Subject:
|
Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 17:32:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4333 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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?
Marx said so.
> Actually, weren't you being exploited by the system
> when you were going to school for free?
It could be argued I exploietd the system could it not - that is your normal
perspective.
> You were being incented by the masses
> to behave in a certain way, which I think is exploitation too.
Education is exploitation – what a novel way to reduce your tax bill.
>
> 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?
Why not prosecute all involved?
>
> 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.
I must be a prude.
>
> 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?
Yes.
>
> > > 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.
Nope. The truth.
> Do you support the making illegal of victimless activity because it
> violates the aesthetic of a majority?
Every activity has a cost and a benefit. Each has to be considered.
>
> > 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.
It depends on who much welth one gives I suppose.
> 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).
Who gave you those rights?
>
> > 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?
The projects of the electorate.
> Maybe
> I am just vastly ignorant of the differences between the US and UK.
Maybe.
> 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.
You vote them out... I can't help you do it from Edinburgh.
>
> > > 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.
"The highest result of education is tolerance."
> 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.
What if he has no property?
>
> > 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.
Wrong. Libertopia, as you call it, rights flow from property. No property -
no rights.
>
> > 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.
Yes. Sure. They'd teach kids how to sweep chimneys.
> It
> is a strong investment in the future.
Brave New world type education perhaps?
Scott A
>
> Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) But what do you think? (...) Oh, I think it's a two way street. That's why there's nothing wrong with it. When you're an employee, you're being exploited because someone is (traditionally) making money from your labor. But you're exploiting (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
