To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 3539
3538  |  3540
Subject: 
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:23:32 GMT
Viewed: 
1290 times
  
Matthew Miller wrote in message ...
Althought may I sound flippant, for which I apologize, I'm totally serious.
People who smoke crack (and they do exist) aren't necessary bad. But they
are necessarily bad parents -- very likely to the point where they won't be
able to work off debts to pay for anything, let alone a kid's education.
That sucks for the kid. What about that situation makes it so he or she
deserves less of a chance than the child of parents who where more
responsible?

   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.  You
have stereotyped people, incorrectly, as is usually the case.  Not all
people who smoke crack end up in the gutter or jail (1).  Get real.

and his food).  If he is a good parent, he won't go to jail, or be • required
to pay any debt not incurred.

Again, I'm not asking about the parent. I'm asking about the kid. (Although
I do think there are serious issues with how to deal with highly addictive
substances in a libertarian society, that's a separate issue.)

   Assuming that drugs are commonly available, and that people prefer
freedom to jail (which they would, if punishment is carried out correctly),
there would be plenty of room for private enterprises to deal with such a
problem.  I addressed that issue.  You did say the parent would be incapable
of educating his child, which is bs and you know it.  People today provide
for their kids, while on drugs (not very well, perhaps, but they do it).  As
for the kid, I would suppose that the courts would send him to one of the
less expensive schools, and expect the responsible party to work off the
debt of paying for that education, in addition to any other debts he might
have.

More name calling. Geesh.

If you'd listen...

(1) - unfortunately many do.  Without a system and family that enable
addictions, the cure would come much sooner for them, too.
--
   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/



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
 
(...) "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 (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
 
(...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR