Subject:
|
Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 21:48:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4739 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > Many people are "exploited" if you define it widely enough. Isn't being an
> > employee exploitation?
>
> Marx said so.
But what do you think?
> > 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.
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 the
employer too, because you're making money from their infrastructure. It is a
mutually beneficial (if not wholy satisfactory) relationship.
> > 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.
I didn't mean to suggest that I'm against education...or even financial aid
from the state (but only in the context of a tax and spend system). It is an
investment in the future just as much for the national government as it is for
businesses in Libertopia. There are a thousand wastes of money that I would
complain about more/first, but that doesn't escape the fact that the financing
for such programs is a product of theivery.
> > 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?
Because only people who are doing something wrong are doing something wrong?
That's like saying that the victims of mugging should be prosecuted along with
the mugger.
> > 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.
Irrelevant. You may very well be. For that matter, while I try to keep it
locked down, I have a prudish streak in my subconscious too. Nontheless,
however distasteful prostitution usually is, it's not a violation of rights and
therefore shouldn't be illegal.
> > 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.
Why to the last? Quite seriously.
> > > > 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.
True. But it is both. You are hiding behind the majority opinion. You seem
to commonly support majority opinion with statements like 'who am I to
question...' and '[you|I|we] can vote them [in|out]' etc. What if the majority
decided that slavery based on skin tone was once again a good idea? Would you
be supportive of such a radical infringement on liberty just because you live
in a majority rule system? If not (and I really hope that's your stance) then
why is that OK to reject, and why not lesser injustices?
> > 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.
Through what system? Why is public whim enough to make a harmless activity
illegal?
> > 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?
I did. I hold this truth to be self evident.
> > > 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.
Perhaps the UK is the land of milk and honey. Can I move in and get all that
you do?
> > 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.
I can't.
> > 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?
Then he makes it the way everyone else does. People don't have a right to
property (except, I might part from the normal libertarian stance on land --
I've been playing with fairly radical social views on land alocation since it's
truly limited) but they have a right to generate their own property. I sought
out skills. Now I know how to refine mud, form earthenware vessels, and fire
them to useful temperatures wihtout technology. I _could_ do that. And then
I'd have property that no one else had a right to take. And I could trade that
property for other stuff that other people made. And no one would have a right
to take that from me either.
> > > 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.
Wrong. In Libertopia, rights flow from principals. Their domain is typically
(or maybe exclusively) property. You keep saying ludicrous stuff like "In
Libertopia, the more property you have, the more rights you have" and I've been
amazed that no one has called you on it. Well, I'm calling you on it. You're
wrong.
> > > 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.
We don't need millions of chimney sweeps. Some people ought to be sweeping
chimneys because it's a specialized skill and we have chimneys. Do you have a
problem with the trades?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) That sounds more like symbiosis than exploitation? (...) How objective. (...) That is just what I meant by "all" (...) "too"? Are you making assumptions about my subconscious? (...) In your opinion. (...) This is where we started. (...) If I (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
