Subject:
|
Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 7 Dec 2000 16:36:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4954 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> Now I know exactly what Larry means when saying that all you do is snipe. In
> your earlier posts, you lured me in by saying enough to trick me into believing
> that you were interested in talking about it. Now, the best I get is one
> liners.
It is because I'm getting bored with your dislike of democracy. Bored. After
I read your last post I remembered this point:
"Democracy is just an euphemism for mob rule, where two lions and a sheep
vote on the dinner, and there should instead be as few laws as possible to
emphasize individual reponsibility and freedom to make contracts. Today's
political system is completely the opposite, and we should return to the
less oppressive system that existed about a century ago."
It is taken from here:
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~imk/lib.html
>
> 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?
>
> And sometimes, no answer at all.
My answer was below.
>
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > That sounds more like symbiosis than exploitation?
>
> Gee, you too?
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > How objective.
>
> This is either a compliment or an insult and in either case it doesn't further
> discussion. Why do you post at all?
I'm asking you to be objective that is all.
>
> > > > > 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 is just what I meant by "all"
>
> I don't get it. I think you're stating that prostitutes are "wrong" by
> engaging in their trade, but I can't get around to the back side to figure out
> why you think that. You have implied that adults should be able to engage in
> legal (non paid) sex. Did you mean only adults married to one another? If a
> man and woman opt to get married for convenience (e.g. the man will get a
> steady lay and the woman will have food for her kids (and just to be clear,
> I'm not in any way suggesting that I think all (or even many, any more)
> marriage is like this.) ) then you think it should be legal for them to have
> sex, right? But how is it different than prostitution? I'm just trying to
> figure what the essense of wrongness is in your perception of prostitution.
This is all very circular.
>
> > > > 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.
> >
> > "too"? Are you making assumptions about my subconscious?
>
> Umm...by the statement above, "I must be a prude," I sort of figured that you
> were acknowledging that fact about your character.
Nope. I was saying I must be a prude by _your_ standards.
> You seem offended. Is it
> because I asserted that you were prudish, or because I suggested it was
> subconcious. If that latter, that wasn't my intent. And, in fact, I was using
> the term subconcious in the vernacular sense, not as specific psychological
> jargon.
>
> > > Nontheless,
> > > however distasteful prostitution usually is, it's not a violation of rights • and
> > > therefore shouldn't be illegal.
> >
> > In your opinion.
>
> My opinion that it shouldn't be illegal, or my opinion that it's not a
> violation of rights? And whose rights?
>
> > > 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 I thought I could not change the system, I'd leave.
>
> What if there was no where better to go?
I'd strive for change.
>
> > > If not (and I really hope that's your stance) then
> > > why is that OK to reject, and why not lesser injustices?
>
> I think this is the really important bit of the discussion. Would you be
> willing to answer?
>
> > > > > 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?
> >
> > "whim"? Hardly.
>
> This is in essence, you saying "nuh-uh." It isn't very productive.
nuh-uh
>
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > Why not give yourself the right to steal?
>
> Because we all take the same rights, and stealing is bad for the community.
> (Except, I guess the first half of that is wrong...you and your ilk _do_ take
> the right to steal.
Very objective.
> That's an interesting twist. So how can we resolve it
> without armed conflict?)
>
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > You can't vote?
>
> My vote can't get them out. But I think you probably understand that.
>
> > > > 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.
> >
> > This is all very bronzeage.
>
> The concept of property and trade is older than that. And what's your point?
> Is the allusion supposed to lead me to understand that you are calling me
> economically unsophisticated?
>
> > > > 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.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure I'm not. Show me I am.
>
> How? Since I'm a supporter of the concept of Libertopia, can't I just tell you
> that? Larry, John D, Frank, anyone else, what do you think? Rights flow from
> property only to the extent that this is so in all systems, our mind invents
> rights and our mind is our property. The idea of Libertopia is that a
> democracy exists with very strong limitations on what can be imposed. It is
> against the code to create laws that restrict the rights (defined pretty
> broadly, but derived pretty narrowly) of the citizens. The right to own
> property is the metaright. All people have the same exact rights.
If an indivdual has only property which has no value, in your dreamland,
would s/he have the right to education, healthcare, food?
>
> > > > > > 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?
> >
> > You missed the joke.
>
> No. I refused the joke (though I'd tend to call it a literary reference more
> than a joke). Partly because I spent eight years in university learning to be
> a vocational educator and have a thing up my a...back about society's derision
> of the trades and partly because you were right. People with the appropriate
> aptitude would be educated as a chimney sweep. But they would also (I admit
> that I'm guessing here) receive at least eight years of general education.
I think you are still missing it. It must be a cultural thing.
Scott A
> Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
| (...) Why then, instead of wasting our time, not just say "I'm bored with this, I'm not going to participate any more, but I didn't want to just disappear" or something? (...) When you do, what does that mean? It seems from the way you use the term, (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: IP ( was Re: LP POINT 1
|
| Now I know exactly what Larry means when saying that all you do is snipe. In your earlier posts, you lured me in by saying enough to trick me into believing that you were interested in talking about it. Now, the best I get is one liners. (...) And (...) (24 years ago, 7-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
|
|
|
|
