Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Jan 2000 18:54:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2311 times
|
| |
|
|
Sorry, this got long, and you probably won't like it, but there is plenty
to argue with.
Richard Franks wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
>
> > > That's fine for the people who can afford to do so. Wouldn't this create • a
> > > set of uber communities that had all the services, and lower class
> > > communities that had no services and people couldn't afford to move out • of?
> >
> > I don't think so. My feeling is that the reason we have so much crime is
> > that there are so many people who have little or nothing to lose, so the
> > potential gain from crime is tremendous. Seems to me that in this case the
> > best way to reduce crime is to better the lot of the poor.
>
> So you would agree that education and poverty are areas which could do a • lot
> more than they do now if they were more efficient with the money they • recieve?
> Reorganise away, but remember that the Market isn't neccessarily the best
> optimiser, perhaps the easiest though..
>
>
> > > How are children supposed to move to different community anyway? Or is it
> > > fine to deny them the right to educate themselves because the concept of • tax
> > > is supposedly evil?
> >
> > Well, my parents chose which communities we lived in while I was growing • up
> > based partly on the quality of the schools.
>
> And those parents who can't afford to move?
>
>
> > However, I also believe that in Liberatopia, the poor communities WILL be
> > taken care of. There are plenty of charities which will step in (and are
> > already involved). Companies will start spending on schools in less
> > advantaged areas as the labor market gets tighter.
>
> Assuming that making systems and services more efficient won't cost • millions of
> jobs.. oh wait!
>
> Either way, if not handled properly Libertopia would be a lot worse before • it
> started becoming better.
Very likely, depending on implementation, and how you, as an individual
are currently living. It will be bad for some and good for others. Mankind
has suffered since it began, because there have always been those who acted
irresponsibly (didn't respect other people's rights). Its gotten really out
of hand (1) from all this responsibility being shifted around and the
trampling of rights, and might need to "hit bottom" before it can progress.
To illustrate my point, I am an alcoholic, in case you didn't know. I am
no longer drinking, and I am moving on with my life. I got help, all for
free, a very little amount of crappy help from the government (it wouldn't
have done the job, and I dropped it (1)), and primarily from other
individuals. All of the other alcoholics I have met had to hit bottom.
They didn't decide to quit drinking because life was going good. Every
alcoholic has a different bottom out level. For some it is death. For
others, the bottom can be when they have massive debt, no belongings, no
home, extreme physical sickness, etc. Others are fortunate enough to
realize and do something about the problem sooner than that.
A country thats been acting irresponsibly, more or less, for 200+ years
(in a world thats been doing so for thousands of years) can make changes for
the better or for the worse. If they choose changes for the worse, the
unknown bottom comes closer (3), but changes for the better make the bottom
farther away. Its possible this country could make some good changes
without having a terrible bottom, or it could be like the fall of Czarism,
or Communism or any other, very bad. The fact remains, that the government,
that is the people, are being irresponsible, and they themselves may not
have to pay for it, but eventually someone will (we all are, terribly, not
just the poor, but I doubt you'd see that). Its a problem that will never go
away until its addressed, and in my mind, the sooner it is the better. It
could go on like this for another million years, if no one sees and does
things to correct the visible (to how many?) flaw, instead of just adapting
the tried and failed every once in a while.
That got a little longwinded. My point was that if we are going to
change over to being responsible individuals, we are going to have to suffer
giving up the comforts we know (those of us who do know them) from being
irresponsible individuals.
Nobody likes to be called irresponsible, but if the system (truly) fails
anyone, who's responsibility is it? Or who's irresponsibility do we blame?
The system's - every single person who makes up the system. That is proof
that all who support a failing, irresponsible system are indeed
irresponsible themselves (4). The ultimate crux is what is each individual
in the system responsible for? What is too much responsibility? What is
not enough? The only answer is total responsibility for one's self. No
more, no less.
> > Don't worry, they same
> > (or more) money will be spent. The difference will be that instead of
> > politicians spending the money to win popularity contests, the charities
> > will be vyeing for your hard earned dollars, which you are going to spend • on
> > the charity which accomplishes the most bang for its buck.
>
> Ah, so the charities are like a mini dollar-electable government?
Not quite, they'd be charities, not government. No mix up there. The
government does what it should, the charities do what they should, and the
churches do what they should. Maybe what we need to call it is separation
of charity and government. As long as churches were a part of government,
it was wrong. The same is true with charity. Not a proper function of
government. Charity wasn't a function of the US government when it began.
The government did things to put a lot of people at a disadvantage, then it
came back and "saved" them - it overstepped its bounds in both instances.
The most successful charities would be those that do the most good.
Unlike today, where some of the biggest charities are very bureaucratic,
inefficient (basically government-like in the current sense of government)
in their implementation. So they'd do more good with less money, but they'd
get more!
> Richard
1 - so much so that it is hard to even recognize most of it
2 - in fact, although it was free, it was not worth the time (in $) to me.
I got much more out of private free help in less time, and thence had more
time to devote to other pursuits (like working to pay off the debts I
incurred).
3 - That song, "Whats going on?!" (3 non blondes?) says, "I pray for a
revolution." Not me. I'd just like people to recognize and do something
about the problem. The less suffering the better, and the sooner the
better. I don't know what she was thinking.
4 - Sorry if thats judgmental, but there is no way to step around it.
--
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:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Fair enough, but I still disagree :) I would say that a worthy artist is one who produces worthy art. I would also suggest that the requirement of any form of suffering or willingness to suffer, on behalf of the artist, is an intellectual one (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 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
|
|
|
|
