Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Jan 2000 13:45:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
894 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> > Hi Richard,
>
> Hiya John,
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Only if it is true, and I've had some thoughts on this..
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.
> > 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.
>
> An interesting point - both sources have at least a few bits that • *everyone*
> should be able to get something from.
Quite a lot of something, in my estimation.
> > 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.
>
> From an evolutionary point of view, babies are born selfish.. and it is up • to
> us to teach them the meaning of wrong and right, and later (hopefully much
> later) the concepts of good and evil.
>
> In AD&D terms, I submit that babies are born chaotic-neutral ;) (1)
I'd say chaotic-good. You need to reevaluate the definition of good.
Above you said they are born selfish - thats ~very~ life-affirming (see the
title of the original post to this thread). We decided life affirming was
good. If you aren't respecting that, no need to continue along these lines.
We'll just move back, if your still interested.
> Following on, to flourish in society, we have to change the chaotic to • neutral
> or lawful, but the moral alignment can be anywhere in evil-neutral-good.
Evil is not life affirming. Neither is lawful, if the laws are wrong.
To flourish anywhere today, man must be at least neutral (which means what
exactly, Richard?) or lawful on the first, and can be any of the 3 on the
latter. On the latter, if he is good he is taken advantage of, neutral (a
fabrication of evil) and evil are those taking the advantage. I'd like to
eliminate the chances of evil being successful, for some odd reason.
> In non-geek terms that is to say, we have to adhere to laws and conventions • at
> least partly to flourish in society, but our innate orientation can be
> anything.
Thats what you mean by neutral - a disguised chaotic? Or veiled evil,
depending on which scale. Correct? And the unlawful ones are the ones who
get caught, right? And the evil are those in cults, right? Silliness.
True, however, that doesn't have any effect on our innate orientation. Such
a revelation! (1)
> It's easy to confuse law-conforming with innate goodness, as it's usually • only
> in severe situations where the differences lie. (2)
I don't confuse the two. I don't find it easy to confuse the two.
Weird, huh? Despite that, I doubt ~you~ see the current severity of the
situation. If you did, you would not have said that!
> Just like in those countries where law-abiding citizens walk past street
> children.
They have probably accepted that they are powerless. They are in a
different (third world) culture. Apples and oranges. America is not now
and would not become third world in any way with Libertarianism.
> Just a thought!
Yeah, it wasn't an idea.
> Richard
> (2) Which is probably why D&D only had the 3 prong rating, whereas AD&D • allowed
> 9, including rogues - those who were innately good but didn't always follow • the
> rules. (Chaotic-Good)
Thats a baby. Not knowing the rules and not following the rules... same
thing. The baby isn't even capable of not acting in a life affirming way.
Thus not capable of being evil, or not good. It knows nothing of rights,
but uses its right to free speech. It doesn't realize it has no right to be
fed, but does everything in its power to get food. It knows nothing of the
rights of others, but also is incapable of violating their rights. It is
only good, only life affirming, when it is born. It becomes lawful
(normally, but sometimes it must remain chaotic) to survive. It becomes
evil (name one who hasn't) for the same reason. Make evil less (or non)
imperative for survival, and there will be less evil.
1 - There is no neutral. No middle ground. Either life affirming or not.
One or the other. Pick one, and know which you have picked.
--
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:
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
|
|
|
|
