Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian splurf (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Jan 2000 20:58:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2200 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo 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?
> > 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!
Gosh. The point that is that if you are uneducated, and can't afford to educate
your children, then they won't be able to educate theirs.. and you're
condemning generations to poverty.. that truely is only liberty for the rich,
which is something we've been fighting to get rid of.
It's fairly hard to emmigrate when you have no qualifications or money btw.
> > 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.
When a society denies the right of education for children then it is in serious
trouble.
'Right' is an emotive word, but there is a multitude of reasons why it is a
very very very very very very very very good thing. Did I mention that it's a
good thing?
> > 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
I'm not sure that I'm smart enough to do what you ask.
To my mind, changing the rules that fundementally places us, and our progeny at
an unfair advantage to all future generations.
Denying the benefits of society that you have yourself benefitted from, to
others, is in most definitions.. unfair.
'Unfair', which is another emotive word.
Well, there you have it - a mish mash :)
Although perhaps the other thread is a better place for this type of debate.
> > > 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?
Is that inductive reasoning? I forget, the dog is blue, all dogs are blue.
Anyway, incorrect.
> The combination of industrialist and philanthropist is not
> as uncommon as you seem to think.
Why do people persist on insisting that they know what I 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.
Granted, saying some CEOs are bad, isn't the same as saying all CEOs are bad.
> > 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.
Thank you, that's the nicest thing anyones said about me all day!
> 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.
I'm always happy to evaluate my conceptions.
> 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.
You might be wrong, I might be wrong. We could both be right in our own ways.
Pssst.. neither of us KNOW which is the case.
> 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?
As said previously I'm always happy to evaluate input. There's no reason
clinging onto ideas without evaluating them - ANY idea you have could be wrong,
evaluate each one in turn.. do an axiom spring-clean once in a while. That's my
king-meme for the present anyway. (1)
That said, what makes you so sure that you are correct? I'm not saying that you
aren't, it's just those impenatrable beliefs don't always stand up to critical
debate, which is why we don't allow ourselves to criticise them.
Richard
(1) And you have to admire it's evolutionary characteristics - placing itself
outside the core of normal rational thought.. but I prefer to think of it as a
symbiosis rather than a parasite... ;)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
