Subject:
|
Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Jan 2000 18:59:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2378 times
|
| |
|
|
Long and boring, yet plenty controversial...
Richard Franks wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
>
> > > A community I lived in for a while didn't have access to a public • library,
> > > because the majority (but not an overwhelming majority -- something like
> > > 60%) of the people who lived there didn't want to pay the few cents in
> > > taxes to join the regional library program. And it wasn't because they • were
> > > building a privately-held public library of their own.
> >
> > So move to a community which does have a library.
>
> 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? Seriously, why • not
> just send them down the mines just now?
Why not? Those who can climb out of the "mines" will. Those who can't are
a monkey on the world's back that have no right to be there. You'd be
amazed, though, how many could climb out if necessary. Besides, you miss
the fact that they would be free to move to another country! Like yours,
then they could leach off of your system. Sounds good to me!
> 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?
Prove to me that they have a right to education.
> I would take your comment as being flippant, but I do believe that it • reflects
> Libitarian policy regarding the funding of social services, which is the • scary
> part.
It might be scary for you, if you've allowed yourself to become too
dependent on others. Otherwise, you'd like the idea. If you are going to
try to say you are compassionate, then your compassion is misplaced.
> > > I would submit that universal education and access to libraries (whether • or
> > > not a right) are good things. I'm not convinced that this would happen in • a
> > > purely free capitalist system.
> >
> > If it's worth the cost, it will happen. If it isn't worth the cost, then • it
> > isn't worth the cost.
>
> Worth the cost to whom? Liberation views suggest that services would be
> provided by third party service providers. What if education needs • subsidies -
> i.e. the majority of parents can't afford to give their children an • education
> without taxes?
> Ah - move to a different community and leave the poor people to their mud?
Presto! They, being responsible for themselves, can change the way they
live or they can die, or stay where they are, whatever they want. I am not
responsible for them. Why is that so hard to comprehend? Do you think that
because a person is born on Earth he has a right to certain "basic" things?
Why? That is your argument, so prove that anyone has any such rights. You
ask me to prove the opposite, and I will, but try your hardest, for the sake
of argument, to prove your side. I mean a proof, not a mish mash of
arguments based on themselves. TIA
> > Another thought, I think many of the longer existing
> > public libraries were actually established with a lot of donated money.
>
> Possibly because those who were born in a time of low educational access
> realize the true value of libraries, whereas we seem to take them for
granted
So, you take them for granted? I don't. I guess I had little access to
education, eh? The combination of industrialist and philanthropist is not
as uncommon as you seem to think. Perhaps because you misperceive heads of
corporations as industrialists when they are actually politicians.
Politicians are the opposite of philanthropists, usually. Thats a good
thing to keep in mind.
> Richard
>
> PS. Please don't take my tone personally, the impact that Libitarian • policies
> could have is just sinking in to me.. although I may have misinterpreted :)
You seem to have misinterpreted about everything said so far. You have
quite a knack for it. I won't dispute that it would have a hell of an
impact. It would be completely different, and for the better. Its
impossible for you to see it with your misconceptions of what governments
do, how they work, and why they are there. On that, I am not being flippant
or mean, but telling you aren't going to fathom this without changing the
way you think about things. If you don't want to thats your choice. If you
want to think I am wrong and the one with misconceptions, you're free to.
If you want to understand it, you'll have to accept that many of the ideas
you have are just wrong, that you've been deceived and that the world is
really (even more than you thought) messed up. I can show you. Do you want
to go there? Or do you just enjoy this game you play?
--
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 (...) (25 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
|
|
|
|
