Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:36:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1645 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> 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?
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, calculated, and organized neglect" of the needy
in current society. Show me a system which will not have that, and I'll
listen.
> > 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.
And our current system doesn't? In some ways, our current system may be
worse, because big money plays such a big part in selecting the people
who run the charities (since the government is currently by far the
largest charity). In fact, those charities spend lots of money PAYING
for companies to locate in their area, PAYING for excess goods, etc.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Libertarian stuff
|
| (...) Stop thinking in absolutes. Incapable isn't the problem, it's that there's not enough of it. (...) Absolutes again. Show me that Libertopia is better, and I'll convert. Make it a practical example. Why don't all ya libertarians move to one (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
