Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Jan 2000 15:03:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
964 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> Richard Franks wrote in message ...
> > 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.
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 Mars and
back. It's a good start for the Libertarian cause, but there still is a way to
go.
> > 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.
Each to their own.
> > 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.
That might be helpful - I don't understand how a new-born baby with no concept
of good and evil, and be called either. In AD&D terminology their alignment is
neutral.
> > 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.
Isn't that what I said? :) Anyway - take neutral alignment to mean innately
self-centered, capable of cooperation if neccesary but won't neccessarily do so
if the benefits aren't good enough. In an AD&D world, a neutral character or
NPC won't attack you unless you attack first or if it is starving.
> 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.
That's a valiant cause, but I disagree that good lets itself get taken
advantage of. And neutral is equally a fabrication of good - it's a middle
ground.
> > 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?
Nope - neutral is neutral - neither good or evil!
> And the unlawful ones are the ones who get caught, right?
Nope - unlawful/neutral/chaotic is to do with your innate inner character, and
not with how others percieve you. Which is exactly why it's hard to dertermine.
> And the evil are those in cults, right? Silliness.
Define cult, before you start offending those with religion.
Evil goes out of its way to cause suffering, and as such isn't terribly useful.
Even someone as despised as Bill Gates would only be Lawful-Neutral in
game-terms, but he may be anything in reality.
> True, however, that doesn't have any effect on our innate orientation. Such
> a revelation! (1)
Thanks, glad I could help!
> > 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?
Yes, especially as you can't tell by just looking.
> Despite that, I doubt ~you~ see the current severity of the
> situation. If you did, you would not have said that!
You've got me there! What severity? And how does what I say hasten the next
cataclysm?
> > 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.
America is a third world country today? Wow.. that's harsh!
It happens in many countries, every day, from Brazil to the US to the UK.
> > Just a thought!
>
> Yeah, it wasn't an idea.
Any reason for that comment my friend?
> > (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.
Fuzzy agreement, but on the scales that I've introduced that is exactly why a
new-born baby is neutral.
> It is only good, only life affirming, when it is born.
This is a technicality that I have a problem with - how can it be good when it
has no concept of good or evil?
> Make evil less (or non) imperative for survival, and there will be less evil.
Yep, 'evil' is a moral value-judgement based on efficient evolutionary survival
that is not socially beneficial, or one that threatens the society meme itself.
> 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.
So you can be completely for this 'life-affirming' idea, or completely and
utterly against it... but if you're undecided (me) then I'm already
life-affirming?
I think one problem might be trying to mate 'life-affirming' with the AD&D
character scales. They don't have to be joined or match - I was using the AD&D
example to try and explain how someone who followed laws was not neccessarily
'good'.
Assuming that everyone contains innate goodness because on the face of it, we
all follow rules and are nice to each other sometimes when we meet, is a weak
argument. (1)
Cooperation is a proved evolutionary strategy, and we can explain a lot of our
behavior in those terms.
Just another thought.
Richard
(1) Although I suspect that there is more to it than that, I'll happily read
and consider any explanation as to why people are innately good.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
