Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Jan 2000 14:35:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1442 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> 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?
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 reality. What you call straw men are in fact fundamental
problems with Liberama, namely the deliberate, calculated, and organized
neglect of those portions of society unable to meet the strictures of "free"
Liberama. Such victims of Liberama are conveniently deemed unfit and swept
aside or left behind "why should they have any say?"
On one hand you're assuming that corporations and individuals will rise to
the challenges of charity and community duty, while on the other hand you're
asserting God-against-all sort of responsibility structure. Does this head-in-
the-sand thinking have anything to do with the way any country has ever
worked?
> 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...).
Certainly any capitalist system will favor the rich, but the problem is that
Liberama institutionalizes the neglect of the fringe while optimizing the
success of the wealthy.
> 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.
Oh, it's hopeless, but not for the reasons you imply. If Libertarians (and
I recognize that you've never asserted yourself to be an expert on
Libertarianism) can't plead their case successfully here among middle-of-the-
roaders, most of whom pay a sizable tax percentage and few if any of whom
receive significant government assistance, how can you realistically expect to
receive a hearing in the public forum? I'm a Moderate, and you haven't
convinced me! Can you really hope to persuade anyone with a more Liberal view
than mine?
Further, I know I've never claimed Liberama to be anarchy, and those here
who have claimed it to be have done so in a favorable light by elevating
anarchy to the status of the ultimate in mature anti-govermental society. So
in that case, you're right: Liberama is nothing like anarchy.
> 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.
Once again Liberama tries to place the burden of proof on its opposition.
I've read the whole thread from the outset, and it still hasn't convinced me.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 7 Replies:
 | | Re: Libertarian stuff
|
| (...) If individuals and corporations are incapable of charity and community duty, then why do we have it currently? As far as I know, PEOPLE created our government. You don't seem to be preaching the "god" factor. Also, I see "deliberate, (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Libertarian stuff
|
| Dave, (...) Tell me if this is wrong, but this discussion seems to imply that our current school system is completely neutral on things, which is not the case, based on what I know. Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Libertarian stuff
|
| (...) Many people and corporations contribute to charities simply for the tax write-off. Beyond that, some people contribute, I have no doubt, because of a sense of spiritual duty or because it's proper to do--and that's laudable, certainly. Maybe (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Libertarian stuff
|
| Dave, (...) Well, that is why I favor the school choice (Vouchers, etc.) I think we should be able to have our children go to the school we deem best, not what the government thinks. I think school choice will be a big topic in the coming years. I (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Libertarian stuff
|
| Dave Schuler wrote in message ... (...) (and (...) middle-of-the- (...) to (...) view (...) Your a moderate what? (...) So (...) Good memory. And sadly, you (actually Jasper said this first) "aren't anywhere near ready for it" may be true. (...) me. (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Libertarian stuff
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes a lot of unhelpful nonsense ultimately decaying to a simple ad hominem, yet again. John, are you wholly unfamiliar with the conventions of interpersonal communication? You seem unable to mount an (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Libertarian stuff
|
| Dave Schuler wrote in message ... (...) of (...) It seems that irony and sarcasm are often overlooked by the beholder, and I personally will be far more careful in their use. I refrained from pointing out the "do gooder" mentality that I also saw (...) (24 years ago, 14-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
|
|
|
|
