didn't even free his slaves in his will. (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) Well, it speaks (Looking at my CATO supplied Constitution & Bill of Rights) , "the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God...." for one (In the Declaration of Independence). The concept of natural law, in (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Matthew Miller

(...) Yes. The Declaration of Independence is very much not the Constitution. In fact, interesting to consider that this language, so obvious in the declaration, is so conspicuously not in the constitution. (...) Yes. Foundationalism is nice, when (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Larry Pieniazek

<38741B0A.4F62FC4B@c...anweb.net> <slrn879752.341.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Yes. Unless you're a big fan of "the ends justify the means". Good outcomes do not justify (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Matthew Miller

(...) I'm not saying anything about justifying anything. "Ends justify the means" implies some sort of need for justificiation, and as I said, I'm assuming neither a totally evil government nor totally evil capitalists. (...) Not true. They may not (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Jasper Janssen

(...) "utilitarian" == "ends justify the means", no? Jasper (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes. And I proceeded to tersly show that even if you buy ends justify the means you still fail, because you get bad ends. all government programs produce bad results is my utilitarian thesis. So I have him both ways. (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Jasper Janssen

(...) So if you don't buy utilitarianism, why the hell do you keep using it in your arguments? Jasper (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Larry Pieniazek

<387424BA.8AA8A11@voyager.net> <slrn8797ta.341.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Well, this doesn't narrow it down a lot, because the entire thread is still 400+ posts, but if you (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Matthew jumps in (was Re: Goodness of Man?, etc.) —Matthew Miller

(...) I don't understand the basis for the assertion that property rights are the basis for all other rights. Where do property rights come from? What makes that a privledged right above any other I can imagine? Arguments for this I've seen that I (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator/CAD Operator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (URL) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Scott Edward Sanburn

Matt, (...) Yes, but without the Declaration, we would have no Constitution, or Bill of Rights. Clearly the intent of the Founding Fathers is here.. but this isn't what I was talking about. (...) I think that the Constitution outlined the concept of (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Matthew Miller

(...) You're against health care, housing, and education? My goodness, in that case I'm certainly proud to be a leftist. (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Matthew jumps in (was Re: Goodness of Man?, etc.) —Larry Pieniazek

<3874A8CA.59FCB9A3@voyager.net> <slrn879jb5.6vn.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Fair enough. I'll try to root out the cogent thread but if you want to dig, use "life affirming" as (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Matthew jumps in (was Re: Goodness of Man?, etc.) —Matthew Miller

(...) [snip] (...) Found this: (URL) I don't think you say a single word about property, let alone property rights as a foundation, though. For what it's worth: in fact, I agree strongly with your conclusion in that case. The weak link you point out (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) I am not for the leftist view of government taxing us to death for everyone's ability to have health care, education, etc. I work two jobs, I am starting my own business, and I think the left's view of these being rights is both absurd and (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Dave Schuler

Scott: In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes: **snip** (...) Maybe part of the dilemma is coming from confusion between the "right to health care" and the "right not to be prevented from obtaining health care." Certainly there's (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Scott Edward Sanburn

Dave, (...) Well, whatever form it may be, it is still the same. My point is that whether you talk about providing health care, being prevented from having health care, etc., someone still has to pay for it. Whether that be the government, or (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Bzzt. Scott "loses" the debate, he mentioned Nazis first. Darn, he was doing so well, too. <grin> (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Jasper Janssen

(...) No he didn't. Godwin specifically refers to calling contributors in the thread nazis/nazilike, not to just mentioning them. Jasper (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Matthew Miller

(...) Oh, but it's long been extended beyond that. I'd agree with larry; any mention of nazis is grounds for losing. Check out the jargon file entry: Godwin's Law -- [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Jasper Janssen

(...) Nope. And your own citation disproves it. (...) Comparison != mention. Jasper (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Thread Nazis! (was Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party) —Matthew Miller

(...) Using an example/hyperbole involving the Nazis probably counts though. (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Thread Nazis! (was Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party) —Jasper Janssen

(...) Some claim so. I disagree. Sometimes I'm a pedant. Jasper (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Thread Nazis! (was Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party) —Matthew Miller

(...) Consider this; perhaps it will help placate the pendant in you: the Nazi-thread-death convention is not Godwin's Law, merely derived from it. And as a tradition, it's often been that bringing Nazis into your argument in any way is grounds for (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Thread Nazis! (was Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party) —Jasper Janssen

(...) <pedant>pedant</pedant> (...) I know. That corollary is mentioned in several places, though, and in its original form, and almost all others, refers only to Godwin's Law -Strict. (...) Often, yes, majority, no. Not that this is an issue for (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Dave Schuler

Scott: (...) D'oh! I forgot to address that! With "not being prevented from obtaining health care" I was trying to avoid implying that "the people" should pick up the bill. My oversight! (...) Well, the easiest criticism against this is that (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Matthew Miller

(...) The amazing thing is that they were foresighted enough to understand this, and left the constitution as a relatively small framework, and even gave the ability to modify that. The government we have today, for better or worse, is a result of (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Jasper Janssen

(...) You still haven't shown that they are still completely relevant. Past successes do not equal future successes. See stockmarket. Jasper (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) Drat, I should have said Communist flag. Sorry, I was typing faster than I was thinking! Does this mean I get to stop now? ;) Scott ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator/CAD Operator-Affiliated Engineers -> (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —John Neal

<3874A730.471E9696@voyager.net> <slrn879ac2.3ti.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) What Larry is saying is that the guv steals its (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Matthew Miller

(...) People are being fed. That means the system is working. Amount it costs or number of people left unfed are merely degrees to which it is working. After careful numerical analysis, one might conclude that it is working at 10% efficiency. It's (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Jasper Janssen

(...) "I don't know how much it is but it should have been enough"? Luisten to yourself for a moment there, man. (...) Changes meant to be for the good usually turn out to be for the worst. Jasper (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —John DiRienzo

Dave Schuler wrote in message ... (...) up (...) Great point, Dave! The people should have nothing to do with it. Let the cows pay for it. Or maybe the mice will pick up the tab. But, absolutely, positively don't let the people pay for anything! -- (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —John DiRienzo

Jasper Janssen wrote in message <3897ae4f.961476863@...et.com>... (...) he (...) in (...) anyway) (...) no (...) perfection - (...) OK, Jasper, just for fun, I will acknowledge this. Lets say the ideas of Libertarianism are only one step from (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —John Neal

(...) You are correct, John. (...) Never say never(;), but I'm with you in thinking that we as a race aren't anywhere near that state. (...) I believe that existence after death will be on a higher plane, although I know not how or even care (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —John DiRienzo

John Neal wrote in message <386E6426.576F7583@u...st.net>... (...) he (...) in (...) anyway) (...) no (...) know (...) this (...) I don't pretend to know anything about any here after. Perhaps there is one, but it makes about as much difference to (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) That's an old misconception. Having just helped teach a course called "The Emergence of Medieval Europe" (c.300-1000), I can tell you that it wasn't anarchy--things were in flux, but it only appeared anarchic because the meaning of fealty and (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Larry Pieniazek

(...) See, where Libertopia differs from other -topias is fundamental. First, we are not claiming that it's perfect. Instead, we claim there IS no perfection in society. There always will be situations where things turn out unfairly (is a freak (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —John DiRienzo

Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <386E8B8E.EF62ED6C@v...er.net>... (...) statically stable, (...) to Owenite (...) Larry), and (...) process, before (...) Right, its not a utopia, not a mere fantasy. It is workable. People would need to adapt to a (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Jasper Janssen

On Sat, 1 Jan 2000 23:19:43 GMT, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote: By the way, larry, your line lengths are too long. (...) My response to that would be "nothing is fair - but some things are more fair than others". And I personally believe (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —John DiRienzo

Jasper Janssen wrote in message <3898af73.961769278@...et.com>... (...) Jasper, never give up. (...) Larry, I had not thought this through until today, so it may be wrong. As compared to a perfect God, I would think man is evil, because he is far (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Lindsay Frederick Braun

<386E8B8E.EF62ED6C@voyager.net> <FnorLK.8q2@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) By John's definition, the socialist/anarchist Utopian projects *are* in the same category as "libertopias". I (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —John DiRienzo

Mr L F Braun wrote in message <386EFD98.7B4CFC41@p...su.edu>... (...) same (...) would (...) I've (...) still (...) optimal (...) than (...) In 1907 the Federal government in the US imposed income tax. People adapted to that. Whats the problem? Its (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party —Lindsay Frederick Braun

<386EFD98.7B4CFC41@p...t.msu.edu> <FnqIsM.4Lo@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) There are a lot of Europeans who would disagree with you that "slow" socialism has failed. It's alive and (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)