Subject:
|
Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 2 Jan 2000 21:51:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1548 times
|
| |
|
|
Mr L F Braun wrote in message <386EFD98.7B4CFC41@pilot.msu.edu>...
> <386E8B8E.EF62ED6C@voyager.net> <FnorLK.8q2@lugnet.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> John DiRienzo wrote:
>
> > Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <386E8B8E.EF62ED6C@voyager.net>...
> > > 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.
>
> By John's definition, the socialist/anarchist Utopian projects *are* in the • same
> category as "libertopias". I fail to see how "workable by adaptation" • would
> make it any different than the other types of idealized "new societies" • I've
> mentioned (leaving Lysenko aside, please). When you get down to it, even
> uttering the Panglossian "best of all possible worlds" means you're talking
> Utopia--because even if you don't intend to reach (or even if you say it's
> impossible to reach!) what More or Owen or Marx were describing, you're • still
> talking about changing (or dismantling) the rules of engagement to some • optimal
> point. That our Utopias are imperfect says more about the age we live in • than
> about some fundamental difference between the ideas.
In 1907 the Federal government in the US imposed income tax. People
adapted to that. Whats the problem? Its not a utopian dream. It is a
system of governing that is superior to any in current use, that can be
worked towards. It will require change, adaptation, and will take time.
Time it will certainly take - the only way things change quickly are by war,
a coup d'etat, or perhaps a natural (or economic) tragedy - and thats not
how to implement this. To implement this instantly, it would fail (as
previously discussed). Unlike Socialism, which can not work instantly or by
evolution, this can, every step of the way, as long the steps are well
paced. Socialism is ~entirely~ different (study the two set of ideals
before saying its the same Please!) and has failed in all implementations,
slow or sudden.
> What definition of "libertopia" did you think I was using? I was talking • about
> a society of rights, where the individual is paramount and governing bodies • did
> not interfere with any but the basest functions--defense, for example, or • the
> prosecution of heinous crimes (although that's a grey area to a few people • I
> know--not here, though--who profess themselves Libertarian). The way it's • come
> across to me is as the ultimate iteration of Adam Smith's vision of the • ideal
> state, free individual, and unfettered free trade. Now, if that's not what • you
> mean, let me know. My original objection to its feasibility *presently*
> (although not necessarily *for all time*) is unchanged.
Well, thats refreshing! I have never read Adam Smith, I fear him a
plagiarist. I think you have a better grasp of the idea than most who hear
the word Libertarian. I don't know the exact definition myself. I agree,
we are not going to jump into some idealistic fantasy with the next
election, but by hard work and perseverance, we can see changes within our
world that are for the better - steps in the right direction. Showing
people the fundamentals, so they can see what we are hoping to step towards
is a necessity, and you would be surprised by the number who respond
positively to it. Arguing that this can happen to the whole world or to a
whole country at once is nearly pointless, but it can happen...
> I apologize for using the horribly vague blanket statement "human nature." • More
> appropriate would have been to say that the way that human nature writ • large
> interfaces with the external world needs to change--core values need to be
> redistributed. Jasper said something about the value people place of • virtue and
> community, our society's preferences and expectations about the world, and • what
> those things even *mean*--that's the inertia I'm talking about. That's • what
> needs to change--the way the majority of human beings order their world and
> place values. Those are things that change very slowly, and only change • quickly
> in large masses of people when there's extreme social trauma (the French
> Revolution, the Black Death, the PRC's Great Leap Forward, and so forth).
These views can be changed more quickly by social trauma of course, but
also by example. Even by discussion with those willing to listen. Some are
so far gone that discussion is a waste of time, but they rarely stick around
long... Thus who do listen are something to be grateful for. One down,
only five billion to go.
> I'm not saying it's impossible--just that it's going to be a long trip, and • you
> won't likely know how close you are until you're there. It's even truer • with a
> vision that relies heavily upon individual virtue and not a single • virtuous,
> visionary leader.
There are a lot of individuals with the needed virtues, and all of those
people are needed for such a cause. I tend to agree, we, as individuals,
don't need a leader. I follow no one (I get a lot speeding tickets, too!).
I think that might be a problem for the LP. Individuals, who like to follow
their own path, who have the proper citizen's requirement of an inherent
mistrust of authority, may be hard to recruit as voters, but they, too, will
see what is right, and pursue it, in time.
> > 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.
>
> That's thinking from the top down, though. One of the vital changes that • needs
> to take place before a society of individual rights can work is that people • need
> to feel like they *are* the political system, not set apart from it. I'd • wager,
> though, that you can't do it the other way, by instituting a Libertarian
> government and then trying to change people's habits and expectations (not • that
> anyone here was advocating that position, of course). No matter how tight • you
> cock the rudder, the ship only turns so quickly.
While I disagree and think it might be ~easiest~ to work from the top
down, I don't see the needed circumstances arising for such a quick and
sudden change anytime soon. Making people aware and changing slowly in the
meantime is the best and only workable option remaining. Then, perhaps a
set of circumstances will arise that will perpetuate a massive shift, but
maybe not. Again, expectations can be detrimental, it is better to work
with what is available in the current reality, than to have faith that
things will just work out according to someone's irrelevant daydreaming.
> As for believing people are intrinsically bad, I never said that--it wasn't • even
> implied, though I can see how you may have read it into the words. I • assume
> people are good until they give me cause to believe otherwise. The part • that's
> really unfortunate is that so many do give said cause. I never once said • that
> people were good or bad, just that their "nature" (corrected for meaning • above)
> needs to change. I rather like to expect at the beginning of each semester • that
> my students are there to learn, that they're paragons of academic honesty, • and
> that they're all virtuous and intelligent, if occasionally hung over from • Bar
> Night. I'm not disappointed often.
I also think the body (and laws) which governs them can have an effect,
pro or adverse on the decisions people make (whether they choose good or
bad). Both need to change - the people, and the government (again, the
people!).
> but you've also got to use the old noggin. ;)
Thats all I ask from people! Some seem to think I ask for too much.
Thats why I like this place. Thanks!
> best,
>
> Lindsay
--
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
|
|
|
|
