 | | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote in message <3884B49F.7877B548@e...se.net>... (...) You (...) designated (...) Democratic). (...) Hmm. Most people who I disagree with in real life would not score as Libertarians on that test. In fact I have talked a few into (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) I've talked people into it who did answer the questions honestly, were placed by the test as libertarians, and who were similarly not tricked into believing that they were libertarians. It is my opinion that the questions on the test are (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Yup. There are very good reasons not to let economic refugees cross into your country freely. Most especially if you are richer than your neighbours. (...) The problem isn't that the market wouldn't provide food. It's that the market would not (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Jasper "I didn't invent Libertarianism, I just laugh at" Janssen wrote in message... <38b4684b.609370836@...et.com>... (...) Weeks (...) <Mega snip> Jasper's post is evidence of my case. Even though Jasper is from a country currently more to the (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) My stance on this is surely colored by the history of the US, but I feel that the primary reason that I live in the greatest nation in the world is the melting pot effect. I would be completely open to allowing anyone who wanted a fair shake (...) (24 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Maybe it'd be a good thing for the country or the world -- but not necessarily for the individual voter. Anyway, we currently get enough non-economic refugees here in .nl that it severely skews the population count -- and in some cases we're (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote in message <3889b27e.4370108@lu...et.com>... (...) One problem with this is that in the US, minimum wage for 40 hrs/week isn't really a minimum sufficient wage (for most parts of the country). I do think that companies have to (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Right, but you've set yourselves up for that. By having all those friendly social programs, you paint a great big target on your chest. My grandfather expatriated to (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Just a quite note on gasoline: One of the engineers here at AEI has a husband who is an electrical engineer for a certain car manufacturer (I won't divulge too much) They have been working on hydrogen fuel cell cars. It has been so successful (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Yes, I know. I really do. But it's not just the dole. It's also generally the better economic climate. (...) If the government stopped feeding them, they would be fed by charities. Maybe. At least, that's what the libertarians keep telling me. (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) FUp-to: geek. There are two kinds of car that seem to be surging ahead right now. There is the fuel-cell type, and the hydrogen type (which may also be fuelcell, but whatever.) Fuel-cells typically use hydrocarbons (ie, gasoline (but cleaned (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Some would, and some wouldn't. Obviously if your culture feels that it's appropriate to feed them via the government, they would still feel that way if the government disappeared right? But they might make them work a little for it, which (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) And if you give government assistance to those who are in need. Absent that, there is no good reason. (24 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Yeah, they can starve here just as well as anywhere else. But who buries them? That costs money and presents health problems if not done. Bruce (This wasn't meant seriously, but I suppose it does apply) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Right you are. But why were they starving where they were? Were they starving enroute? And why would they starve once they *got* to libertopia, if they wanted to work? (and, since there's no public assistance, why would they want to come to (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <388E2BFD.FB5B993@vo...er.net>... (...) Interesting, I guess either of two cases would apply: 1. They're trespassers. I guess the property owner is responsible for dealing with the bodies (though his community (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Soylent green is people. Dave! (24 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) You tell me. It could equally be war, persecution, bad weather as crop failure. (...) As long as they were still physically capable of work, what does it matter? (...) You are confusing wanting to and actually getting work swiftly enough or (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
<Fowt5K.s1@lugnet.com> <388E2BFD.FB5B993@voyager.net> <FoynLG.JGJ@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Fair enough, why not me, I'm as good an example as any, and better than most. Posit for (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) They were on the toll walkway (no public sidewalks) and fell there as they died. Smugglers aren't involved because they weren't restricted at the border. Actually, they died on your neighbor's property, but he dragged the corpses over to yours (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote in message ... (...) funds (...) perhaps (...) border. (...) Well, you are responsible. Now if you can ever prove that your neighbor dragged the body onto your property, you might be able to sue him for damages. He's also (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) <FoynLG.JGJ@lugnet.com> (...) You seem to be taking this as a personal insult, Larry. What's with this perjorative labeling? If it's flippant, it isn't really worthy of response. If it isn't, then aren't you just taking a cheap shot? I (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Hey, no way! I left the country! It's on YOUR property. :-) Further, for the example, it is important that it happens on your property. Now if you can ever prove that your neighbor (...) Already addressed: You can't prove it. And it happened (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
<388F65A5.9AD75FB2@voyager.net> <Foyr5w.Fo2@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) You yourself said it was an example intended to amuse at the start of the sub thread... I'm just playing along. (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
<Foyq1t.BEt@lugnet.com> <FoysHv.tu@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Mostly, I just can't FOLLOW it. (...) Yes. Toll walkways may well exist. And, property owners may choose to provide free (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) No, I said it wasn't intended to be taken seriously. I was refering to my example only. But after thinking about it, I decided it may have legitimate repurcussions. My point really is that there can be a cost to a society by having an open (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) centralized (...) Why in the world are you running on about it? I don't understand. It was just the shortest-to-explain-example that the guy was walking on some public area. Mountain out of a molehill. (...) Mountain. Molehill. (...) I can't (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
<388F7A61.E86A728A@voyager.net> <Foyv25.HE6@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm just completely lost, Bruce, as to what point you're trying to make and what assumptions you've made in making (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) I take it you don't read your own messages. You have outwiggled me the whole way. (...) For someone who doesn't understand, you summed it up pretty accurately. You basically said if their is no public assistance then there can be no objection (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) Maybe in the example of the toppling stiff, the responsibility is an assumed or implied responsibility that comes with owning land or property? As opposed to a direct responsibility such as that of your children etc. (...) Bruce, I know that (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) or (...) Toppling stiff? I don't know why, but that phrase gives me the giggles. I love it. "Dear, there's another toppling stiff out by the jacaranda. Do you think you could pop out and clean things up a bit before the Burgess's arrive? (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) I agree there's a cost to someone. I just don't see it as a cost to "society". Some one entity or group of entities is going to be, bad luck for them, stuck with it. If this is what the entire anti immigration argument boils down to, I (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) When you put it that way it gives me the giggles too :) (...) Me too, and one day I might actually be right, and then where will we be? (1) Richard 1 - Fear. (24 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) I should hate myself when I am right??? Whatever. Bruce (24 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) No, you just need to get a little better at saying "you are right" than you currently are, that's all. There's no need for you to hate yourself about it. (24 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) Please elaborate. We each seem to have a perception that the other is wiggling. Why is that? (...) Not exactly. I'd state it as, responsible for some bad occurance on my property that was an accident, not as, responsible for the immigrant (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) Larry, you cut the attrib to Richard, so you make it look like I was saying that to you (wiggle). Further, you cut the part that prompted my response (wiggle). The part was more critical of the person I was responding to (wiggle). That person (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | We are not amused (was Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
Yes, I cut some stuff away, but my point stands. You need to be able to admit you're wrong when you are, and you need to admit that a point is proven when it is. I have no issues with my own record on that score, my honesty and integrity are pretty (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We are not amused (was Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) I did. It was right there. I admitted it. *You quoted me*. All you were trying to do is get in a cheap shot. (...) You asked me about where I thought you were wiggling. I answered. Note that you accused me FIRST. Sorry you didn't like the (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Larry isn't amusing
|
|
(...) The preceeding line did not appear in Larry's original message, and the way it appears it seems to be written by him. This is not the case. I'm not quite sure how it got there, but I have double-checked, and he did not say it. I wish to (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | This whole thread isn't amusing any more...
|
|
(...) Thank you. (24 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Keeping the record straight (Was Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) To set the record straight, since it seems to be a sticking point, this was said in response to Richard, not to me. Trimming the thread the way I did might leave readers with the impression that Bruce admitted I was right about something, (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) For one, the electorate has to agree to go to libertopia in the first place. (...) Personal liability now includes not only things you might possibly be indirectly responsible for, which already is very insidious, but also things you are not (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) I don't know exactly what you're smoking, but I think I'd like you to keep it away from me. How, pray tell, could we prevent lightning from ever striking? Note, _ever_ means _one_hundred_percent_ effective. Jasper (24 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We are not amused (was Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) Larry, attributions are never, _NEVER_ "some stuff". Snipping attributions is not a good debating tactic, it's not clever, and in fact, it makes you look like an ass, which I know you aren't. If some notices you snipped attributions, the (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) Because you're both right. The one does not exclude the other. (you a bit less than bruce, to be fair, but still..) Jasper (24 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We are not amused (was Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) Yes, you're right. I should have been more careful in snipping attributions, when doing so might have left the wrong impression. I've apologised for that. I'll do it again. I hereby apologise for snipping attributions. Although I certainly (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) Note carefully that there is no claim that the following is *practical* or a good idea. Merely that it is doable. In fact it is hugely impractical and a terrible idea. Lightning is a good thing, actually, despite the fact that sometimes it (...) (24 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote in message ... (...) even (...) Yep, and we collectively agreed that the more successful people would do the major part in paying these taxes. Against their will (and rights) of course. (...) can't (...) People who are on (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote in message ... (...) neighbor (...) because (...) Good for you. I am sure you found a much better place to go. I'm really glad you left. Where will you be when the people you are punishing decide to vote with their feet? (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(URL) Larry, Is this a new on-line store? & another questions. I it any good? Thanks -J.W.Hummer (24 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
I decided to go back and see what the actual story here was, that is, what it was I actually said that started this thread. Every one has been making assumptions about it, even me. In a post which I otherwise heavily trimmed, Bruce said the (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
FUT .market.shopping as this is a shopping-ish question (...) No, it's not a store. Rather, it's a way to get rebates. Many e-commerce websites have so called "affinity programs" where they pay a rebate/kickback (1) to the site that gave them the (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.shopping)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Heavily snipped for dramatic effect, because I'm grandstanding. (...) On the bright side, at least Libertopia will let you leave if you want to go, and aren't currently wanted for a crime or judgement, unlike those socialist worker paradises that (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <38951CB8.C009E530@v...er.net>... (...) No need to explain! I'm just as guilty... (...) You hit the nail on the head, Lar. When their stock hits 666 its a clear sign of the end times. (...) All right! Now you're (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) See the smiley face next to my comment? It's only for the purposes of a hypothetical situation. Since the Libertarians (okay, some, Frank is always a pleasure to read) here are getting downright hostile, I'll drop out of this conversation (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Political Parodies Music - Was:[ Art Debate, etc.]
|
|
(...) That reminds me of another great Parody was a Paul Shanklin remake of the Coolio song, AlGore Paradise. Hilarious! :) I also heard of a great parody off the Beatles "Yellow Submarine", entitled "We All Live in a Mellow Apathy." I love Paul (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) I'm not one for using ROTFL or even LOL. But this really did make me laugh out loud. Bruce, you're great! Pot | Kettle == Black Chris (24 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Indeed. They are. Jasper (24 years ago, 6-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We are not amused (was Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
|
(...) Absolutely, I agree. It's a good habit to leav all the attributions in until the lat moment, so you know how many to leave in. An advice i'd do well to follow myself, of course... ;-) Jasper (24 years ago, 6-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
