To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 3654
3653  |  3655
Subject: 
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:34:46 GMT
Viewed: 
1478 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
Every morning when I stand on the trolley to work I see very elderly people
likewise forced to stand because young, able-bodied individuals refuse to
give up their seats.

So a few people are jerks.

  A very convenient piece of gerrymandering.

I don't remember reading about riots when the recent ice storm which
paralyzed New England and Eastern Canada.

Please point me to some examples here.

  Okay, now it's my turn to have painted with too broad a brush, and you point
out some powerful counterexamples.  The unifying factor I see in your cases is
some natural catastrophe or extremity of circumstance, and in any case not too
many riots happen during ice storms.
  How about the riots during the New York blackout of (I think) 1968?  How
about the post-Rodney King riots in Los Angeles?  How about the post-Dr. King-
assassination riots?  How about the idiocy riot at Penn State in 1998?  How
about the recent riots in Seattle?

Again, I point you to Raleigh North Carolina after Hurricane Fran. I saw
a society quite able to act in a reasonable manner. In fact, I invite
you to investigate the community response after almost any disaster in
the world. What I have overwhelmingly seen is communities responding to
the disaster in positive ways.

  How about in situations not brought on by catastrophe?  I will agree that,
when confronted with a truly awesome disaster of nature, people can be
galvanized to act in concert.  However, National Guard forces are typically
deployed in the US to prevent looting in the aftermath--is this just because
the government wants to be heavy-handed?  Once the unifying factor is
eliminated or has passed, I doubt people will continue to be so community-
conscious.  Likewise, people can be united under one principle for periods of
time, but I don't think it's reasonable to base society as a whole on the hope
that people continue to band together.
  In addition, plenty of non-natural catastrophes can generate mob mentality;
any stereotypical football/soccer riot comes to mind, as well as the lynchings
of the earlier 20th century.  All of these took place in otherwise law-guided
societies--does Libertopia suggest that the removal or lessening of a
governing force will reduce this sort of occurrence?

     Dave!



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
 
(...) My point is that since we aren't perfect, there will always be a few jerks. Constraining the whole society for a few jerks seems irrational. Look at how the current "zero tolerance" of weapons is working in the schools. Kids are getting (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
 
(...) My point was that I agree absolutely that it is foolish to contribute to charity without some sense of where one's money will wind up but I don't feel I can trust a corporation or a single wealthy individual to fund an educational system (...) (24 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR