Subject:
|
Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 2 Jan 2000 23:02:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1818 times
|
| |
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38aee357.975055273@lugnet.com>...
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2000 02:35:18 GMT, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net>
> wrote:
> > Jasper Janssen wrote:
> 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 a few of them.
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 as anarchistic. Since I am basically
objectivist, I find Larritarianism to be a pretty decent brand. I don't
know how closely his is aligned with the Pure Libertarians, though. So, I
will find out, and aren't you lucky! I will probably tell you all about it!
Free of charge, to boot!
> Since without a government, there is nothing enforcing laws but the
> goodness of our fellow man, you get anarchy, except that there are
> laws. With no way to implement them.
I think, but could easily be mistaken, as I still haven't found this pure
brand you speak of, that they must rely on courts and police for their brand
to work. I am sure you are making erroneous assertions again. Come on!
They couldn't be that stupid! What country do your Libertarians come from?
Russia?
> The patent system is a total washout. There needs to be something, but
> it needs to resemble the current patent system only very loosely if at
> all.
I amended the first quotable (intelligible) thing you've said in a few
days (above), for your amusement:
The system is a total washout. There needs to be something, but it needs to
resemble the current system only very loosely if at all.
> > idea may not be unique, and it may not be NEW, it may be an improvement
> > on prior art. In that case, it may not be wholly our property, but it
> > may be in part, property of those who went before. This may be
> > admittedly thorny to determine.
>
> Currently, registering and maintaining a patent costs upward of, IIRC,
> $5k per annum.
Man, you missed it all. Nowhere did he say the current patent system was
good. Nowhere did he say that government needs to adhere to the strict
bureaucracy that is our current patent office. Get back on topic.
> Extending the (apparently) libertarian idea that one should be able to
> protect oneself, or pay for ~, why have patents at all? Why not just
> have the requirement to keep things a closely guarded secret if you
> want them to remain secret?
If you are selling something, the guys in marketing wouldn't like that.
Are you sober? I used to do this drunk, and I hope I did it better than you
are.
> > The right to do as we wish with our property gives us the right of free
> > association, that is, the right to choose to be with, or not be with,
> > who we choose. It further gives us the right, subject to the wishes of
> > the property owner, or considerations of safety when speaking of public
> > places, to assemble with whom we wish.
>
> Given your stated view that ideally, there would be no such thing as
> public space, where should a person who doesn't own land have the
> right of free assembly?
What do you mean? Where is a homeless person allowed to sleep? In most
cities in the US, its dangerous to be homeless, I am sure that would be the
case, regardless of political system. I also would think that someone would
find it profitable to have public meeting places, like bars, parks, etc.
Just because they aren't an unearned free good (public property), doesn't
mean that some of them wouldn't allow you to act freely (within the law, of
course).
> > If we choose to be with someone
> > (or several someone's) in a life partnership, it is not the place of the
> > state to say what sorts of associations are appropriate and what sort
> > are not. Thus no form of marriage should be favored or given a special
> > status by an agency with a monopoly on the granting of sanction, for to
> > do so is to pass a moral judgement. Nor should any be discriminated
> > against by a public agency.
>
> How do you feel about giving life partners a special status over those
> who don't? How about simply "everyone who lives with more than one
> person in an household"?
I must be tired?
> > A legitimate government must acknowledge these rights. It must also
> > govern with the consent of *all* who it governs, not merely the
> > majority. That places strictures on it which limit scope to the proper
> > function of government, external defense, internal defense, and dispute
> > resolution.
>
> Actually, it places strictures limiting it to absolutely nothing.
Nearly, not absolutely. Internal and external defense. Defending the
citizens from being usurped by anyone, within or outside of the country. No
public hospitals, much less public health care! BION, thats good. Have you
ever used the services of a public hospital in the US?
> In your country exist, respectively, pacifists, criminals, and
> con-men. Who all disagree with that government.
Hmm. Everyone here disagrees with something about the government!
> There is no such thing as a government by consent of _all_. Just like
> there is no such thing is a society that is fair to all.
A government which can not be modified without total consent is possible.
Makes for a lot less politicking, eh?
> > But we almost certainly need a government, with a monopoly on the
> > initiation of the use of force, in order to secure these rights.
>
> Exactly my point. Which prohibits libertopia.
>
> > nickel, unless I let you. Conversely, you can't stop me from putting up
> > a sign on my property as long as it's not a hazard to aircraft and the
> > deeded covenants in my deed don't prevent it.
>
> So you agree that aerial flight needs to be regulated?
Of course not.
> > To the charge that I don't "care about free speech".
>
> I would go with "goad", rather than "charge", myself.
>
> It may not be the most respectable of debating tactics, but it does
> have the virtue of working, in the sense that it produces something to
> debate _about_.
:-) The first time I read that, I thought you said "good". I thought
you said you had given us a good (in the form of debate fodder). How
clever! Sadly, I misread what you wrote, and realize you didn't know you
were giving us a free good. Thanks all the same.
> > I very passionately care about, and believe that a government must
> > foster, all the rights delineated in the bill of rights of the US
> > constitution, including free speech. I also very passionately believe
> > that delineation of those rights is not intended to be exhaustive. All
> > rights not explicitly granted to government are reserved to the people.
>
> I still occasionally wonder why the US hasn't ratified the universal
> declaration of Human Rights.
> >
> > A society with limited government is much more likely to have a hundred
> > ideas flower than one run out of a little red book.
>
> I agree. But, in my view, neither extreme is a good thing. Providing,
> for example, government regulations on traffic, fire hazards, air
> traffic, all of that, and providing a basic subsistence level of
> income for those temporarily unwanted, slows down Progress.
Nope.
> I think the benefits are worth that cost.
I think it would be done more cost effectively, and would hasten progress
in multiples. So, I think you're wrong again.
> > that this is so, the course of action that violates the least rights
> > must be chosen. But this is rare, once things are straightened around
> > where everyone knows what their rights are.
> What I was trying to do was get your view on these issues, rather than
> my view, which I know quite well, or even my interpretation of the LP
> view.
I think he gave them to you.
> Which brings me to another point - how would you orchestrate the
> transition? If someone has been told for their entire life that there
> is going to be Social Security and free health care when they're too
> old to work, are they going to be cut off like everyone else? Any sort
> of transition arrangement? My guess would be that since you'd feel
> they should have known they didn't really have any right to the
> programs in the first place, they should have realized it was going
> away/could go away?
Personally, I would orchestrate the transition by studying, writing and
speaking about what I think would work better with knowledgeable people, and
voting for people I agree with, or the lesser of two evils, as is usually
the case. These ideas need to spread before they can have much impact, and
the transition itself I am thinking will take much time or else a disaster
of some kind for it to take hold quickly. Not wanting disaster, and not
expecting it, I stick by the first, which is enlightening people as to what
is in their own best interests and accumulating allies. I do this out of
~selfishness~, because ~I~ want the world to be a better place, because ~I~
don't like it the way it is.
> Jasper
John D
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
