Subject:
|
Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:39:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2702 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> >
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > <Fowt5K.s1@lugnet.com> <388E2BFD.FB5B993@voyager.net> • <FoynLG.JGJ@lugnet.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > >
> > > Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> > >
> > > > Your property.
> > >
> > > Fair enough, why not me, I'm as good an example as any, and better than
> > > most. Posit for the sake of this flippant example that I am not
> > > charitable (that is, that I did not invite these refugees onto my land,
> > > and did not grant them safe passage across it).
> >
> > 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.
>
> You yourself said it was an example intended to amuse at the start of
> the sub thread... I'm just playing along. I'm certainly not taking it as
> an insult. In fact, since there are scores of things in the group that I
> haven't addressed for want of time, I'd instead say just the opposite, I
> think it's funny enough of an example to entice me into responding..
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 border - the cost is simply moved from the central to the local.
If there is a cost, then there can be an objection.
Of course, there could be a "death bond" imposed on immigrants. Kinda seems
like a tax to me. Never mind.
>
> > If it isn't, then aren't you just taking a cheap shot? I provided • additional
> > scenarios that I think would pass the non-flippant standard, but you seem to
> > have excised them.
>
> In the interests of brevity, I've not addressed the other parts of the
> overall example, and am dwelling on this one aspect to work it to a
> logical conclusion. IF we can get there. Once you cave, or once you find
> a flaw and we have to recast my chain of logic to get it to be correct,
> we'll circle back. IF your questions are amusing enough for me to be
> interested.
That's fine, but I don't think the flippant charge stands, then. Unless you
are refering to yourself.
The flaw that I perceive is noted above.
>
> > >
> > > > They flopped over dead there by sheer random chance (perhaps it
> > > > was a simple heart attack). So you are saying they become your personal
> > > > liablity?
> > >
> > > Yes, they are my personal liability.
> >
> > Okay. Now, just get the electorate to agree to that.
>
> I'm sorry, what does the electorate have to do with it?
> I thought you
> were asking about how starving immigrants who happened to have the
> misfortune to die before they could find work would be handled in
> libertopia?
> Did I misunderstand your question? If so, I'll stop. But if
> not, the electorate has nothing to do with personal liability, it's not
> something that one can vote out of existance in libertopia. That's kind
> of the point of libertopia, after all.
I was switching to reality-mode (i.e. you may be right in Libertarian thought,
but that and $$ will get you a cup of coffee). You are simply redefining a
process that is in place. A different format, to be sure, but the same
outcome.
>
> > > In your example that "sheer random chance" is an accident. Accidents
> > > happen. A tree could have been struck by lightning and no one was to
> > > blame, yet because it happened on my property, I'm stuck with the
> > > cleanup.
Are you saying that you could stop lightning at the border? I don't think this
applies to the original proposition about immigrants.
Heck, that tree might have blown in from somewhere totally
> > > unidentifiable during a hurricane and even if it wasn't my tree to start
> > > with, I'm still stuck. That's life... and that's what insurance is for.
> > > You can't avoid accidents completely, you can only prepare for them.
> > > Failure to prepare is no excuse and no claim on the property of others.
> >
> > But we did prepare: we collectively agreed to fund a county coroner. We • even
> > agreed to levee taxes to pay for it.
>
> Again, see above.
Again, see above.
In libertopia there won't be a county coroner, I don't
> think. Or if there is, his function will be more of an aid to
> investigation of crimes than as a public cleaner upper of errant bodies.
> And he certainly wouldn't be tax supported.
So, your neighbors believe the guy dropped dead on his own? You didn't off
him? You believe they didn't off him? Sounds dangerous - this is why I'd vote
with my feet.
>
> > People who fall dead on your property are "trespassers"? How dare they!
>
> If they WERE invited, they clearly are my responsibility, aren't they?
He wasn't - he was just walking next to your property (legally) and happened to
fall that way (or was it your neighbor's property, dang, that guy is too cheap
about his insurance).
> I'd certainly ASK if there was someone that had responsibility for them,
> like a relative, but even today, if someone happens to keel over in a
> Walmart, penniless, Walmart has to bear the cost of cleaning the floor
> where it happened,
Do they pay to have it hauled away and properly disposed of?
(although, today, the taxpayers have the privilege of
> taking the rest of the expense on the chin) since Walmart invited them
> in, assuming they could pay, and there is some sort of implied contract
> there, the same one that says you don't get to remove price tags or hide
> merchandise under your coat and Walmart doesn't get to have its
> employees shoot at you for no reason, and can't have excessivly slippery
> floors, and a thousand other things.
So they become your responsiblity? And Libertarians wonder why their party
goes nowhere.
>
> If they WEREN'T invited and explicitly were there against my wishes,
> they're trespassing while they are alive... isn't that the common law
> definition of trespassing??? Being somewhere where one is not welcome?
> What am I missing here?
Apparently the difference between being alive and being dead. Voluntary and
involuntary.
>
> Either they were invited and therefore are by definition my
> responsibility, or they weren't and by definition were trespassing.
A sad statement when someone dies and involuntarily falls onto your property,
and you slap the label "trespasser" on him. Sad, sad, sad.
Now
> as I stated before, sometimes bad luck happens. Trees sometimes fall for
> no reason, trespassers sometimes keel over for no reason. I have to be
> prepared to deal. If I can't find out who IS responsible, tough luck. I
> am. I get to try, though. (well, I trust, my insurance company,
> skinflints that they are, will try on my behalf)
No, it happened too many times. They dropped you. But that's your
responsiblity.
>
> You seem to be complaining that I said it was my responsibility in
> either case. So you want me NOT to take responsibility? Is that it?
> Pass. That thinking doesn't fly well in libertopia.
No, I'm saying that there is a cost to society in letting that immigrant past
the border. Whether to you as part of the society, or that society as a whole.
There is a reason to consider stopping him. Maybe that's not reason enough,
but as I recall (and correct me if I'm wrong) you said there was no reason.
>
> > Actually, they were dragged there by your non-prepared neighbor, but you • can't
> > prove it.
>
> The first time. After that I'll watch a bit more closely.
Gosh, you are suspicious! :-)
But you seem
> to have such a low opinion of my neighbors... far lower than I do. This
> is a flippant example (although worthy of examination nonetheless)
> because it's so extremely improbable.
So you are telling me you know your neighbors' insurance policies? I think you
are the one being flippant.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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. (...) (25 years ago, 26-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
