Subject:
|
Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 2 Jan 2000 00:57:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1712 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <386E8B8E.EF62ED6C@voyager.net>...
> Mr L F Braun wrote:
>
> > > A societal system needs to be stable to survive. Anarchy is not • statically stable,
> > but it's also not even dynamically stable.
> >
> > I'd say this is true. I have the same fundamental objection that I have • to Owenite
> > socialist utopias, Marxian communism, Libertopias (I like that word, • Larry), and
> > vaguer forms of anarchy--human nature must change, a very long-term • process, before
> > anarchy of any sort can work on a large scale.
>
> 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 tornado "fair"?) or where the guilty
> inadvertantly walk free. It's merely a shorthand for a society in which
> rights are paramount. That's a definitional thing. You can't use the
> word unless that's what you mean, unless you are deliberately trying to
> be confusing or obstructionistic.
Right, its not a utopia, not a mere fantasy. It is workable. People
would need to adapt to a different way of living. People are good at
adapting.
> Second, and this is one I've convinced myself of, but which almost no
> one else agrees with, human nature does NOT need to change in order for
> us to successfully move in the Libertopian direction. People already are
> good enough, honest enough, industrious enough for it to work. Pockets
> of it exist today, at least in limited form. I have no idea how to
> convince the rest of you of that point except to repeat my assertion,
> which is rather a poor debating technique, and by giving examples. But
> no example list can be exhaustive, it can't be a definitive proof.
Human nature has not changed, ever. History proves it. So, I agree.
People definitely need to change a lot, though. As said above, adapting to
something different is something people can do. Usually they don't want to,
and usually it involves some pain. No pain, no gain. But the human nature
won't change in a libertarian type society, just the way they think,
interact and feel, etc.
> So I always try to turn it round. Why does everyone else believe people
> are bad? What a downer if that's what you really think? Why not believe
> in the best of people, expect it, and deal with it if you don't get it,
> instead of expecting the worst.
I have no expectations, Larry. It can be dangerous to expect things.
But, I know by history that people take advantage of political systems when
given the opportunity. I believe that Libertarianism has fewer of those
opportunities, and also has much more accountability on individuals.
> When I mail someone a check, I expect they are going to be good for the
> goods I've won at auction, and I'll deal with the consequences if they
> aren't.
Did you get my check? :-)
> Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
--
Have fun!
John
The Legos you've been dreaming of...
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego
my weird Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/
"Censorship is yet another tool in the dumbing-down of America
by a power structure that relies on a populace too lazy or ignorant
to think independently." -Vanessa McGrady
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
188 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
|
|
|
|
