To michael.bast:
Fair enough. I didn't think you were particularly flaming me even when
you did say something about my comments being fuel for illustrating
exactly what you have trouble/disagreements with. :-) And yes, I am
reading you. Obviously.
>
> >From: Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>
> >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?
>
> You are personally defining someone's rights (or accepting someone else's
> definitions) and then holding people to them. What about all those people who
> disagree with your ideas of rights, their sources and derivations, your logical
> structure? If you want to be allowed to make your own mind up, why deny someone
> else the same?
Simple. They want to not only make their own mind up but having decided
that X is good they would like to force my compliance at gunpoint. I
have no intention of forcing them to do anything at all. If we have no
logic in common then I guess little more than self-defense of one's
person and space or avoidance of one another would be left.
Specifically above I am responding to a point you made about (as I
understood it) having little problems with government funded meddling in
many things as long as the meddling was in the direction you wanted it
to go. I attempted to point out that is a very slippery slope and asked
how you would establish boundaries to such. I also tried to point out
what I believe are reasonable answers (or approximations along the way)
to some of your doubts. I don't see how any of that constitutes not
reading what you say or responding to it.
> By defining the terms of the debate (what a right is, how logic
> works, etc.) you really stop any debate. Yes, there have to be rules or chaos
> results. But, you're (in effect) saying thousands of years of mainstream
> philosophy, theology (natural rights are derived from religion, despite
> assertions otherwise), etc. I might agree, but, again, I'm used to being in a
> minority position.
>
If we have no logic, no means of reasoning, then we have no means of
describing and examining ideas critically and thus no means of "debate".
Humans have believe all kinds of bizarre and wrong-headed things for
thousands of years. So what?
Natural rights cannot be derived from supposed divine fiat and still be
"natural". You speak in open contradictions. Ah, I forgot, there I go
again, using logic.
> >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.
>
> THIS may be the clearest example yet of what I mean. YOU are deciding how the
> debate goes, on what terms, what has relevance, etc. That is just not how it
> goes. There are a whole lot of people whose emotions are part of their
> reasoning, and you do have to deal with those people. Like sucks that way, but
> it's reality.
Fine. There is nothing in their being bound by emotions that says I
have to be bound to whatever treatment their emotions tell them to
bestow upon me, is there? I think you really need to say what you
believe is required to have a reasonably peaceful and productive
society.
> >Your emotions are irrelevant. Give me your reasoning.
>
> On this, I agree completely. However, what you don't seem to get is my point
> about it. We won't ever get to minimalist government the way we're going. We
> can't convince enough people to do so, and on this we DO need a majority. That's
> just the way it works.
Was the American Revolution started or sustained by a simple majority?
I don't think so. Perhaps freedom happens when enough people care
enough about it to fight hard enough for it that it is more in other's
interest to cooperate with a more free arrangement than to deny them.
But I don't think that requires a majority.
> There's a very relevant point here. I first learned about the Libertarian
> philosophy/party listening to Norma Jean Almodovar (I know I've spelled that
> wrong) being interviewed. She took questions from callers, and the one that
> sticks in my mind was the guy who told her Libertarianism 'was fine for those of
> you with 130 IQs, but what about the rest of us? We need someone to take care of
> us.' I am NOT making that up. The problem is that you assume your experience is
> all there is, that no one could possibly think coercion is good. You are wrong,
> I think history backs me up on this. Now, how do we deal with them? They do
> still vote, and wield political power.
Someone to take care of them? Doesn't that translate to this guy saying
he has the right to enslave others for his benefit? If so then why
should any decent people take such a statement seriously? In fact
increased freedom has done more to increase the well-being of all
elements of society than any amount of chaining the more able to the
needs of the less able.
You are assuming what I assume. Always a pointless proposition.
Personally I have places where my own libertarianism is quite tempered.
While I don't think it is correct to extract sums from one person's
wealth for the benefit of another against his/her will, I do question
whether the pure competition economic model can survive the singularity
or even several things leading up to it. There is competition and then
there is meaningless competition for mere tokens regardless of actual
needs and values. I just don't believe it is government's job to
determine actual needs and values. As the world becomes more
techno-centric I can see possibilities that more people will become
disenfranchised under the common economic assumptions. I don't have a
good idea what to do about that but I don't believe any sort of
redistribution of wealth by force is a good answer.
> > 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 achieved. 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.
>
> Again, you're deciding beforehand what 'counts' and what doesn't and then
> telling people they're wrong because they don't agree with you. Who decides
> what's rational? On what basis? What's objective? What's reasonable?
You seem to have studiously missed the point. I made a statement about
what I think is the best that can be acheived and what historically
seems best. You claim that I have prejudiced the conversation but you
have not shown this. I am telling you what I think and why. If you
disagree then show me why instead of forbiding me effectively to have an
opinion or apply any criteria at all simply because some (or even most)
disagree with me.
If you want to dissolve yourself in non-absolutism then have at it. But
stop yelling at me for not joining you.
> I keep trying to say, if people value things other than individual freedom
> as their primary value, what you're doing will turn them off. They then go about
> their lives, letting the statists get their way (since they espouse the same
> values, and haven't already prejudiced them by pissing them off) and we lose. I
> have a problem with that.
>
Let them value whatever they want. But if they come to deny me my
values with force then they deserve little but self-defensive force in
return.
That people get pissed off when you disagree with them and attempt to
make a case for what you think is a flaw of theirs, not of yours. How
will you get anywhere by not trying to say what you believe and why the
best you can?
> >> 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.
>
> >According to an objective view of what rights do and do not consist of.
> >Which is the only thing that could possibly support any position on
> >human ethics. If they think differently then lets compare the quality
> >if the thinking, the reasoning and philosophy and its results (if any)
> >and decide which appears more reasonable. Once again, truth is not a
> >matter of opinion. Some values are mostly opinion at the current
> >primitive state of our philosophies and knowledge. But what is needed
> >for humans to flourish is not arbitrary or infinitely malleable. Truth
> >is not democratically arrived at.
>
> HOW??? That is exactly what I'm trying to figure out here. Telling me all I need
> to do is build a rocket to get to the moon doesn't mean it's going to happen. I
> have to know how. How are we going to minimize government, given that we're a
> minority? How do we become a majority? How do we get what we need, even if we're
> not a majority?
Hmmm. Start a revolution or get the hell out of Dodge and found
something new? Or slowly persuade more people by meeting them as close
to where they are as we can without compromising what we hold true.
That it appears hopeless doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
> >Then your only logical alternative is to do your best to minimize government
> coercion across the board so they don't stop >those technologies from being
> developed.
If I read you correctly you think all power is in the mob and almost
none in ideas and principles. Yet that which brought us to this point
grew out of ideas and principles being applied to the problems of
government. Do you see change as impossible? What is it that you do
propose doing?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:34 MDT