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 / 3578
3577  |  3579
Subject: 
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 12 Jan 2000 18:29:34 GMT
Viewed: 
1312 times
  
I've been out of it for a little while (I've been home sick, and the
threading got too complex for me), but here I am back again...

Richard Franks wrote:

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
if there was
a four year old kid on your street with no one, no where to go, that if
there weren't some government agency for you to call and make the problem
disappear, you wouldn't do something about it yourself?  You would, 99.9% of
people would.  So even if it wasn't the child's fault, the child would
survive.  As said earlier, get real.... if you are going to talk to me.

Okay, lets get very real.

<http://pangaea.org/street_children/kids.htm>
<http://www.unisa.ac.za/dept/press/lar/111/lar3.html>
<http://www.ddc.com/kidsacks/>
<http://www.letthechildrenlive.org/>
<http://www.concentric.net/~Vitnet/MinM.htm>

There are, according to the UN, around 150 million children on the streets at
present. Or is this reality not the one you like to face, instead embracing the
puesdo-reality of a system that is still at this moment hypothetical.

Life-affirming or not, that many street-children suggests that we can't rely on
the innate goodness of man. Which reality is more comfortable to inhabit?

One point of note: none of the societies with large numbers of street
children are anywhere near Libertarian, at least not the third world
societies which you always see the pictures and articles about (well ok,
I'm not sure how I'd classify the various former USSR countries, but
those aren't Liberatopias either).

One thought though, I wonder how much better off some of these countries
would be if we didn't have halfway interventions? I think there is a
point where one needs to intervene in other countries buisiness (but I'm
not quite sure how to square that with Liberatarian ideals, but it does
seem that if someone else is suffering from a non-Liberatarian
government, then some kind of intervention is moral), but when one does,
one should go the whole mile. Look at where Germany and Japan are today.
Look at where the countries we've waged war against since are.

--
Frank Filz

-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com



Message has 5 Replies:
  Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
 
(...) Hope you stay well! (...) Brazil has a massive problem too. I think I'd laid off Libertarianism in this one, and I was focussing on the assertion made that children wouldn't suffer because of life-affirmation, that people wouldn't walk past a (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
 
(...) One point here: This says that the _United States_ government has no moral authority to intervene. It doesn't say "no government may intervene". It even mentions why: because no existing government has a clean record. (...) Like there aren't (...) (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 ... (...) this (...) suffer (...) street (...) life-affirming is (...) is (...) other (...) of (...) worry - (...) More silliness, but couldn't the Red Cross hire mercenaries if it thought it was the right thing to (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
 
Frank Filz wrote in message <387CEFEB.6799@minds...ng.com>... (...) thought (...) thing (...) more (...) Red Cross was a pretty dumb organization to pick, but there are plenty of others, and the idea that "we'd" fight wars for non political reasons (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
 
(...) That's it. You've just convinced me to oppose libertarianism in the US with every breath, instead of just opposing it _here_. Think about wqhat you're _saying_, man. Non-initiation of force? Jasper (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
 
(...) Okay, lets get very real. (5 URLs) There are, according to the UN, around 150 million children on the streets at present. Or is this reality not the one you like to face, instead embracing the puesdo-reality of a system that is still at this (...) (24 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