> Michael Lorrey wrote :
> >Michael, an excellent statement that is remarkably succint, direct, on
> >target, and with that grand historic ring to it... and sure to piss
> off the
> >socialist transhumanists...§;-)
>
> Ahhh...Michael ....I don't like flame wars, so I will try a last time to
> explain you, calmly, friendly, our point of view. Because I suppose that
> by "socialist transhumanists" you mean everybody who don't share your
> extreme positions.
What starts flame wars is to immediately label your opponent an extremist,
trying to make yourself look reasonable. Take your own advice.
> So, please first, stop to imagine there are two
> camps, red-commies-stalinian- socialists on one side,
> libertarians-individualist-capitalists on the other; you will really
> progress in your analysis. May I remind you that most of the stalinian
> crimes were due to the belief there was only two camps: the "nice guys"
> and the others, who had to be fighted and eventually killed. If you
> really don't like communism, you should stop to adopt their main
> characteristics, don't you think ?
> So now, let's go to Michael's (Bowling) definition : we should be pissed
> of , really ? By saying that, you prove one more time that you didn't
> understand most of the arguments of your opponents. Or worse, you didn't
> hear. That's sad. So open your ears and listen :
> Nobody here is opposed to individual freedom. The socialist
> transhumanists (by this term, you certainly want to name the mad guys
> who think that the free market defects have to be corrected by a welfare
> system) are advocates of individual freedom. that's why we want to be
> sure that ANYBODY (sorry for shouting, but the message seems hard to
> pass) can decide of his evolution, according to his own desires, and not
> be forbidden to succeed because he is born on the wrong side of the
> Bronx.
> Is this clear enough, or must I capitalize other words?
The socialists transhumanists make a mistake when they try to label
libertarians as selfish meanies who want to keep the have-nots in the
ghetto. They are also polarizing the argument by doing so. Take your own
advice.
Libertarians beleive that every person should have equality of opportunity.
They steadfastly oppose that people should be guarranteed equality of
results. Socialists do, and that is the main point of contention which you
refuse to acknowledge. Take your own advice.
> You can disagree with my opinion; I just want you to understand it and
> be fair in your opposition, instead of using low-level (and constant,
> and frequently out of topic, as here) propaganda. The worst thing in
> this, (from your own point of view) being that you give a very bad image
> of your own camp, therefore forbidding any intelligent discussion on
> economical matters on this list. Fortunately, there are more open-minded
> libertarians.
I am known to be very open minded, however, any individual person only has
to learn about socialism once to decide that is it utter foolishness or not,
which tends to say somethig about their intelligence. I have yet to meet a
committed socialist that has an open mind.
Mr Bowling's excellent statement never once mentioned anything about the
state. Only about the individual. Socialists know that their fondest dreams
require guns to people's heads by government goons to make reality. Those
that don't are either liars or fools.
Mike Lorrey