Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:41:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1447 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
> 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?
Hmm. The riots in Seattle were from WTO disagreements, wasn't it?
People, no matter what they believe in, sometimes do evil things. I
think some the riots were caused by the civil unrest of the country,
which have ironed out somewhat.
I think political rioting and disaster situations are different.
>
> > 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?
I think that people do this that are bad, evil, etc. - You won't see me
looting stores if something happens. Another reason why citizens should
be armed. To deter this kind of thing, and not rely on the government. I
remember vividly that the Korean shop owners in LA, when those riots
brook out, had arms, and successfully protected their property. Another
reason why I think the teachers and people who facilitate school should
be armed as well, to prevent occurrences that we have all seen. (another
debate, perhaps, to keep the lines flowing smoothly).
> 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?
Well, going on what I have read about the Libertarian platform, which I
did do yesterday, I think that, since the rioters are violating other
peoples rights, the agency in charge would have some way of
counteracting that violence. I don't think the Libertarian party wants
to eliminate all government, but it wants to reform it to their way of
thinking, which is good for the most part, IMO. Eliminating all
government would cause people who do not respect others to go nuts, and
I don't think anyone here wants that.
Scott S.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
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
|
|
|
|
