To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 7947
7946  |  7948
Subject: 
Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 16:52:44 GMT
Viewed: 
4331 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:

As I said, I think this is a key point. Chris, in asking about victimless
crimes such as paid consenting sex between adults,

I do not conceed that that is a victiless crime. I'm sure their are "happy
hookers", but a good deal of them are being exploited.

Many people are "exploited" if you define it widely enough.  Isn't being an
employee exploitation?  Actually, weren't you being exploited by the system
when you were going to school for free?  You were being incented by the masses
to behave in a certain way, which I think is exploitation too.

And probably more important and germane, outlawing prostitution because some
prostitutes are having their rights trampled on, is preposterous.  Why not just
prosecute those doing the trampling?

It is quite clear that prostitution is illegal not to protect those women (and
men) who choose to make a living in that fashion from being exploited.  It is
illegal because the notion of paid sex (time honored as it is, as the origin of
marriage) is aesthetically displeasing to prudish members of the population.

Let me ask: Do you think that two adults should be allowed to have sex if they
want to?  Should two adults be able to give money between them freely?  Should
that normally legal sex become illegal if it is dependent on a transfer of
money?

was getting at, by
example, whether you're willing to impose your values on others
to stop non
rights violating behaviours because you personally don't like them

They are not _my_ values - they are those of the society I live.

Cop out.  Do you support the making illegal of victimless activity because it
violates the aesthetic of a majority?

In your LP
dreamland you impose your values, via _your_ charity donations to causes you
deem worthy, on others.

Horse pucky!  It is not the imposition of values on society at large when you
give wealth to someone.  The default is that you have a right to the goods that
you fabricate with your own hands and mind.  You have a right to trade those
goods.  It is wrong to steal those goods (or their derivitives through trade).

In the society I live in, may tax notionally goes
towards the good of society as a whole - not just my pet projects.

The good of society as a whole, or just the pet projects of the elected?  Maybe
I am just vastly ignorant of the differences between the US and UK.  In the US,
taxes do NOT go to the good of society.  They mostly (~70%) pay for the
beaurocracy.  The leftovers fund the pet projects of senators and lobbiests.

because they are going to cost the NHS scheme more money)

There are those in the UK who think the tobacco companies should pick up
part of the NHS tab.

We have the same looter-minded freaks in the US.  I am about as extreme as you
can get on the spectrum of disliking tobacco polution, but I would never ever
allow that to cloud my morals about the allocation of dollars.  Big tobacco
makes huge money from stupid habits.  But it's not their fault that folks make
stupid decisions.  (But if they're defrauding people, and they might have, then
that's another matter.)

I think you are (willing to impose morality), and I think we're not. It's
fundamentally a moral issue, I think. One that you're on the same side as
some of the christians are, BTW.

Where are the morals in constructing a society which would not give a
starving man the right to food?

Right out in front where the society is built to prevent the citizens from
starving in the first place by promoting maximally efficient economy.  Right
out in front where one man's property is acutally his own, not subject to
banditry.

Where are the morals in constructing a
society which does not give equal rights to all?

No where.  Libertopia is not such a place.  The US certainly is, and I quite
suspect that every other place on Earth is too.

Why should education be restricted to the wealthy

It shouldn't be.  It should be limited to those who wish to learn.  In
libertopia, business would fund schools because it is the wise thing to do.  It
is a strong investment in the future.

Chris



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
 
(...) Marx said so. (...) It could be argued I exploietd the system could it not - that is your normal perspective. (...) Education is exploitation – what a novel way to reduce your tax bill. (...) Why not prosecute all involved? (...) I must be a (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
 
(...) I do not conceed that that is a victiless crime. I'm sure their are "happy hookers", but a good deal of them are being exploited. (...) They are not _my_ values - they are those of the society I live. In your LP dreamland you impose your (...) (24 years ago, 6-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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR