Subject:
|
Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:33:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3901 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> Chris said:
> > Scott said:
> > > Lar said:
> > > > If I can give you all the benefits of your system but with less costs, why
> > > > would you be against it?
> > >
> > > Because I am happy with what I have already, I do not want more. I'd rather
> > > my saving was invested back into society.
> >
> > But you would have more to invest back into your society _and_ you would have
> > the ability to choose how such investment should be made.
>
> I may well have more to invest. But would more, overall, be invested?
I think so. Let's get more hypothetical, then (is it possible to be more or
less hypothetical? I think so)...
Suppose that I could provide you a society in which non governmental systems
were providing everything, EVERYTHING, you wanted to have government to do,
in larger quantities than currently, and in which EVERYONE had more material
goods, more wealth, and worked less hard. Charity took care of all the needs
of the unfortunate, etc. (pick whatever other suffering ameliorating factors
you like to add, we'll posit them as being there too) The ONLY exception
would be that government wasn't in the business of regulating molarity based
on democratic outcomes, it merely enforced a set of basic rights which were
immutable and not subject to expansion or contraction.
Would you reject this system, which outperformed and outproduced yours, and
in which everyone was happier (by the metric they themselves chose, be it
material, time, spiritual freedom, etc..) in favor of one in which the will
of the majority was imposed on the minority "for their own good"
Remember, this is purely hypothetical, so no objections of practicality can
be raised (whether this system can be created is not the question at hand).
I think if you answer "I reject" we have gotten to a fundamental (and
perhaps irreconcilable) difference between us, because I in turn reject the
notion that it's OK for the majority to impose its will on everyone. That
is, I personally reject an unbounded, unfettered, unrestrained democracy in
favor of one that is tightly constrained in terms of what force can be used
to accomplish and in terms of what rights can be usurped by majority vote.
Note that because I'm not currently in violent armed resistance to a thing
does not mean I approve of it, merely that I choose to go along for
convenience or whatever.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
| In my sytem I have the right to free education. In my sytem I have the right to free healthcare. In my sytem I have the right the right to social provision. In my system a starving man has the right to food. Is that not utopia? Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) OK, if an individual were are the bottom of the social/economic ladder in the US - how could they buy an axe to chop down the tree? Who's tree would they chop down? How would they get to the tree to chop it down? What would they weave cloths (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
