Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Jan 2000 04:19:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1462 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote in message ...
> 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.
So what's the problem here? If a child's parents are so incapable of
nurturing the child for success, why should they have much if any say at all
in how the child is raised?
> 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.
Are you listening to anything Libertarians say? Saying "It won't work" and
sticking your fingers in your ears doesn't promote very much discussion
either way. You keep throwing up straw men about how the world isn't
perfect, and won't be under Libertopia, but it won't be under ANY system, so
why does that automatically disqualify Liberatopia?
> 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.
Yes, Liberatopia will favor the wealthy. ANY system other than pure
socialism (which no society has ever attained) will favor those who have
over those who don't (oh, there's one more system which would favor everyone
equally - we could always destroy the world...).
I have to say that I'm starting to agree with Larry. This is a hopeless
case. Well, it hasn't been totally hopeless. I've learned a lot about
Libertarian views, and the biggest bit that I've learned is that it is
absolutely not the anarchy which seems to be the popular view of what
Libertarianism is all about. All I can say is if you haven't learned this,
go back and read every message in the group, especially look at some of the
responses to my early messages.
Frank
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Libertarian stuff
|
| (...) Liberama is disqualified because it relies on the assumption that in its great society people and corporations will be motivated by higher ethics and community responsibility--an assumption which is fine on paper but has never come close to (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
