Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Jan 2000 23:43:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1346 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Franks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I don't think that asking questions, or even giving examples of situations • that
> might give a particular idea problems can really be called potshots.
>
> A lot of the other stuff that's been flying around certainly could be.
Certainly true.
But I guess I'm a little frustrated by the way .debate is lately. It seems to
be a few libertarians trying to explain how to make the world a better place
vs. several times as many people saying "what if this, what if that, and oh by
the way you aren't giving me my free stuff, waaaa..." TANSTAAFL.
I repeat, what's your better idea?
Libertarians are open to reasoned suggestions for improvement from people who
have some idea about how the world works, and Libertarians are never going to
claim they have a perfect answer. That's the point, you know, of calling it
Libertopia instead of Libertarian Utopia, there IS no perfection, no perfect
society. So if some solution makes things a lot better, I just don't think it's
a valid criticism to say "but one person got a raw deal". It happens, and we'd
fix it where we can.
We've tried to explain why we think things can be better than they are, tried
to show how out there in reality, in real life, some places are better, and
why, and what we get back is "but people are starving". Yes indeed. Why is
that?
I'm reminded of Politically Incorrect last nite. They dredged up a US communist
party member from somewhere. He spent every chance he got explaining why the
internet is some sort of massive anti freedom scheme to repress us, instead of
answering the pointed questions about why communism was such a dismal failure.
Talk about being in denial.
And that whole other thread I tried to get rolling seems like it might not ever
get anywhere, it's bogged down in minutia. I don't have time, energy or desire
to defend in detail, starting from contemplating my navel and not admitting
that anything else is true, why property rights are the only valid rights. I
got partway there with getting "life affirming" accepted, but the rest is too
much work. It's so thoroughly proven to my satisfaction that I'm tired of it.
Maybe not proven HERE, but does everything have to be proven HERE?
I don't think so. It was proven someplace else and that's good enough for me.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
