Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Jan 2000 20:37:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1494 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 04:19:15 GMT, "Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com>
wrote:
> Dave Schuler wrote in message ...
> I
> > don't believe any charitable organization or individual can be expected to
> > support such needy children without demanding some sort of say in how that
> > child is raised/educated. I can accept that, since it would involve a • sizable
> > monetary contribution, but my point is that such a program will necessarily
> > subject these children to an agenda chosen by their benefactors. Are you
> > asserting, by contrast, that "people who smoke crack" should automatically • get
> > no say in "what morality their children are shown?" That seems kind of
> > arbitrary and knee-jerk, to me.
>
>
> So what's the problem here? If a child's parents are so incapable of
> nurturing the child for success, why should they have much if any say at all
> in how the child is raised?
The problem is who _does_ get a say in it. Are you saying that if,
say, only criminals are willing to pay for schools, they should be
allowed to raise innocent children into criminals
> Yes, Liberatopia will favor the wealthy. ANY system other than pure
> socialism (which no society has ever attained) will favor those who have
> over those who don't (oh, there's one more system which would favor everyone
> equally - we could always destroy the world...).
Not a bad idea.
> I have to say that I'm starting to agree with Larry. This is a hopeless
> case. Well, it hasn't been totally hopeless. I've learned a lot about
> Libertarian views, and the biggest bit that I've learned is that it is
> absolutely not the anarchy which seems to be the popular view of what
> Libertarianism is all about. All I can say is if you haven't learned this,
> go back and read every message in the group, especially look at some of the
> responses to my early messages.
Anarchy == no government. A libertarian who wishes there to be no
government[1] therefore is by definition an anarchist. What's so hard
to understand about that?
Jasper
[1] Yes, larry, that's not you. I know.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
