Subject:
|
Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Jan 2000 04:00:05 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
LPIENIAZEK@stopspamNOVERA.COM
|
Viewed:
|
2659 times
|
| |
|
|
<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 it. My perception is that
you're wiggling around, switching between what's here and now, and what
you perceive to be the case in some alternate system which may or may
not be Libertopia.
At this point I'm not as amused as I was, because wiggling bores me.
One last try, though, to restate the gist of your
argument/objection/whatever... If this isn't it, what is it?
"we can't allow completely free immigration because there are
unavoidable societal costs from doing so... immigrants may bring
diseases with them, they may be violent, they may be needy and thus pose
a burden on whoever or whatever they come into contact with, the
canonical example being an immigrant that dies indigent while
trespassing, who's going to clean up the body?...
if Libertopia, (or any other society?) allows completely free
immigration, there will be costs that it's not clear who has to bear,
hence the statement that everyone has to be responsible for their
actions may fail because some consequences happen with no clear idea of
who caused them or who to go after to recover costs from..."
Is that essentially it?
If it is, the answer is, nothing is perfect. Oh well. Free immigration
may have some costs that we can't avoid but has such huge upsides that
it's worth it. Everything has risks, sometimes we can't assign blame
exactly, that's just the way it goes. Trees fall, lightning strikes,
people keel over and there isn't much you can do to make the world
perfectly safe. All you can do is make it better than it is today.
Now, if on the other hand your point is that we can't allow completely
free immigration in todays USA... why, I absolutely agree. Never said we
could.
If neither of those are it, let me know. But I'm pretty bored by this
now given the number of comments like "mountain - molehill" where it
seemed like you were looking for clarification at first, but my
perception is that instead you were looking for opportunities to worm or
poke fun.
Remember, I don't really care to convince the unconvincable, some people
here are so screwed up in the head that no amount of discussion will
bring them to see the light. Too bad really, their loss, but it's not my
personal mandate to bring horses to water, much less get them to drink
if they're too stupid to. I have other windmills that interest me more.
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
>
> 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
--
Larry Pieniazek - larryp@novera.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (25 years ago, 20-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
|
|
|
|
