Debate : 3428


Off-Topic / Debate / 3428

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) <nitpick> Libertarian documentation is full of (correct) comments about how such government systems are woefully inefficient, and how they would be made much less inefficient under Libertopia.</nitpick> (...) Sounds more likely to me that (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) You think that's a _good_ thing? You think a child in "early childhood" is qualified to make the choice of not only profession, but even lifelong employer? Sounds like slavery, by any other name. Aside from that, you think that corporations (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) Er, no. (...) No! (...) Yep! (...) Actually, I agree - but the Frank's assumption that I was responding to was that corperations would invest in education because the job market would become so tight due to the benefits of Libertarianism. You (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) Ah, good, so I was not wrong about you ;) (...) _if_ the job-market becomes tight, corporations will want to deal with that _now_, because they'll have not planned in advance. Their way of dealing it will include, but is not necessarily (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo

Jasper!! If you read what you wrote, thats not a bad description of what will happen to America soon without some Libertarian intervention. Apparently Frank came up with one bad answer (1) and you guys went to town on that. In the Libertopia, its (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Matthew Miller

(...) What happens when you have bad parents? (Such things happen. Especially if we're allowing companies to sell crack....) Whose responsibility is it then? Or do those kids just not get an education? How're they supposed to end up as good parents (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Dave Schuler

(...) Not at all! ;-) It simply guarantees that those who have money, be they individuals or corporations, will continute to have money and the best that it can buy, from education to property (which could thereupon be protected by these nebulous (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo

Dave Schuler wrote in message ... (...) "responsibility" (...) then? (...) from (...) fiscal (...) wealthy (...) Because man. There would be other rich people, who make money off of poorer people by suing the hell out of rich people or corporations (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) It's an interesting idea, but the legal companies you mention that thrive upon such cases are not likely to make the courts any less decongested. It's not even almost in their interest. (...) That's 2 times in 7 minutes - both times I've been (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Dave Schuler

(...) Don't sweat it, Richard--John obviously has issues far in excess of this particular discussion, and I'm not going to be flustered by his shotgun-style attempts at wit or wisdom. Dave! (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) Oh, I know.. and the offense has now gone but the sadness and disappointment still remain {1}. Richard {1} Which somehow reminds me of a Smiths lyric, from which I should refrain.(2) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Melancholia —Dave Schuler

(...) refrain.(2) Sounds kinda Floyd-y, to me! In any case, the more you ignore me, the closer I'll get! Dave! (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Melancholia —Richard Franks

(...) o/~ Alone on a park bench, while the rain flattens my hair, My daffodils are floppy, but yet I don't care. If I died on this bench, and a squirrel ate my knee, at least I could be happy he had something good for tea. Oh alone, alone, alone.. (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Melancholia —Dave Schuler

(...) How about: I cried and I cried and then I cried Did I mention that I cried? Dave! (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Melancholia —Richard Franks

(...) I cried until my eyes were sore, Until I found I could cry no more. Then I remembered how Fluffy had died, Poisened by the hag next door. But still those tears just would not come, I wandered around feeling numb. But I stubbed my toe, hit my (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) Sounds more Metallic(a) to me.. Jasper (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) See my reasoning as to "libertarian = feudal" now? Jasper (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo

So people who smoke crack are bad? Don't you? You act like it. Look, if a person wants to use crack, thats fine. If he can't manage his responsibilities, thats when his crack use becomes less than fine. Thats when he starts breaking laws and (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Matthew Miller

(...) HEY. That is totally uncalled for. There's no reason to be calling me names. And it makes me respect you a lot less. But, to answer your question: Althought may I sound flippant, for which I apologize, I'm totally serious. People who smoke (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo

Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) Wrong. You are deluded. Crack smokers are not "necessarily" bad parents. Just like social drinkers or pot smokers are not necessarily bad parents. Some people are effected by drugs differently than others. (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Matthew Miller

(...) "Deluded" is still pretty strong name calling. If this were Usenet, I'd put you in my killfile now. It being LUGnet, I'll see if the social experiment is working. (...) Let me get this 100% clear. You are saying to me: Get real. Not 100% of (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo

Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) What experiment? (...) Thats pretty much what I said. there are much better ways to deal with "the problem" (when it is one) than the current ways. If you don't accept that, we don't need to talk to each (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) Making you grow up. I must say I'm getting to be sorely tempted to throw you in the Plink-bin myself. That'd be a first on lugnet for me. (...) Oh, lord. What is it about "Your way of dealing with this is less than ideal" that makes you read (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) Okay, lets get very real. (5 URLs) There are, according to the UN, around 150 million children on the streets at present. Or is this reality not the one you like to face, instead embracing the puesdo-reality of a system that is still at this (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Frank Filz

I've been out of it for a little while (I've been home sick, and the threading got too complex for me), but here I am back again... (...) One point of note: none of the societies with large numbers of street children are anywhere near Libertarian, (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) Hope you stay well! (...) Brazil has a massive problem too. I think I'd laid off Libertarianism in this one, and I was focussing on the assertion made that children wouldn't suffer because of life-affirmation, that people wouldn't walk past a (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) Larry may not want this, but there are plenty of libertarians who do want exactly that. Jasper (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Frank Filz

(...) One point here: This says that the _United States_ government has no moral authority to intervene. It doesn't say "no government may intervene". It even mentions why: because no existing government has a clean record. (...) Like there aren't (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo

Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) this (...) suffer (...) street (...) life-affirming is (...) is (...) other (...) of (...) worry - (...) More silliness, but couldn't the Red Cross hire mercenaries if it thought it was the right thing to (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) Well, if I'm silly then I may as well enjoy it, big nose! (...) Nope, then the Red Cross wouldn't be able to go into war-zones and treat the sick (which is their mission) as then they would be an army too. Richard (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Frank Filz

(...) I think this would be a very bad thing for the Red Cross to do. The Red Cross gets a lot of respect because it remains neutral in conflicts. That doesn't mean that other organizations wouldn't do well to do this. Of course current US poilicy (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo

Frank Filz wrote in message <387CEFEB.6799@minds...ng.com>... (...) thought (...) thing (...) more (...) Red Cross was a pretty dumb organization to pick, but there are plenty of others, and the idea that "we'd" fight wars for non political reasons (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) That's it. You've just convinced me to oppose libertarianism in the US with every breath, instead of just opposing it _here_. Think about wqhat you're _saying_, man. Non-initiation of force? Jasper (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo

Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) of (...) at (...) the (...) rely on (...) Hey man, You don't need to show me that, I have already looked. I try to point out reality to others whenever possible (often to their disdain), and I have shown (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) How many countries have you lived in??? It must be an awful lot to make that assertion. (...) Okay, but the point that I'm making for the third time is that there are homeless children all over America - does that make you less life-affirming, (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo

Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) life-affirming, or (...) So you admit to lying three times now? (...) of (...) At the moment it is mandatory. (...) if (...) would (...) at (...) I live in a city. You must be right, I am blind, because I (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) If you don't look, you won't see them. I've seen homeless children _here_. In the Netherlands. Where there are charities _and_ government-sponsored institutions _galore_ to mtake care of them. Denying reality won't make it go away. Jasper (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Frank Filz

(...) And your point is? I think you're just proving the contention that no system is perfect. I also have to say that the only "homeless" children I have ever seen in the US have been being served by homeless shelters. I have never seen a child (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) My point is that john is wrong, with corroborating evidence. (...) I spend a lot of time in areas the homeless are likely to hang out. It's called the inner city. Look at the statistics sometime - the US has a bigger problem, on average. (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) would (...) Beside the point, really, and I ought to be debugging my example instead of posting, but mostly when I see the homeless, they're adults. They are the deranged, the crackheads and mostly, the winos, mixed in with a few people who (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) Um, you know those links that you said that you'd read.. did you really? I don't know how you can deny this fact, but still, you seem willing to deny most things. Richard (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) Which is good, but doesn't mean that they are not there. (...) As LUGNET is an international forum, that statement is hardly going to go without comment! Best for somethings, not best for others... (...) I'm not arguing (m)any of those points (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Trot them out, then. Or far better, and far far far more relevant, answer the main point, that most (not all!!!) homeless Americans deserve it because of the choices they made. Unlike almost all homeless Ugandans or Tibetians or Kurds or (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) No, I don't think I could agree with that.. but I guess finding someone who has worked with the homeless could provide a more substantial opinion. (...) If I ever figure out all of the details I'll be sure to let you know. Richard (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) What a cop out. Why wait? You'll NEVER figure out ALL the details, nor will anyone else. All you can do is set up a system in which there is a clear, and just, way to resolve issues, and rights are protected. That's what Libertarians are (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) You're right, I'd actually turned off, and was about sleep when I had these same thoughts - it was a total cop out and I am afraid to air some of my tentative ideas. But I turned on the light an logged back on so that I could, as it's only (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo

Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) the (...) of (...) has (...) Don't agree? then why don't you form a "Save the Winos" party? I am in AA (1), and its my first responsibility to stay sober. My utmost responsibility thereafter is to help other (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) Yep, that was a cop-out pure and simple.. as I've already stated in that thread. Anyway, I have tried to make up for that with (URL), if you'd like to help me pick out the holes in that, then I'd be more than happy to take the heat for a (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) John, can you actually _read_? You sure don't act like it. And then you have the nerve to call others 'imbecile'. Of all things. Cool it or can it. Jasper (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) And some will send their children to school not at all, which is the whole crux of the argument. Jasper (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Frank Filz

(...) But are those children any better off now? If a child has whatever it takes to succeed in school when the parents have no care, they ought to still do well. There will be organizations working with these children (there are now). They will (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Matthew Miller

(...) I think a large part of what I'm reacting to is the concept that these will be profit-driven organizations, perhaps sponsored by large corporations looking for more skilled workers. That seems dangerous -- have you seen Disney's Pocahontas? (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Frank Filz

(...) I haven't seen Pocahontas. Why should the organizations necessarily be run by corporations? They aren't now. Even so, what is necessarily wrong with organizations run by buisiness? Buisiness is more accountable than the government (for (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Dave Schuler

(...) That's a lovely notion, but it seems at best unrealistic. "Whatever it takes" is a lot more than academic ability or even a knack for succeeding on tests; it stems from a solid upbringing and a sound family unit, and there are demographic (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Frank Filz

(...) If the kids don't have whatever it takes, they don't have it. No amount of government posturing is going to fix it. If people really feel these kids deserve a break (and perhaps if this REALY is the case, they do), then charity will step in. I (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) Agreed, studies of synaptic development favour the 'nurture' in nurture vs nature. (...) Sadly, as the wages go up, teachers who care less will be attracted the the profession. Not that teachers shouldn't be paid more, it's just a problem to (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Dave Schuler

(...) Just for clarity's sake, I wasn't referring to a genetic "whatever it takes;" I was using a more metaphorical meaning of hereditary, like hereditary royalty, or a generational history of child abuse. Dave! (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo

Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) to (...) Your posts are moving from annoying to hilarious. What have we got now? Teachers who could care less! Why? I care about kids, and I know most people do. I know most people can't live off a teacher's (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) I don't believe that myself either, in fact I've no idea where it came from! Do you believe that just because I don't agree 100% with you that automatically makes me socialist, communist, or any other leftist label? I'm tired trying to argue (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo

Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) he is (...) from! Do (...) automatically (...) Well, I must have took it the wrong way, but it sure looked like you were complaining that you might, under a Libertarian system, actually have to spend more of (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) Well I never claimed to be dogmatic about anything :) I took the (URL) quiz and I have edged closer to the Libertarian and Moderate spheres, but it still labels me left-liberal. (Personal Self Gov 80%, Economic Self Gov 40%) * Businesses and (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) ObPetPeeve: No we bloody well don't. The expression is "couldn't care less", ya damn buffoon. For whatever reason, this particular one _really_ grates. I suppoose because you're saying exactly the opposite of what you're trying to convey. (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo

Jasper Janssen wrote in message <3887351c.71898961@l...et.com>... (...) I am glad you are familiar enough with it to point it out. You are right. It happens, that in my parts, in speaking, we usually leave out the "not". Similar to those horrible (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) And be able to do much less with it? Jasper (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo

Jasper Janssen wrote in message <388835c3.72065940@l...et.com>... (...) Considering that by the time you buy something from a retailer, it has been taxed 5 or 6 times, I think you'd be able to do quite a bit more. -- Have fun! John The Legos you've (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) You've heard of something called inflation, yes? You also realize that in a libertarian system, all that changes is _who_ pays, not _that_ it's paid? And that when the businesses you buy from pay, you still pay? Jasper (24 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Dave Schuler

(...) This, yet again, sounds like "forget the stragglers" reasoning. What if "people" (whoever they might be--I'm dying to hear some suggestions, since in Libertopia a person's responsibility seems to be to himself and/or his family) don't feel (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) So let me see... your point is, these putative people who are dependent on the kindness of strangers because they're what, chronic crack smokers, deserve some sort of say in what morality their children are shown? I guess if you want things (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) I don't think that asking questions, or even giving examples of situations that might give a particular idea problems can really be called potshots. A lot of the other stuff that's been flying around certainly could be. Richard (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo

Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) too, (...) that (...) I should control myself, but I'm evil! (1) Sorry about that. Seriously, why don't you answer his question??? Or, was "more government spending" the correct answer? 1 - I admit, I am not (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) that (...) Certainly true. But I guess I'm a little frustrated by the way .debate is lately. It seems to be a few libertarians trying to explain how to make the world a better place vs. several times as many people saying "what if this, what (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) That is what I was thinking as well. (...) Interesting... (...) I am wondering, especially Matt Miller, view on rights. He keeps calling on them, but doesn't really say what he thinks. Scott S. P.S. Larry, I read most of the Libertarian (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Dave Schuler

(...) Perhaps you misread my post, but I'll answer anyway. I'm saying that the children of people (none of whom I've called, even by implication, "crack smokers") who are unable to meet their responsibilities can't realistically expect support from (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Frank Filz

Dave Schuler wrote in message ... (...) sense. (...) through (...) agree, (...) I (...) sizable (...) get (...) So what's the problem here? If a child's parents are so incapable of nurturing the child for success, why should they have much if any (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo

Frank Filz wrote in message ... (...) the (...) realistically (...) that (...) necessarily (...) all (...) so (...) everyone (...) I sort of thought it was hopeless too, Frank. This is directed to those who have been "debating" us. I decided, since (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff —Dave Schuler

(...) Liberama is disqualified because it relies on the assumption that in its great society people and corporations will be motivated by higher ethics and community responsibility--an assumption which is fine on paper but has never come close to (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff —Frank Filz

(...) If individuals and corporations are incapable of charity and community duty, then why do we have it currently? As far as I know, PEOPLE created our government. You don't seem to be preaching the "god" factor. Also, I see "deliberate, (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff —Jasper Janssen

(...) Stop thinking in absolutes. Incapable isn't the problem, it's that there's not enough of it. (...) Absolutes again. Show me that Libertopia is better, and I'll convert. Make it a practical example. Why don't all ya libertarians move to one (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff —John DiRienzo

Jasper Janssen wrote in message <388a3894.72786960@l...et.com>... (...) In your opinion. (...) Not too long ago, you said you'd ruled it out. So, you are still willing to consider it? Glad to hear it. (...) Is there an empty state around? I guess (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff —Jasper Janssen

(...) Certainly I'm willing to consider it. I just don't think you'll be able to convince me. (...) When there are few of you, centralising yourselves and starting small certainly is easier than going for the big bucks right from the start. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff —John DiRienzo

Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38970e5b.389705315@...et.com>... (...) Oh, really?! (...) a (...) I'd like to see that happen. I am sure the Liberals (Socialists) of this country would love it, too... "Wow, those Libertarians in that state are (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff —Jasper Janssen

(...) Yes. Really. "Going by past successes", that is called. (...) So what you are really saying is that you'd rather not do it because you're afraid it might not work. Well, your choice. (...) Thought you were talking about donors. Okay, (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff —John DiRienzo

Pointless jabber... Jasper Janssen wrote in message <38acafe0.562152541@...et.com>... (...) It was a joke. (...) this (...) Why bother only changing a small community when its possible to change the world? Anyway, I am not afraid it won't work, and (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) That's not what he said at all. He's saying that others would victimize us if we did do that and made a success of it. And that's largely why it won't work in this country. The only way to be safe from the predations of others would be to turn (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff —Jasper Janssen

(...) So make it work despite opposition and predation. If it's so much better than the current situation, a measly 70% income tax shouldn't harm you at all. Jasper (24 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) But in Libertopia, everyone who chose to work would have more money due to wildly less government waste. If we all have more money it will be easier to donate more. So maybe there would then be 'enough' charity. right? (...) Does Libertopia (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff —Scott Edward Sanburn

Dave, (...) Tell me if this is wrong, but this discussion seems to imply that our current school system is completely neutral on things, which is not the case, based on what I know. Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff —Dave Schuler

Scott: (...) If that's what I implied, it was unintentional. Actually, your argument about a liberal-leaning school (or any -leaning school) supports my concerns about a Libertopian school system, simply changing the flavor of the -leaning! Dave! (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff —Dave Schuler

(...) Many people and corporations contribute to charities simply for the tax write-off. Beyond that, some people contribute, I have no doubt, because of a sense of spiritual duty or because it's proper to do--and that's laudable, certainly. Maybe (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff —Frank Filz

(...) Two things. First off, how did the tax break get there in the first place? Second, the tax break just makes it cheaper to contribute to an approved charity, it doesn't improve the actual bottom line. (...) To be honest, I have yet to see any (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff —Scott Edward Sanburn

Dave, (...) Well, that is why I favor the school choice (Vouchers, etc.) I think we should be able to have our children go to the school we deem best, not what the government thinks. I think school choice will be a big topic in the coming years. I (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Exclamation points —Dave Schuler

Scott: (...) Why yes! It's Dave-factorial! Actually, I don't know why I started, but I've been signing my name that way for about 12 years. Just something weird I came up with during my crazy teen years. And, as you speculated, it's a way to (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Libertarian stuff —John DiRienzo

Dave Schuler wrote in message ... (...) (and (...) middle-of-the- (...) to (...) view (...) Your a moderate what? (...) So (...) Good memory. And sadly, you (actually Jasper said this first) "aren't anywhere near ready for it" may be true. (...) me. (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff —Dave Schuler

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes a lot of unhelpful nonsense ultimately decaying to a simple ad hominem, yet again. John, are you wholly unfamiliar with the conventions of interpersonal communication? You seem unable to mount an (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff —John DiRienzo

Dave Schuler wrote in message ... (...) nonsense (...) you (...) Deal with your problems if you have any, too. I am dealing with my own as quickly as I can, and I don't mind you pointing them out to me (1) (well, sometimes!). To help me with my "sad (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff —Dave Schuler

(...) That's all anyone can ask, and I will likewise try to be more civil. Larry's done a great job of pointing out that my behavior has been less than exemplary, so I'm hardly able to cast the first stone. As a general suggestion (and Richard has (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff —Larry Pieniazek

(...) With the threading as broken as it is, this deep in a thread tree, it may be useful to quote enough of the post that you're replying to for us to find it. Or are you just ranting against John in general rather than at a specific post? I'd say (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff —Dave Schuler

(...) Did I break the threading by failing to quote the message? If so, then this break is obviously my fault. I guess I would say that I am ranting against John in general as well as at a specific post of his, but my initial message was in response (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Didn't say YOU broke it, merely that it is broken. "this deep in a thread tree" for various reasons, the reference lines being posted are truncated. Todd has a proposed fix to cnews that will compensate for (I think in most cases) other (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff --Time Out! —Dave Schuler

(...) Mine was a face-value question--I wasn't saying that you accused me. (...) Why are you so hostile now, of all times, when I've admitted in two separate posts that you were right and I was wrong? Is it because I didn't like Bicentennial Man? (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff --Time Out! —Richard Franks

They say it takes 20 minutes for the hormones caused by anger to fade and dissapate. That when you're in the middle of an emotional argument, it is better to go into seperate rooms, whatever, for 20 minutes until both parties become rational again; (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff —John DiRienzo

Dave Schuler wrote in message ... (...) of (...) It seems that irony and sarcasm are often overlooked by the beholder, and I personally will be far more careful in their use. I refrained from pointing out the "do gooder" mentality that I also saw (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) The problem is who _does_ get a say in it. Are you saying that if, say, only criminals are willing to pay for schools, they should be allowed to raise innocent children into criminals (...) Not a bad idea. (...) Anarchy == no government. A (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) Hey, Jasper, we might agree on something! ;) Scott S. (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) Quick, someone call the news! Film at eleven. Jasper (24 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Frank Filz

Dave Schuler wrote in message ... (...) in (...) family) (...) If no one wanted to help them, then how in heck do we end up with a law helping them? Who passed the law in the first place if no one wanted to help them? I really doubt ANYONE (no (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Dave Schuler

(...) That's an interesting assertion, but it has nothing to do with what I said. (...) Obviously I'm not suggesting that all "charity" is or should be driven by blind funds--that would be akin to throwing money down a well. My question, however, (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Please use our term. It's our meme, not yours, and using some other word means you are talking about some other thing, which we don't have to defend since it's your idea rather than ours. Libertopia as a name was chosen specifically to drive (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Dave Schuler

(...) Actually, whatever the intent, I think it comes across as an implication of rather than a distinction from Utopia (...) I used the word interchangeably, and as far as I was concerned they were the same. You're right, however, and I apologize (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) For what it's worth, I have a different take on this than Larry does. I agree that (to me, at least) Libertopia implies "our flavor of utopia" rather than something wholly different. And, I think the use of Liber-rama (which is how I'd spell (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) "Libertopia" comes across (to me) as a name specifically chosen to drive home the point that it _is_ utopia. You did a fairly bad job if the above was what you were trying to convey with the name. Would have been better to avoid any mention of (...) (24 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Frank Filz

(...) Maybe I need to re-read what you wrote, but perhaps you could expand and clarify what you were trying to say. (...) It seems to me we are on the verge of corporations running the schools anywise. Look at all the product advertising which is (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) (Banging head against wall) Why oh why was I so silly as to begin reading this thread. Why not just tie 'em to the land and call them serfs? Heck, let's admit that they'll never amount to anything and put them in factories at age 6. Let's (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Dave Schuler

(...) My point was that I agree absolutely that it is foolish to contribute to charity without some sense of where one's money will wind up but I don't feel I can trust a corporation or a single wealthy individual to fund an educational system (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Frank Filz

(...) Who says a single individual or corporation is going to be running most schools? Currently the government gets most of its money from the middle class. These people will still have this money to spend on services. I know that I would be at (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Dave Schuler

(...) A very convenient piece of gerrymandering. (...) Okay, now it's my turn to have painted with too broad a brush, and you point out some powerful counterexamples. The unifying factor I see in your cases is some natural catastrophe or extremity (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Frank Filz

(...) My point is that since we aren't perfect, there will always be a few jerks. Constraining the whole society for a few jerks seems irrational. Look at how the current "zero tolerance" of weapons is working in the schools. Kids are getting (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Dave Schuler

(...) Nor am I asserting that all humans are bad--I'm merely pointing out that people's behavior will expand, so to speak, to fill the boundaries allowed to them. In addition, you've given spot examples to shore up your argument as well--how can you (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) Hmm. The riots in Seattle were from WTO disagreements, wasn't it? People, no matter what they believe in, sometimes do evil things. I think some the riots were caused by the civil unrest of the country, which have ironed out somewhat. I think (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) I don't want to go out on a limb, but just because it happened in a fairly conservative town doesn't mean idiots, rioters, evil and corrupt people won't do things. I know a few conservative people that I can't stand sometimes. Doing these (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Dave Schuler

Scott: (...) restrictions (...) True enough--I was just trying to illustrate that State College isn't typically some crazy town of hoodlums (or is that hoodla?). (...) Some were, because they were caught on video. I don't know what the final count (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Scott Edward Sanburn

Dave, (...) Hmm... going in Ann Arbor (MI), Lansing (MI), and Ohio State (Columbus), there were a lot of hoodlums, trying to pick on the college people. The worst was Ohio State, the East side of the campus, right on the border, were some of the (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Frank Filz

(...) Your comment about a lack of respect for property is a good one. To those opposed to the Libertarian ideal, think about the effect that government not respecting property rights transforms the populace into not respecting property rights (or (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo

Scott E. Sanburn wrote in message <387E4253.33A064C2@c...eb.net>... (...) these (...) fullest (...) final (...) <rant against people> And they write on the walls, too!! </rap> -- Have fun! John The Legos you've been dreaming of... (URL) weird Lego (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) Yes, that as well! Grr.... >:( Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator/CAD Operator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (URL) (24 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Dave Schuler

(...) Hmm. (19 years ago, 2-Sep-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —David Koudys

(...) What were those tests done with rats in a cage-- a few rats in a large cage with lots of food and water, no problem many rats in a small cage with hardly any food and water--mass pandemonium We've seriously not evolved that far from the other (...) (19 years ago, 2-Sep-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Dave Schuler

(...) That’s discussed at some length in “Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors” by Ann Druyan and the late Carl Sagan. They stress that one can’t always predict human crisis-response based on the behavior of rats, but real-world examples make one wonder (...) (19 years ago, 2-Sep-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —David Koudys

(...) I wouldn't directly correlate humans and rats, either. Rats turning on each other in bad situations is an 'instinctive defense mechanism' that they can't consiously do anything about. Humans, on the other hand, even though we have 'instinctive (...) (19 years ago, 2-Sep-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo

Frank Filz wrote in message <387DFF2B.5B98@minds...ng.com>... (...) Thank you Frank! -- Have fun! John The Legos you've been dreaming of... (URL) weird Lego site: (URL) (24 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) You say this as if it is necessarily true. I haven't yet seen even Larry produce any evidence that this is in fact the case. So replace "will" with "may" for the moment, please. (...) Prisoner's dilemma. If you're the _one_ not paying when (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) To be fair, I have to point out that Prisoners Dilemma requires participants to be unable to communicate - if you don't know what the other person is going to do then the safest strategy is the one that gives less consistent drawbacks. Even if (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Game Theory and the like... —Dave Schuler

(...) I saw a program once on game theory as it applied to this sort of thing. Fascinating (to me), though my background in such matters is limited, and my knowledge of statistics amounts to knowing that I will *probably* be able to catch the bus (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) Sad as it is, I see neither of these things occur very regularly in bog cities. Both break down in the context of millions of teeming ants. (...) Honours, no less? Congratulations... Summa Cum Laude. Jasper (24 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) Agreed - I guess that's why the whole a-ism thing has very much an emphasis at a low community level. (...) Heh - thanks! I'm still studying for it, so save the congrats for about 5 months until I get it :) Richard (24 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) Yes. The problem is complex, though: If you go back to a small community (say, max cities out at 100k inhabitants.), can you still sustain technology at out current level, and rise beyond that? Are million-plus-inhabitant cities a necessary (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Larry Pieniazek

One thing to point out here is that these scholarships are ONLY going to be needed for the people that can't afford the 1-2K USD or so per child per year to pay tuition. I of course feel that will be a VERY small set. Way under 1% of the population. (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) 1-2K can't buy an education. That's not enough for books, other educational tools, and rent/maintenance on the school building, let alone pay for teachers as well. Unless you're talking primary education. (...) Bass boats? (...) Oh yeah, that (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Matthew Miller

(...) It's ok; some kindly corporation would doubtless taken them in. (Huh. There was a Simpsons episode recently on just how this might play out. The school had to close, and a corporation took over. Worked out well, if I remember right.) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) Yah. Right. Did I mention I disapproved of slavery, even if it was freely entered into? (...) You base your worldview on the _Simpsons_? Ah, I guess that's not too bad, really. Hmmmm, donuts.. Jasper (24 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Matthew Miller

(...) Yes, me too. My hunch is we'll get into this in the property-rights discussion -- but not for a while yet. (...) (For the record, it actually turned out to be a terrible disaster.) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) More questions I'm afraid :) Using this premise, does the child have a right to expect an education from their parents? And if the parents default on that duty - would the child suffer? (As I understand it, one of a Libertarian state's duties (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) And if the parents decide not to send their child to school, what then? Do they spend time in jail? Who decides what constitutes "schooling", and what doesn't? Why do I get the feeling this inevitably leads to the government deciding whether (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) What happens when parents (inevitably) decide that they can provide a decent education at home, rather than spending all of that money? If the child has a right to a certain level of education, and the state has to uphold that right (or rather (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) You mean just like they do now? (Home schooling was ruled constitutional, IIRC. At any rate, it took the courts.) (...) And who certifies the certfier? IOW, quis custodet custodies? I'd guess that would have to be either a fourth-party, (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Matthew Miller

(...) This would also be a good solution if the parents are on crack (perfectly legal in the libertarian utopia) and not really into making sure their kid gets taken care of (let alone educated). (24 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) YM, throwing the parents into jail and throwing the kid out on the streets? I fail to see the overall improvement. Jasper (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) Duh, then the house/hovel that they previously occupied can go to better, more worthy people - in Libertopia this seems to be equivalent with richer people. (1) Richard (1) And why not, as they supply the libraries, schools and workhouses ;) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Matthew Miller

(...) It might not be an improvement, but it'll certainly be an issue. 'Cause without the government telling corporations they can't, a lot of food products could very easily have a new secret ingredient. Oh, sure, people might vote with their (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) And Coka Cola would finally win the tasteaddictionMORE challenge... Richard (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) Didn't the original Coca-Cola have cocaine in it, for that extra midday boost (1), when it first came out? 1) Original advertisement, which I saw, many moons ago! Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Matthew Miller

(...) Yes, that's true. Cocaine was originally not realized to be harmful and thought of as medicinal. When it became apparent that there might be some health concerns, Coca-Cola removed it from their product. But this isn't necessarily a promise (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) Actually, they removed it from their product when there was a law passed against cocaine. Or so I'd heard. (...) Nor do they even seem willing to admit that nicotine is addictive. I mean, for crying out loud: "I, personally, do not believe (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) With none of those embarassing white powder marks around the nostrils. ;) (This is similar to the selling point of chewing tobacco, no smoke stains or smells.) (...) Where did you find one of *those*? I've never seen one, except as a plate in (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) I think it was in one of my classes, showing the history of drug laws. Sociology, perhaps? Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator/CAD Operator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (URL) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen

(...) "Now back to the _old_ old formula!" Jasper (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo

Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <3877CEEA.506A25B3@v...er.net>... (...) Easily. Hard to believe, but true. A well run private school, whose soul purpose (i.e. one of today's public schools) is to keep kids from running the streets could cost this (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Matthew Miller

John DiRienzo <ig88888888@stlnet.com> wrote: [snip] (...) Hey John -- I started to reply to this message, but then realized I can't really. I don't understand what you mean by "right", or by "free good". Could you repond to my questions in the (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo

Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) think (...) I (...) I looked at those eariler. Thought I should give it some thought before answering. One wrong word and there'd be hell to pay. :-) Its funny, though, that you don't know what a right is. (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Matthew Miller

(...) Wow. I didn't realize what a jerk you were before. (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

We all have good and bad days I guess. Richard (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Larry Pieniazek

I don't have time to participate as I'd like to, this week, and probably not next week either... so I'll be brief. This is not directed at anyone in particular, but let's try to calm down, shall we? There is no reason to be snotty to each other, (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks

(...) I agree. IMO Johns attitude came out of no-where, totally out of order - I'm guessing he's having a bad night, and that's fair enough. I say this because I feel he should be aware of the consequences of his posting, and how people felt reading (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Matthew Miller

(...) Yes, you're right. John, I was out of line and I'm sorry I said that. (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo

Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) think (...) Thank you for noticing. And you probably didn't realize what a jerk you were, before, either. The reason I've been so impolite in these past few posts (moreso than is typical for my normally (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Matthew Miller

(...) Yes, I posted some things in a sarcastic tone. That doesn't mean I wasn't serious. But the fact that you weren't amused underlines the point that we disagree at an extremely basic level. So discussing the question of rights makes a lot of (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo

Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) every (...) probably (...) a (...) Thanks, we will. Good night. -- Have fun! John The Legos you've been dreaming of... (URL) weird Lego site: (URL) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo

Matthew, give me the link to the post you needed answered. It is long gone... Thanks -- Have fun! John The Legos you've been dreaming of... (URL) weird Lego site: (URL) DiRienzo wrote in message ... (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Matthew Miller

(...) This is what I meant in specific: (URL) there's actually two true/false statements which go before that. Just give an agree/disagree (or a mostly agree/mostly disagree) (I mostly disagree with both, btw -- see my reply to the above post for (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Matthew Miller

In the hopes that this can actually still be productive: (...) I don't find it funny. A long string of important thinkers throughout the history of western civilization have spent a lot of time thinking about what a right is exactly. (I could give (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)