Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Jan 2000 20:10:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1334 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > 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...
>
> Hope you stay well!
>
> > 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).
>
> 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 homeless • street
> child. In many American cities there is daily proof that this assertion is
> false. (Whether or not Libertarianism depends on people being • life-affirming is
> a different issue!)
>
>
> > 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 Libertarian ideals, but it does
> > seem that if someone else is suffering from a non-Libertarian
> > 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.
>
> Woah! Your point is disturbingly logical, but for a multitude of reasons it • is
> way too extreme for me to agree with!
>
> Libertarian Political Philosophy (LPP?) would be to respect the rights of • other
> countries to make mistakes, but would it allow them to violate the rights • of
> other countries.. found something.. <http://www.lp.org/platform/hr.html>
> "The violation of rights and liberty by other governments can never justify
> foreign intervention by the United States government [...] Only private
> individuals and organizations have any place speaking out on this issue."
>
> So unless you had a private, charity funded, army I guess I shouldn't • worry -
> phew!
>
> Richard
More silliness, but couldn't the Red Cross hire mercenaries if it thought
it was the right thing to do? If people here thought it was the right thing
to do, wouldn't they still donate to the Red Cross? I think thats much more
likely than you think, and at least then our (the donor's) intervention
would be for good causes, and not to promote someone's election.
--
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 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
