Subject:
|
Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 31 Jan 2000 02:38:19 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@novera.*AvoidSpam*com
|
Viewed:
|
2714 times
|
| |
|
|
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 following.
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote (on Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:39:41 GMT):
> Larry said:
> > 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.
Note that carefully. Bruce believes I said "NO reason". (emphasis MINE,
not his, he did NOT capitalize NO) Honest mistake, the original post was
many posts back in the sub thread. But here's what I actually said: (and
the attribution will look funny, because this is cut from another reply
I started just so I'd have something to cut from, but hopefully this
will clear things up. Note also that I trimmed away the rest of my
responses to Jasper which were related to other parts of the quiz)
Larry Pieniazek wrote (on Tue, 25 Jan 2000 20:56:33 GMT):
>
> Jasper Janssen wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 14:55:15 GMT, Christopher Weeks
> > <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote:
> >
> > > 5) Let peaceful people cross borders freely.
> > > OK, I can see otherwise reasonable people disagreeing with this
> > > due to outmoded notions of fealty and sovereignty. I agree with
> > > the LP stance on this issue and am more extreme than this, but
> > > this is the only one of the personal issues that I bet many
> > > folks would disagree with.
> >
> > 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.
>
> And if you give government assistance to those who are in need. Absent
> that, there is no good reason.
Note carefully, I said "no GOOD reason" (again, emphasis MINE, I did not
capitalize GOOD the first time).
To my way of thinking, the logical proposition ("no reason"=="no good
reason") == FALSE. That is, they aren't the same statement. I could see
how Bruce might have thought they were, or might have misremembered what
I said.
What I was saying when I said "no good reason" was that there may be
reasons to argue against open immigration in Libertopia, but there
aren't any good ones. Bruce's example, while interesting, is I feel,
improbable(1) enough that it's not worth fettering immigration to
prevent it, assuming that such fettering actually would lessen the
number of people who randomly keeled over, just as it's not worth
filling the air with aluminum dust to stop lightning.
Hopefully that will clear up who said what. And my ego is big enough(2)
that I just had to post this so there could be no question about it,
since there have been questions about my veracity and accusations that I
was wiggling around trying to evade what I said.
1 - what I mean by improbable is not that it will never happen. It will.
It's just that the odds are low enough that risk analysis tells us that
the cost of dealing with it is acceptable. Just like we may well be
struck by lightning on any given cloudy day, but we accept the cost of
it happening.
2 - I'm proud of that, actually. Who here hadn't already figured that
out?
--
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 is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
