Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:46:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
920 times
|
| |
|
|
Hi Richard,
There is something you are missing that'll make sense of it all. I'll
let you know, but read this first. Frank's basic point about men being
life-affirming creatures, and how life would improve if only they lived
within a life-affirming system should have been a good start.
Hi Frank,
I read your post. I also read one by Larry which commended your writing.
I have to agree with him; you seem to have grasped these principles well and
quickly, too! And you do a good job of conveying them here. I have never
adhered to Libertarianism, although it is the closest set of political ideas
to my liking. Also, I am not a Christian, but find a lot of good (sometimes
by reading between the lines) in the Bible. Anyway, about what you wrote
below about Christians and evil and such. I agree that men are inherently
or innately good. Well, babies are... by the time they become men, its a
different story. I think thats what is meant (although often misperceived)
in Christianity - that given the chance to go "an easier, softer way" men
will, even if it is evil. When given the opportunity to choose evil, its
very likely they will, and that no man is 100% immune to evil behavior. The
fact that every man ever (with the supposed exception of Jesus) has
committed at least one act of evil, is where the words "all men are evil"
come from, IMO. God has, supposedly, never committed an act of evil (with
Him as the ultimate judge, I suppose he can say that!), while every man
has - so we are the opposite of him (not good, ungodly, evil, etc). That is
very different, to me, than being "evil at heart". I agree with Larry, that
most are "good at heart", probably all of us are from the womb. I also
stipulate that I am not as good as God, that no one is, and for that reason,
(and probably for only that reason) I don't mind someone calling me evil - I
accept it in that sense.
When the society we live in condones evil behavior (1), its easy to
believe that people are inherently evil (another misperception) while they
have grown (been raised) to believe that some acts of evil are OK. Its easy
to see, with the combination of observing the world, and having Christian
rhetoric poured in their ears, that Christians would form these
misconceptions (of the nature of man, and about the words regarding "men
being evil" in the Bible).
It becomes very difficult, when arguing about Libertarianism, to convince
people that taking away their opportunities to be evil (by making each
individual responsible and accountable) could really work to prevent all
kinds of wrong in the world. Further, taking away those opportunities
wouldn't exactly be appealing to those who are guilty, now would it? A lot
of people just do not want to be convinced.
Its also hard to get others to see what is wrong - so many things appear
to be wrong but aren't, while so many things seem right (2) but aren't
either. Thats in the Bible, too, and quoted (or paraphrased) often since -
that the biggest lies are the easiest to believe. Helping people to see
these misconceptions they have formed plays a very big part in explaining
how Libertarianism is intended to work.
As a lot of people don't believe in God, and have different
misconceptions (3), which aren't as readily apparent to me, there is even
more difficulty in presenting the case of Libertarianism (or the case of
innate goodness in men) to some of those people than to Christians, for me.
However, some of them come easily, or even convince themselves.
Usually, Christians can get it after a lot of talking. Whereas
non-Christians need to be convinced in another way, since their arguments
are different. There arguments are usually stronger, or at least to me less
penetrable, as they, in many cases, have given these things more thought,
and have somehow come to the wrong conclusion with many more inaccurate, yet
hard to argue, premises. I can only describe that as a stronger web of
disenchantment. Maybe I am the one who is mixed up, but I am resolute,
nonetheless.
1 - it does - some deny it, but it really does
2 - thats what a lot of these debates are about after all
such as:
Appears to be right, but isn't:
transfer of goods by use of force
Appears to be wrong, but isn't:
Homeless people (not all homeless have a right to be provided for?)
3 - I wonder which ones I have?
Have fun!
John
My Trade/Sale (and links) Page
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego
my weird Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Filz <ffilz@mindspring.com>
Newsgroups: lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: Saturday, January 08, 2000 6:12 AM
Subject: Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
:Richard Franks wrote in message ...
:>In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
:>>Richard Franks wrote:
:>>
:>>> Urgh! *shudder of fear* Taxes don't seem so bad when the alternative is
:>>> hoping that corperations suddenly become altruistic towards society.
:>>
:>>Fortunately, Libertarian theory doesn't require ANYONE to be altruistic,
:>
:>Maybe.. AFAIK Libertarian policy on education is to remove the burden of
:school
:>taxes from those not responsible for the education of children. This would
:>leave the education system with substantially less income, to supplement
:this,
:>there does seem to be plans for some form of social contract:
:
:
:Oh, I suspect the school system will end up getting just as much money. If
:nothing else, corporations will spend the money so that they can get
trained
:workers (which is where the bulk of the money should come from anywise,
:though a prudent parent will spend extra money to guarantee her child the
:extra edge). The money corporations will give is definitely not altruism,
:they are giving it because they need the workers (now they may also chose
to
:be somewhat altruistic, and give money to charity, though I expect that
most
:stockholders would vote to not spend the money, so they could chose how to
:spend it themselves for the most part.
:
:>The Libertarian FAQ (What about the poor?)
:><http://www.libertarian.org/libfaq.html#Lib.FAQ.13> states that "private
:>charity is more compassionate and delivers the goods better than the
:government
:>welfare plantation".
:>
:>The idea of dollar for dollar charitable tax-credit is a form of coercion
:to
:>enforce people to donate to charity. Surely this dual-tax system would
:create
:>more red-tape than the existing one?
:
:
:What dual tax system are you talking about? Certainly not Liberatopia.
There
:are no taxes (at least not to support anything other than the proper
:function of government, and even then, they will be structured as user fees
:based on actual value of service rendered to the individual, rather than
the
:amount of money the individual happens to be willing to admit to earning).
:
:The most effective charities today rely largely on private donations
:(including large corporate donations). True, they do benefit from an
:advantage of tax deduction (but the contribution still costs the donor
:money, just not as much), and benefit from different tax laws on their
:property and income, and probably many of them also get government grants,
:but still, the majority of the money is privately donated.
:
:>>although I can't speak for libitarian guff, whatever that is.
:>
:>An embarrassing spelling mistake? I also changed guff to stuff, which is a
:bit
:>more respectful :) I do want to learn more about Libertarian politics, as
:I'm
:>still at the stage where every new tidbit that I learn about it makes it
:seem
:>even more unworkable and optimistic.. I get the feeling that there is
:something
:>obvious that I'm missing that will make sense of it all?
:
:
:The obvious part that you're missing is what Larry calls "life affirming".
:The idea that people actually are basically good. Of course while this is
:obvious to me, people saddled with the Christian based belief that "people
:are inherently bad." will have a hard time seeing the opposite (even when
:they escape their upbringing, and join a life affirming group - I see it
all
:the time in people who have come Unitarian Universalists (a life affirming
:religion) as adults. They just don't quite seem to get it).
:
:Frank
:
:
:
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
209 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
