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 / 3540
3539  |  3541
Subject: 
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:30:43 GMT
Viewed: 
955 times
  
Matthew Miller wrote in message ...
John DiRienzo <ig88888888@stlnet.com> wrote:
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

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 a libertarian utopia. Yet what they do affects me,
even if I boycott them completely. (Which is increasingly difficult given
the tendency of all companies to merge.)

   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 see how they clean up their
act.

Part of the government's role is to keep corporations from stomping all
over people.  (It may not always do a great job of that, and it may do a • lot
of other things poorly. But at least there's a framework there!)

  It does a piss poor job of that, I would say.  It all but helps them every
step of the way.  In the paragraph above, you were complaining about it.
Make up your mind.  The frame work you mentioned - what are you talking
about?

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.

Oh my. I'm not sure if I should be offended, or what.

  Doesn't matter to me.

--
   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 2 Replies:
  Swearing? {Was: Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])}
 
(...) And who said that debate was circlar? Richard (25 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 (...) (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?])
 
(...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 11-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