michael.bast@convergys.com wrote:
>
> Actually, I'm not talking about libertarian theory, I'm more discussing how we
> might get things we want (cloning research, nanotech, genetic engineering) when
> most of society doesn't care, is opposed, etc. (Also, part of it has to do with
> how you define legitimate, actually. A lot of people consider legitimate things
> which I don't, and they couldn't care less about whether I like it, as long as
> they get it)
Hmm. So you are all for actual major government nastiness if the money
extorted or whatever goes to fund what you care most about? How far
does that go? Are you willing to see people robbed, beaten, even killed
to fund this stuff? Do the ends utterly justify the means in your
mind?
The sword of government tyranny cuts two ways. Today it may seem
supportive of some of the goals you want. Tomorrow it make be
sacrificing you and all you care about to someone else's goals that have
caught the ever shifting government focus. And through all of it the
government will be the only consistent winner and the people the
consistent losers. You give the government the rope to hang you with
when you use it against others to get what you want.
>
> >From: Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>
> >Subject: Re: Random comments on some late discussions.
>
> >HUH? Call me a simpleton but I thought Libertarianism was about people
> >doing it their way wherever that does not infringe on the rights of
> >others to do the same. The above seems to assume that a lot of people's
> >legitimate interests are in conflict much of the time.
>
> Re-structuring government is forcing people to live under your system, if a
> large number of them don't want it. A limited-function libertarian government is
> not what most people want, or we'd have it, and were we to get it over their
> opposition, we'd be forcing them to live under a system they don't agree with.
> Now, the point then is, what do we do? We can tell people government is
> initiating force by making us pay taxes, but they largely don't agree. Giving
> them facts, reasons, etc. won't matter, since their values aren't ours, and they
> aren't going to connect things as we do.
>
No. I am not forcing anyone to do anything but leave me alone. All I
ask for is a negative, the absence of coercion. If you want to be
really twisted I guess you can say I am denying someone's right to
murder, plunder and enslave me. But to say that would assume there is
such a thing as some right to do these things. I don't care what people
agree with. I care whether or not they live with me and one another in a
remotely civilized manner.
If all the facts don't matter then you come to the same position as the
Marxists that there is no truth but only the truth of this or that
group. From that point chaos and tyranny run rampant. We should do as
much as possible to avoid that.
> >Again, "make them do it anyway" is no part of what I thought Libertarianism was
> about.
>
>
>From this and other things you've said, I can tell you're a fan of Ayn Rand,
> maybe even an objectivist. (I'm trying not to make a definitive statement, on
> purpose. I'm also trying to illustrate a point, rather than this being a
> personal attack). I read everything of hers I could find (except We, the Living)
> when I was 20. However, now, I don't like her work nearly as much, it strikes me
> as too simplistic.
Whether I admire much of Ayn Rand's work or not, I do but abhor the
little pipsqueak that claims to be her heir and all of his works and the
rationalistic ninnies that too often seem drawn to objectivism, is
really irrelevant to this discussion.
>So, I have to make myself not turn off what you're saying.
Your emotions are irrelevant. Give me your reasoning.
> Why? Because almost every objectivist I've met comes off sounding like a
> religious fundamentalist. For example, I once took a FAQ on capitalism from an
> objectivist web page. I then replaced the word capitalism with the word Jesus,
> and then read the parts which describe capitalism's benefits (making sure not to
> read the parts which mentioned specifically economic ideas) to some friends. ALL
> of them thought I was reading a religious tract.
Well, wasn't that majorly enlightening? NOT. You could take many
random tracts and replace the main subject with "Jesus" and people would
think you were reading religion. Again, would you come back to the
points at hand?
> Why bring this up? Most people will shut you out if they think you're an
> ideologue, and we get nowhere. Despite libertarian theory, we live in a world
> where most people don't agree with us, and we get nothing done telling them
> they're not bright enough to understand how much we know. Telling them they've
> stolen the food they're eating, when it came from government, is going to get
> them to mark you as a nut, and you get nowhere.
But I have patiently said over and over again that this is not what I
do, plan to do or advocate doing. It is you who created this strawman.
>
> >The main parties have not dared mention or name their
> >fundamental principles for some time now. There is a great emptiness in
> >American politics waiting to be filled.
>
> Actually, one person DID say people were stupid. It's what got me started on
> this.
>
People generally ARE stupid. Half of them have IQs of 100 or less!
:-) A good deal of the brightest are voluntarily stupid in areas they
have had no training in since our education system does not teach sound
critical thinking. This isn't flamage. It is the simple truth. So if
you need everyone's buy-in before anything gets done you may as well
forget it. But if you can have the system be truly minimalist giving
the people that do see what needs doing the maximum freedom to proceed
without coercion or coercing others, then that is probably the best that
can be acheived. Even relatively stupid people can see it is in their
interest not to be coerced and can even see what types of systems tend
to produce the most goodies.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:34 MDT