Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:28:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1474 times
|
| |
|
|
Frank Filz wrote in message ...
>
> 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
I sort of thought it was hopeless too, Frank. This is directed to those
who have been "debating" us. I decided, since it took me thousands of pages
of thoughtful reading to come to the conclusions I have, that it might take
the same for anyone else. I have tried to put together (its not easy) a
post that could explain everything, but thats not simple, and if people
aren't receptive, they will only see the words they choose to see. I am
going to finish writing it out, and then whittle it down to what really
needs to be there as an exercise. If I choose to share it, and if I end up
spending considerable amount of time on it (which appears to be the case) I
doubt I am just going to hand it over. I might sell it, I might share it
with those who seem receptive, I might be selfish and keep it to me. If
anyone here is really interested in learning about making the world better,
instead of playing these silly argument games (1) then go back and reread
some of what has been written, try to fathom it on your own. Quit asking
questions about every sentence you read. Try just reading (listening) and
letting it sink in. I had a lot of questions myself, this transformation
was nothing like instantaneous. I was perseverant, because there was a
light at the end of the tunnel that I strove for. If you don't see that
light, why are you toying with us? If you do see it, why are you so
obstinate?
One more time...
go back and reread some of what has been written, try to fathom it on your
own. Quit asking questions about every sentence you read. Try just reading
(listening) and letting it sink in.
1 - Which I am just as guilty of myself.
--
Have fun!
John
The Legos you've been dreaming of...
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego
my weird Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
