Subject:
|
Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:19:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
518 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> Hmm this sounds very charitable.
Thanks! I agree. It *is* very charitable.
> Personally, I quite happy to be a member of
> society, and contribute to it passively and actively.
So am I. And I think my contributions, allocated by me, are more effective
than yours, allocated by bureaucrats.
> I'm happy that around
> a third of what I earn ensures that the whole of the society I live in has
> access to education, health care, policing etc etc etc. The problem with
> your philosophy is that it assumes that people would continue to distribute
> their wealth, if their tax were to be reduced. I'm just to convinced that
> would be the case.
I suspect a typo, I think you meant to say "just not convinced"... because
if you didn't, you're agreeing with me, and that hardly seems likely given
your past track record. Proceeding on the assumption that there was a typo
there, then...
Two points:
1. I've shown in the past why that it indeed would be the case that people
would give and give generously, and further, that the dollars contributed
voluntarily would be used more effectively than the ones extracted.
So that's a utility based argument against government charity. It doesn't work.
2. Are you saying, then, that because you're convinced that people should
fund these goods that your preferred mode of government provides, that you
are willing to see government extract those funds by force? Answer yes or
no, please, because that's what it comes down to.
So that's a rights based argument against government charity. It's a
usurpation of rights.
You need to refute both. Plowed ground.
> This is because a lot of us a pretty selfish and only
> think of Number 1.
I disagree with the implication. I've explained why in the past. But even if
it's true, across the board, no matter what sort of society you construct,
which I again dispute I claim that a society based on individual rights, in
which *everyone* acts in their own enlightened self interest, results in the
most justice and fairness for all. Again, plowed ground.
Restating, if you say people generally act in their self interest, I agree.
I see that as a good thing. If you mean to imply that acting in self
interest means that people never give to charity, always try to break all
laws, always try to cheat their fellows, and always act churlishly, I disagree.
> Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| I'm not going to reply to most of this, as I doubt we'd ever really reach a consensus. It really comes down to what your life is about: 1. Being a part of society 2. Or the accumulation of personal wealth. If you with the best way to succeed in life (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G3oEv3.H9y@lugnet.com... (...) I've (...) my (...) don't (...) Hmm this sounds very charitable. Personally, I quite happy to be a member of society, and contribute to it passively (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
279 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
|
|
|
|
