Subject:
|
Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Jan 2000 19:56:48 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@ANTISPAMnovera.com
|
Viewed:
|
2663 times
|
| |
|
|
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > <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.
>
> I take it you don't read your own messages. You have outwiggled me the whole
> way.
Please elaborate. We each seem to have a perception that the other is
wiggling. Why is that?
> > 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..."
>
> Very good! I must not be such a great wiggler after all. You have in your
> arguments have clearly said I am responsible for someone else that I haven't
> accepted responsiblity for.
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
themselves. This is an important distinction.
> Again, you equate something controlable (immigration) with something
> uncontrollable (lightning).
But lightning IS at least partly controllable. It's just horrendously
expensive to do so and impractical. And immigration isn't perfectly
controllable unless we erect horrendously expensive walls and hire 1/2
the nation to be border guards. So it's impractical to control.
> You are wiggling. Can we stop lightning at the
> border? No.
Yes, we can. There exists technology that can completely prevent
lightning from happening. But it would be unwise to deploy it. Almost
ANY accident can be prevented if you want to spend enough money on doing
so. But it is usually unwise to do so.
> Should we stop someone at the border for any of the other reasons
> enumerated throughout this conversation? Dunno. People come here for jobs.
> The jobs are available. Issue them a work permit and keep everything above
> board rather than all this sneaking about.
Not following you here, why do we need to issue work permits? Isn't that
attempting to regulate who can work and who can't? Again, are we talking
about the current US or Libertopia?
>
> So, after all this, am I saying I'm not particularly in favor of stopping them
> at the border? Yup. But there is a societal cost, and thus grounds for
> objection (yes, I'm a devil's advocate).
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Never said otherwise. You worded your statements such that I presumed your
> would allow room to stop criminals, disease vectors, etc.
Where? today, or in Libertopia?
> > 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.
>
> Oh, too true. If only you would read those words you just wrote.
What makes you think I haven't read them? I wrote them, and I always
read what I write before I press the send button... Did you want me to
name off who in particular I was referring to?
--
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:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
