Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:18:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1609 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > Dave Schuler wrote:
> > If individuals and corporations are incapable of charity and community
> > duty, then why do we have it currently?
>
> 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 my stance has come across as too black-and-white; I don't doubt that
> people and corporations donate to charity, but I do believe that a primary
> motivation is the tax break they incur as a result. In addition, I don't
> think society can base much of its future on the hopes that people and
> corporations will continue to be charitable if no attendant tax break is
> forthcoming.
Two things. First off, how did the tax break get there in the first
place? Second, the tax break just makes it cheaper to contribute to an
approved charity, it doesn't improve the actual bottom line.
> > As far as I know, PEOPLE created our government. You don't seem to be
> > preaching the "god" factor.
>
> I'm not sure what you're saying with this...
>
> > 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.
>
> It just seems that Libertopia establishes a caste system (as I think Matt
> Miller observed elsewhere) that becomes almost impossible to breach after even
> one generation. In addition--and this might very well not be a tenet of
> Libertopia but a fringe injected into this argument by one participant--I've
> gotten a sense that society will step in with its "say" about how the children
> of the irresponsible are to be raised. I guess I don't understand, in a
> society of minimal government, how anyone can be held accountable in such a
> case, or who would determine the fitness of the people who step in on the
> child's behalf.
To be honest, I have yet to see any societal system which doesn't create
a caste system. As far as the "government" stepping in to tell people
how to raise their children, Libertarian view is that this intervention
should only occur when the _rights_ of the child are being abused, and
that the intervention would not further abuse the rights of the child,
or abuse the rights of the parents beyond the amount the childs rights
are being abused. Also, if the child's actions are violating others
rights, intervention would occur. This could include imprisoning the
child (if the child should have the responsibility - note that such
imprisonment might be in a mental hospital). This could include
imprisoning the parent (in which case the court must make a judgement as
to whose care the child is placed in).
This dilema is something any societal system is going to have to deal
with since children aren't created instantaneously as fully capable
adults.
Frank
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
