Subject:
|
Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:47:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
612 times
|
| |
|
|
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 is to accumulate personal wealth
- good luck.
Scott A
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
More effective in reaching your goals, perhaps. As for those of greater
society, I doubt it.
>
> > 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.
"generously" - very vauge. In percentage terms, what does it mean to you?
>
> 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.
I believe we are morally obliged to support the society we live in.
>
> 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.
I doubt it. Those at the lower end of society will be further marginalised.
>
> 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.
It is the nature of man Larry. Like it or not.
Scott A
>
> > Scott A
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| Oddly, I'm with both of you :-) (...) I don't think so. I think your life can be about many things, including both of those. They are in no way mutually exclusive. (...) Great! I, for one, am truely glad that you've hooked up with a system that (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) That really depends on how much of your money that is taken from you actually gets used to "benefit" people. Do you think that any large percentage of 1/3 of your income actually produces results? If so, I have a couple of bridges you might be (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) Isn't what you actually mean "I don't have any refutation"? (...) You're right. I choose being a part of society. What about you? I'd say that if we take a survey of your posts here (not a scientific metric!!!) on Lugnet, you're probably going (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) Thanks! I agree. It *is* very charitable. (...) So am I. And I think my contributions, allocated by me, are more effective than yours, allocated by bureaucrats. (...) I suspect a typo, I think you meant to say "just not convinced"... because (...) (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
|
|
|
|
