Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Jan 2000 20:29:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2382 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> Richard Franks wrote:
> > > > Either way, if the average quality of life is good then regardless of tax
> > > > rates I'd rather pay my share of tax. IMPP even up to 100% tax, if ever
> > > > such a scheme was workable, which it hasn't quite been yet!
>
> That would contradict the entire world system,
It would just be something new, something unthought of, not contradictory.
> > But you don't know what sort of society it would be - no-one does as no-one
> > knows how to make such a society function. There are many people that would
> > tell us that the less money that they have, the more freedom they
> > experience.
>
> Really? I should ask my sister, since she has little money and she is a
> slave to the welfare system.
I said that there are people who find less money makes them feel freer. Whether
or not they are delusional is a different matter. Anyway - that isn't even
almost the same as saying that all people with little money feel freedom.
> > Government, in my experience, does not give out a good quality of life, but
> > that isn't to say that freedom would, or that some sort of governing system
> > couldn't.
>
> I think government's role is to protect the freedom of its citizens.
Agreed.
> I think the more government gets involved with every part of society, and
> your life, you lose freedom.
I know exactly where you are coming from, but I think it hinges on your
definition of government. A governing system such as the out outlined
in <http://www.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=3626> gives at least as much
freedom as anything else I've heard of.
> > You have a point, and I'm almost intrigued enough now to do the same..
>
> Read some of the Founders papers, they are intriguing.
I will do.
> > > You seem to be implying that European socialistic tendencies are the
> > > best, where I don't they are the case.
> >
> > I don't think I have said or implied that, but if you can show me where I
> > have then I'll gladly back down from that indefendable viewpoint!
>
> Based on your posts, it seems that you favor socialism, or something
> similar to that? Do you, or not?
If you can find those posts then I'd be suprised, I think I've just got a few
issues with vanilla Libertarianism - which isn't the same thing! At the moment
I favour the Governmental System that I proposed in the link above.
> You also seem to have a chip on the shoulder about advertising, would you care
> to elaborate?
Other than it's a colossal, sorry COLOSSAL waste of finite resources, yes. It's
like a tax on goods that I have no choice to pay.
You will probably say that that's a necessary freedom for the company to
charge what they want and spent their income as they choose, and I cannot
complain about that. I'd just rather not have to pay advertising-tax that's
all.
> > I wasn't lumping everyone into the same bowl, but if the majority chooses
> > something, or buys from a company then you'll have to live with those
> > consequences. If everyone had perfect information, great - but few, you
> > included, will actually research.
>
> Research what?
I was referring to your post - where you said you researched the products you
bought before buying them.
> Again, another chip on the shoulder about..... Nestle, in another post of
> yours.
No, I used it as an example of something *some* people were consumer concious
about, when you said that you assumed that I'd tirade against them, I said that
no I wouldn't as that would be hypocritical (yumyum).
Oh.. it's just below! (Not that this isn't just fluff)
> > > > In that case it would be the marketing suits inspecting your tonsils.
> > > > That
> > > > isn't to say that the masses are stupid, but who has stopped buying from
> > > > Nestle? Most people don't even know the reasons for doing so - for the
> > > > free
> > > > market to work efficiently and beneficially it requires perfect
> > > > information,
> > > > which unfortunately isn't encouraged without self-interest in a
> > > > free-market.
> > >
> > > I can imagine you can give a whole tirade on Nestle, or other companies.
> >
> > I couldn't actually, as it would be hypocritical (yum yum!).
> >
> > But to answer the point that you were trying to make - I am a vegetarian,
> > but I don't make judgements upon other people, or try to convince them of
> > the evils of their ways. Why not? Because I could be wrong, or more
> > importantly I could be right, but still I don't self-righteously proclaim
> > myself ruler of the moral kingdom.
>
> Hmm.... there are some in the vegetarian movement, I can't get guess the
> number, that think eating animals is evil. They block places like
> Mcdonalds, harass customers, etc. God set apart man from the rest of the
> animal kingdom, and part of that is our ability to have creatures to
> eat. I am not a vegetarian, but if you don't like it, that's your
> business, leave me alone.
Pardon? I went to lengths to explain that I wasn't judgemental, and that I
wasn't going to shove my ideas down your throat.. and you try to shove two down
mine?
> > Please don't assume portions of my personality, based from characters from
> > your own experience!
>
> Well, Richard, I assess what you say to be a part of you, unless you are
> lying in your posts...
Assessing is one thing, and adding in spurious stereotypes is another.
The Nestle thing, and the Vegetarian issue are two times at least that you've
made up things about my character without justification.
> > > Most people say the Republican party is for the rich. How so, when I am
> > > considered poor / lower middle class?
> >
> > Because stereotypes are easy, but in many cases useless?
>
> Yes, but most in the left on this country don't tend to think so.
THAT'S A STEREOTYPE RIGHT THERE.
Sorry for shouting.
> > > > There is a wisdom in knowing how little you know, and how much you have
> > > > left to learn.
> > >
> > > Well, Richard, I am not the smartest person in the world, or the wisest,
> >
> > Neither am I..
>
> Hey, we agree on something! :)
We agree on a great many things, and the things that we have differences of
opinion on are just fluff.
> There are many things to be learned, and I should have the ability to
> learn them, but not from some politically motivated people thinking I
> should expand my horizons. That is one of the biggest faults in academia
> today, IMO.
At which point did I presume to say that I had anything to teach you? I think
that presumtion led to your initial misunderstanding?
> > > simply because you think you are the world expert on everything
> > > (Your tone indicates this, BTW), you are wrong sir,
> >
> > I suspect that my tone has got me into trouble before as well. To confirm
> > everyones suspicions - I am not even almost world expert on everything, nor
> > would I have any desire to become one.
>
> My tone gets me into too trouble to much, as well. I just try to get by.
I'm sure the fact that I'm British doesn't help either.
> The guns thing is one thing. A big one, where I feel most people that
> don't live here, don't seem to understand.
Also living there makes it harder to understand in some respects too.
Richard
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Minority as in a small part. Sorry, I thought you were saying minority as in African American, etc. My mistake. (...) Interesting, but I disagree with it, simply because the government enforces it. (...) That would contradict the entire world (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 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
|
|
|
|
