Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Jan 2000 00:04:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1267 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> So let me see... your point is, these putative people who
> are dependent on the kindness of strangers because they're what,
> chronic crack smokers, deserve some sort of say in what morality
> their children are shown?
Perhaps you misread my post, but I'll answer anyway. I'm saying that the
children of people (none of whom I've called, even by implication, "crack
smokers") who are unable to meet their responsibilities can't realistically
expect support from anonymous altruism, certainly not in any reliable sense.
I'm also saying that these children are in a position of dependence not through
their own misdeeds but through the misdeeds of their parents (who, I'll agree,
may not be ethically or emotionally equipped to raise children) and so
shouldn't be punished for their parents' misdeeds. I'm further saying that I
don't believe any charitable organization or individual can be expected to
support such needy children without demanding some sort of say in how that
child is raised/educated. I can accept that, since it would involve a sizable
monetary contribution, but my point is that such a program will necessarily
subject these children to an agenda chosen by their benefactors. Are you
asserting, by contrast, that "people who smoke crack" should automatically get
no say in "what morality their children are shown?" That seems kind of
arbitrary and knee-jerk, to me.
> I guess if you want things just exactly your own way, pay for
> them yourself. If you want stuff for free, guess what, it comes
> with strings.
>
> Or are you saying that when you sign up for a free ISP you
> shouldn't get ads along the edges? The current system is broken.
> Instead of taking potshots at ideas posited by others and claiming
> you're entitled to this, and entitled to that, and entitled to the
> other thing too, why don't you tell US what your solution is. I'd
> love to hear it. More government spending, perhaps?
To what have I claimed entitlement? Nothing, as far as I'm aware, in my
entire life. If I'm on a free ISP, let them advertise 24 hours a day to
me--it's part of the package.
In essence, you seem to be asserting that if I can't suggest something
better, I should keep quiet about what's wrong with Libertama? That's a
mightily convenient argumentative posture to take, but I think the apologists
for Liberama have the burden of proof upon them to demonstrate that it's a
better system. I maintain my assertion that it favors the wealthy and
societally/geographically well-placed, while at the same time allowing a
framework in which the overlooked of society can continue to be overlooked
without generating feelings of compassion or community responsibility.
Dave!
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
