From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: If you haven't sent your checks to no-on-hate yet, do it!
Summary: Bob and Mike's slam dance
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 21:00:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.020347.3660@spdcc.com>, rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> >rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
> >  And the government is? Puleese. At least with the free market, self
> >interest is involved. Sorry if I have more trust in peoples self interest
> >drive than their altruistic drive...
> 
> 	Did I claim the gov't was rational (double checks) --- nope I
> didn't you misread it.  Well, no surprise there...  Let's move
> onto the other Thomasarian "gems" shall we?  There's bound to
> be plenty...

  Sorry Bob. You can't have it both ways. There are only two 
possibilities. Either you think that individuals are likely to
be more rational in their affairs with others or you think
that a government is more likely to be rational in its guidence
of the affairs of others.  
  Which would you rather have? Individuals who have the potential
of hurting a relatively small set of people, or a government which
can affect wholesale slaughter? 
  A government which has no reigns on it is man's worst enemy. 
Rationalizing that a government *could* be benevolent when given
immense power is pure fantasy. How many noble experiments do we
need to be subjected to before people realize this?
 
> >  Which of course were backed up by Jim Crow laws, but why let
> >such a coincidental fact get in the way... This is yet another 
> >appeal to the natural monopoly fallacy. In fact, even with 
> >Jim Crow laws there were still lots of ways to get from point
> >A to point B. Try a car. Or a horse. Or your feet. Or moving
> >to the north where segregation wasn't as bad.

> 	Moving?  Oh, THERE'S a great option...  are you going to suggest
> that to the GBLO*-folk in Oregon and COlorado after November?  How
> about in the US if Robertson or Buchanan ever takes the presidency?

  Do you have the audacity to claim that Patty Duke's politics
are *libertarian*??? I hope not. 
  It is these people (the authoritarians from both sides of the
traditional political spectrum) that a lib government would specifically
disallow from ever being capable of legislating their brand of
morality. 
  Nobody said life is perfect, and that everybody will live happily
ever after. You will not get it by a libertarian government or
by any other random authoritarian government. A libertarian 
government only gives people the potential of happiness, with 
government (and other people) not forcibly impeding your pursuit.
  Injustice happens. It is a fact of life. There are no magic
bullets for human society. When trying to right a wrong, we must
always ask whether the solution is worse than the problem. 
What are the tradeoffs. In the case of association, goverment
meddling does not solve the root problem (bigotry), it only
band-aids some of the outward manifestations of the root problem,
at the cost of some of your individual liberty. Is it worth
it? I don't think so, but you aren't going to find me thinking
that the world is going to come end since AB2601 passed either
(unlike Cretin).

> (Oh I forgot - you find equal rights laws unnecessary...)

  Um, where did I say that? If you are talking about the equal
protection clause of the 14th amendment, I completely agree
with it. If you are talking about political equality laws you
are 100% mistaken.  
  Your painting with an awfully broad brush here...

> >  You must be confusing an authoritarian government which precludes,
> >by law, people from starting up their own alternatives. Definitely
> >not libertarian. 
> 
> 	No, I'm saying that not preventing alternatives does not
> make them spring up overnight.  I know this goes over your head.

  So what? Having the government interpose does not make them 
spring up overnight either. The last 30 years should be testament
to the fact that government intervention is no godsend. It may
expidite some change, but it hinders it in many others. 

> >  Why, oh why, do people hold onto this starry eyed (tm) belief
> >that if individuals can be reprehensible (which they can) that
> >a goverment comprised of the same individuals will be any better
> >when given a free hand?
> 
> 	That's a different topic.  We need to of course elect people
> of good character.  For example, not what we have now.

  This is inane. People are going to elect people of good character
when they themselves are not? This is a stunning revelation. How
exactly does this come about? When does it start happening?
  If you expect me to give my vote over to the cause of government's
legislation of morality, this is the point you will need to convince
me of. I don't think you can.

> >  What you are missing is that in a society which openly discriminates
> >against a particular group, what makes you think that a group of
> >*politicians* are going to have the fortitude to stop it. Politicians?
> >As in elected worms? Moral cowards of n'th degree? 
> >  They are the most likely ones to be riding shotgun in the lynch mob.
> >History does not favor your viewpoint.
> 
> 	So we should all give up anyway... and let those in power
> take over completely while at the same time "tell" us that
> "well, we really do have all the things we need we jast have to
> make them happen."

  Pssst, Bob. Using government force is not the only way to
affect social change. I know that you've been brainwashed to
believe that, but their are the concepts of persuasion and
education.
 
> >> I've talked to libertarians...  I've heard the wildest things.
> >  Oh dear. Those men are talking in your head again?
> 
> 	Oh dear.  Run out of "logical" arguments?  Again?  Boy
> you have low mileage - seems you can't even get thru a whole posting
> without having to drop out of the topic...

  Hon, I wasn't the one that came up with this spittle. I can only
guess which part of your brain this fantasy came from, and what (who)
prompted it. 
  <SNAP>

> >> "Well, we're for equal rights for gays."
> >> "But what about anti-discrimination?"
> >> "Well, that would be a private matter."
> >> "But what about the tacit widespread public homophobia?  Certainly
> >> people being assaulted on the street is not a private matter!"
> >> "Well, if most people don't like gays then that has to be respected.
> >> The government shouldn't get involved."
> >> "But these people aren't doing anything wrong!"
> >> "Yeah, but if they dind't act gay in the open, no one would know...
> >> It's a private thing."
> 
> >  People being assaulted in the street is not a private matter. 
> >Period. This is about the silliest strawman argument I've come
> >across in a long time. And where on *earth* do you come up with
> >this 'back to the closet' nonsense? 
> 
> 	Gee from libertarians running for office of course...
> Assaulted at the time included things like harassment, etc.

  What exactly do you mean by "harassment"? As in free speech
issues or baseball bats? 
  Your above characterization is so ludicrous, that I can only 
say that it is a complete fantasy (hopefully drug induced, maybe 
it will wear off).

> The dialogue is not verbatim.

  Doubtlessly. Completely obfuscated is more like it.

> 	Gee I dunno... seems I get farther than you do...
> But that's OK Mikey, at this point, I only respond to your postings
> out of sport...  It' sort of like a crossword puzzle:  How many
> President's wvies' faces can you spot in this mural of the NYC skyline?
> How many logical flaws can you find per kilobyte in a Mike Thomas
> posting?  We start something like a bowling league...

  Had ol' Timothy Leary over to the house again Bob?
-- 

PS: I guess I give up on trying to be overly civil with you. It's not
    really your character and besides this is more fun. Sort of like    
    slam dancing :-)

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)