Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:21:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1443 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Franks writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > I don't think that asking questions, or even giving examples of situations • that
> > might give a particular idea problems can really be called potshots.
> >
> > A lot of the other stuff that's been flying around certainly could be.
>
> Certainly true.
>
> But I guess I'm a little frustrated by the way .debate is lately. It seems to
> be a few libertarians trying to explain how to make the world a better place
> vs. several times as many people saying "what if this, what if that, and oh by
> the way you aren't giving me my free stuff, waaaa..." TANSTAAFL.
That is what I was thinking as well.
> I repeat, what's your better idea?
>
> Libertarians are open to reasoned suggestions for improvement from people who
> have some idea about how the world works, and Libertarians are never going to
> claim they have a perfect answer. That's the point, you know, of calling it
> Libertopia instead of Libertarian Utopia, there IS no perfection, no perfect
> society. So if some solution makes things a lot better, I just don't think it's
> a valid criticism to say "but one person got a raw deal". It happens, and we'd
> fix it where we can.
>
> We've tried to explain why we think things can be better than they are, tried
> to show how out there in reality, in real life, some places are better, and
> why, and what we get back is "but people are starving". Yes indeed. Why is
> that?
>
> I'm reminded of Politically Incorrect last nite. They dredged up a US communist
> party member from somewhere. He spent every chance he got explaining why the
> internet is some sort of massive anti freedom scheme to repress us, instead of
> answering the pointed questions about why communism was such a dismal failure.
> Talk about being in denial.
Interesting...
> And that whole other thread I tried to get rolling seems like it might not ever
> get anywhere, it's bogged down in minutia. I don't have time, energy or desire
> to defend in detail, starting from contemplating my navel and not admitting
> that anything else is true, why property rights are the only valid rights. I
> got partway there with getting "life affirming" accepted, but the rest is too
> much work. It's so thoroughly proven to my satisfaction that I'm tired of it.
> Maybe not proven HERE, but does everything have to be proven HERE?
>
> I don't think so. It was proven someplace else and that's good enough for me.
I am wondering, especially Matt Miller, view on rights. He keeps calling
on them, but doesn't really say what he thinks.
Scott S.
P.S. Larry, I read most of the Libertarian platforms yesterday (It has
been slow here at AEI the last couple of days), I have to ask you some
questions about it sometime.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator/CAD Operator-Affiliated Engineers ->
http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
