Re: META: Why I'm boycotting Extropy (TM)

From: QueeneMUSE@aol.com
Date: Thu Sep 07 2000 - 16:47:16 MDT


In a message dated 9/7/2000 1:30:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lee@piclab.com
writes:

>
> > 1) libertarian politics - which I regard as destructive,
> > lacking in compassion, humanity and empathy, ...
>
> I can lie back and take abuse sometimes, but this is just
> too much. Nadia, this statement is ignorant, pompous, and
> just about diametrically opposite of reality.

Lee, I am very familiar with your position on politics, and your position on
social interaction. Your attitude looks to ME like this: Tough shit. Toughs
shit about how others feel - I hear it time and time again from you. I call
that lack of empathy.

The most
> greedy, heartless bastards I know personally are all self-
> proclaimed "compassionate" liberals who think the wolrd
> owes them and their causes something for nothing.

This may be true, but it does not excuse the lack of sloutions proposed in
libertarian politics. It is one thing to call something wrong, and quite
another to come up with viable solutions. When I said destructive, I meant
it. Punk rock was effective at dismantling music, what it didn't have was
anything good to offer in return. What kids got now is rap - which equals
crap. That is how I see libertarians. Angry at the system with nothing to
replace it with, so we can just tear it down and see what sprouts.

  The
> rest of us actually have to work and earn our keep--and
> yours.

Excuse me, but I am not taking any money from you. I work too, and damn hard.

And most of us are quite generous with others, and
> don't mind spreading it around a bit (even though we may
> resent it being taken by force). Compassion at gunpoint
> is not compassion at all--it is the liberal point of view
> that denies the existence of compassion, that assumes and
> counts on people to be the greedy bastards liberals think
> everyone is but them, when the reality is that they just
> want the state to take control so they don't have to feel
> guilty about not giving of themselves voluntarily. The
> next time you see a hungry homeless man on the street, ask
> yourself what would be of more benefit to him: (1) empathy,
> compassion, and humanity; or (2) water, food, and shelter.
> Now, what economic system is likely to produce the most
> water, food, and shelter for the most people?

I have heard this argument over and over and over, ad nauseum. I have yet to
see any proof that your system provides homeless people with shelter. In fact
you seem to want to shut down any agencies that are in existence, and rely on
some sort of vague charity that is yet to be born.
What can you say that will convince me this i nothing but a cop out and a
poor excuse for NOT doing more about a very serious problem, which stems
mainly from the large polupation of mentally ill wandering the streets. To
say they should just 'get a job' - after you feed them (???? though you just
refused to feed ME, who you have at least a nodding aquaintance with) when
they are unhirable without intervention, is heartless and also innefective.
Nothing is that simple.

>
> I'll take on a rational argument about the failure of the
> market in certain places anytime, and I'll even concede a
> few points. But this emotional bullshit deserves no respect
> and needs to be ridiculed for what it is.
>

um, I thought no one "deserves" anything ; - )



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:30 MDT