Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Jan 2000 20:12:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1658 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> 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.
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 suspended for having anything which might
resemble a weapon. I'm surprised they haven't started suspending kids
who haven't had their hands amputated. This is a problem legislation is
NOT solving. We need to hold the jerks responsible, and if they are bad
enough, that means tossing them in jail or whatever. Don't tell me I
can't send my kid to school with a knife to cut the brownies she's
bringing just because some kid somewhere knifed someone.
> > 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?
Not being old enough in 1968, I can't comment on the New York riots or
the Dr. King assasination riots. I somehow missed the Penn State riots
in 1998. The Rodney King riots were a symptom of an extremely corrupt
police force. Libertarianism promises to hold the police force more
responsible, but in the end, yes, some things like this will probably
happen. They happen because a small set of people gets too much power
and disenfranchises too many people (to a lesser extent this is what
went on in Seattle, though there I feel the riots may have been
partially provoked by the authorities, and partially by a few jerks - of
course the Rodney King riots were probably also instigated by a few
jerks).
Show me any system other than a police state which will preven riots
(even police states haven't been terribly capable of preventing riots).
> > 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.
The only place the National Guard has been called out to after a
disaster in North Carolina has been areas where there was mandantory
evacuation. I would still expect these areas to be mostly evacuated in a
Libertopia. I would also expect that something akin to the National
Guard would still be called in to secure the area (however, it would be
privately funded, the government has little justification being involved
here, except to the extent that some of the property is public
property).
> 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?
One quick thought comes to mind. The football riots seem to mostly be a
European thing. I'm not sure what is behind it, but I would wonder how
much it is because of the reduced freedom in Europe.
Please bear in mind that Libertarianism doesn't preach removal of all
governing forces. Lawsuits which are allowed to procede based on merit
will go a long way towards reigning in things like the lynchings.
You keep bringing up spot examples of where people have gone bad, but
that doesn't prove that over all humans are bad. And besides, if humans
are in general incapable of doing good, how do you expect any government
of any sort to work? The government is just made up of people. It CAN
NOT be better than the people who make it up. Libertopia is NOT perfect,
NO system can be.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
