 | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
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 (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) I'm going to take a LOT of convincing on this one. I don't see _how_ Libertarianism is going to hold corporations accountable at all. In today's society, huge companies have very little accountability to me at all, and they'd have even less in (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Matthew Miller wrote in message ... (...) convince (...) Simple, don't hold corporations accountable, but human beings. As it is now, corporations are running amuck, because the people who run them are able to hide. Take away their "immunity" and (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Swearing? {Was: Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])}
|
|
(...) And who said that debate was circlar? Richard (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) I'm not sure of the mechanism by which this works. All corporate meetings must be in public? No one is allowed walls on their offices? What is the enforcement mechanism? (...) It may do a "piss poor" job, but at least it's there to do (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Hiya John, (...) Only if it is true, and I've had some thoughts on this.. (...) An interesting point - both sources have at least a few bits that *everyone* should be able to get something from. (...) From an evolutionary point of view, babies (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) It hasn't been proven, but hasn't seen its chance yet either. Larry made a very good point last night - Libertarianism is working, despite all the regulation in the world. It can/will work. (...) ideas (...) (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) What he really said was that a watered down version of Libertarianism is spreading. What Larry could be referring to is the reduction of laws and privatisation of services. It's like saying, well the fuel burns, this rocket will take us to (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) up (...) much (...) the (...) lines. (...) concept (...) is (...) Read it again (there is more below). Life affirming is good, definitely not evil, and doesn't relate to lawfulness. Regarding neutral... did (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Bwahahhahahah! That's perfect. If I can engage in some cheap and unnecessary ad hominem commentary: I can't think of any single statement that sums up your approach to these topics than that line right there, John. Thanks for the laugh. -- (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Oki, I got that bit. (...) Neither good or bad, either having no understanding of ones actions, or having no particular alignment to either paradigm. Thats my working definition.. disprove it. (...) Because if you don't know what you are (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
