This, I think, is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. You are defining force to fit
your principles, and then telling people they need to use your new definitions
of old words. Most people do NOT think it is stealing to receive government
benefits, nor do they think it is initiation of force for government to make you
pay taxes. If I were wrong, we would not have the government we do, people would
not allow a system with which they didn't at least partly agree. Telling them
that they're wrong might convince some, but most will go on as before. As I keep
saying, there are more of them than us. An important point.
>From: Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>
>Subject: Re: Random comments on some late discussions.
>Well, it wasn't. And no one has a right to benefits stolen by force from
others. Ever.
Right, according to whom? I keep trying to make the point that people are not
operating from libertarian values, theory, etc. and then violating them. They
simply do not think libertarian theory is right, they don't value what we do.
>Will you change there minds by telling them they are right when they are not?
I think I'm getting great examples from you, actually. I keep trying to say that
a large number of libertarians/extropes come off as know-it-alls, and keep
people from paying attention to what they're saying. This in turn allows savvy
members of the more statist political ideologies to get their attention (they
see what we're doing wrong, and don't do that) and then they play into the
values voters hold. Not good at all for us. NOT everyone values individual
freedom 1st, and there's nothing any of us can do about that. And yet, when
confronted with it, we quote authors no one has ever heard of, beat people over
the head with theory no one agrees with, tell them it's ok for people to starve
or sell themselves into slavery, etc.
You and I might (I think do) agree that if I earn money by honest means, I
ought to be able to do with it as I will. Not everyone does, however. There are
a lot of people who think the government should control a portion of the economy
(with the largest arguments being over which portions) and should control what
people may do (pornography, scientific research into controversial areas, smart
drugs, etc.) I want to live, healthily, for a very long time. If the
technologies which would enable me to do this aren't ever allowed to be
developed because the government is listening to people swayed by anti-tech
ideologues, because they thought I was a smart-ass, what do I get??? The
satisfaction of being right? Fat lot of good that does you, dead.
>The truth is not a matter of numbers. We are supposed to be a republic not an
unlimited democracy. Fundamental rights >are supposed to be inviolate by the
State in this country. Pragmatic means of living as congruently as possible
with the >truth do need to take numbers into consideration though.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:34 MDT