> Destructive:
>
> Like Punk rock, which saw rock as pompous and arrogant and overblown; who's
> sole goal was to dismantle the mechanism of that genre __ and this is
> important, Lee:
That's partly a misunderstanding on your part. We do not seek
the destruction of governance, only the elimination of monopoly
governance by force. Even the most radical anarchist libertarians
want a government, we just want to be able to chose which one
among several competing for our business. We seek not to destroy
anything, but to provide a moral foundation for governance.
> Libertarians have yet to show me any solid evidence that their
> antigovernment deconstructivist theories will actually work.
So what? If you need absolute proof that something will work
before you even consider it, you're no Extropian. What we /have/
shown your proof of is that the welfare state is a miserable
failure, and that freedom in general produces good results.
There is also ample evidence that many of the services provided
by governments now can be better provided privately. If you can't
see that, then you're willfully ignoring the facts.
> I am a constructionist. I prefer to make -- not break.
Good, so are we. This is meaningless drivel. We want to
build a system of governance--with most of the same services
that governments provide today--but on a moral foundation.
We only seek to destroy those functions of government that
are positively evil, and which no sane human being could
possibly support. The rest we hope will become irrelevant
as those services are provided privately.
> Lacking in Compassion:
>
> I am an advocate of a kind of love called "tough love". This means that in
> some cases, I agree with some of the thoughts of libertarians. But-- I said
> it before Lee, you look to me like you are always saying "tough shit" about
> how anyone else feels, both in your social interactions and your political
> ones. You don;t give a rats ass about me, you call me your enemy, you say
> being rude is a tool -- you do not display a caring attitude about people.
Emotion has its place, but if you think that making important
decisions about life--and particularly about other people--should
be made emotionally we'll just have to disagree. I believe I have
a moral obligation to use solid reason to determine my choice of
action with others.
> There is a constant bitter nattering about how people don't deserve
> to share anything you have, and this "stealing at gunpoint" attitude
> when tax time comes around. That's one way of looking at it, but
> not the only way.
I have no resentment at all to sharing as such, but I /do/ resent
very strongly the gun pointed at me, and that's not just an "attitude"
or point of view. It is a simple, undeniable fact. Monopoly
government exercises its madates by FORCE, period. If you deny
that, you are simply ignoring reality, and no amount of argument
is worth wasting on you. No amount of justification for the ends
of this violence hold any water for me. The means matter: if you
have to use violence to accomplish your goals, I don't care how
otherwise worthy they might be. Find another way. We have offered
some /possible/ solutions for how to accomplish your ends with
moral means--you only whine that we haven't proven that they'll
work. SO WHAT? To me, it is /your/ moral obligation to fully
justify /your/ use of violence as absolutely necessary before I'll
even consider it an alternative.
> There is a general laissez faire - no pity- no sorrow - about the hurt
> feelings of others.
That's just me, not the philosophy. Please don't confuse my
personal crusade for the value of rudeness to reflect upon rank-
and-file libertarians. I'm sure most of them think I'm as obnoxious
as you do.
> But when difficult social and protection issues (crime and punishment,
> institutionalized racism, indigent childcare, hospitailztion for the poor,
> feeding and care of mentally ill, elder care, public transportation costs,
> support for the handicapped, language anomalies, sexual abuse, etc., etc.)
> are brought to bear, libertarians get pissed and won't talk about
> complexities. It's either: I'm sick to death of being told: Oh, "it will work
> itself out in the free market - or: Let them vote with their pocketbooks OR
> Rich people will give money instead of the govt (yeah right) OR angry
> spitfire and a total denial of the situation at hand.
> Libertarians are tough, oh yes, but I fail to see the love shining in their
> eyes.
But we /do/ talk about the complexities all the time. There are
hundreds of detailed papers on every one of those topics. We don't
generally bring them up here because that's one of the "basics"
that we've earlier agreed not to waste time on. But if you can't
be bothered to read and understand our positions on these matters
when all that information is easlily available, then don't complain
that we don't deal with the hard issues. We do deal with them, and
there is ample literature and study to prove it.
> And I really can't watch the decay and despair of the population above
> without "feeling their pain". I really could not. When they suffer, so do I.
Good. So do I. And so do most people. That's precisely why it
isn't necessary to MANDATE empathy or compassion. Most people are
pretty good anyway, and will help where there is need, just as I'm
sure you and I do every day. I don't want to abolish humanity; I
want to free it.
> You seem to think it's you vs. them, I see us as the same.
It's not us (the rich) vs. them (the unfortunate), it's us
(the knowledgeable compassionate libertarians) vs. them (the
compassionate but misguided advocates of force). We really do
have the same ends, no matter how much you protest otherwise.
It's just that the means to gettng there /do/ matter.
> SO you see... the crux of the paradox lies here:
>
> I want to honor the parts of your chatter that will bring about
> change, but totally disavow the parts that are destructive,
> mean and bitter.
More vagueness and evasion. If those parts of my argument
that you consider mean and bitter are actually debateable
facts, then debate them. If they are merely your impression
of my rehtorical style, then just call me a cranky old
bastard and be done with it. I concede that point. After
hashing over these old arguments for 20 years and still
being confronted with misunderstandings, misrepresentations,
and irrelevant emotional asides, I've gotten pretty cranky.
If those parts are merely your speculation about my motives,
then they're irrelevant.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:33 MDT