| |
<cut>
> I chose it as it shows how, on the surface, the rights based system can be
> argued to be a "good idea". However, the deeper we go, the less atractive it
> is. Basically, the same reasoning lay behind my yes/no questions two days ago.
Opps. I forgot to say, that fact the LP would stop me from switching the
lights on in my own house, is not the only problem I have with it, or
libertarianism. Most of the rest evolve from what we discuss here:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=7512
> And I already told him how to discover the answers, if all he wants is that.
> Start from the LP premise that all rights are property rights and follow the
> logical derivation.
Ok, your only freedom would be determined by the amount of property you
have. The consequence of this is that that someone with no property has no
freedom, and that the more property you have, the greater your freedom? In
other words a distribution of property is a distribution of freedom.
Therefore, the LP are saying that the best way of promoting freedom is to
allow some people to have more of it than others, even when this leads to
some having very little or even none?
Scott A
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) You are, off course, assuming a linear scale. I'd view it as logarithmic. (...) One of the big criticisms of the LP argument is that they harp on too much about the evils of "Big Government", without tempering that sentiment with a reflection (...) (24 years ago, 29-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
78 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
