From: gleeson@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Red Mountain)
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:54:30 GMT

In <dyfl.724477851@phobos> dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam) writes:

>brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes:
>My point is that value judgements are always subjective in
>character.  Do you dispute that?  Do you have some means of
>ascertaining the objective value of something?  Societies and
>governments are incapable of valuations.  Government involves the
>valuations of certain people being the directing force over
>everybody.

The point is that having government is a good way to have an approximately
objective value judgement. Of course value judgements are always subjective
in nature. Otherwise we wouldn't be individuals. But proposing anarchy
as a solution to this perceived conflict in value judgements is not
the answer because you conveniently leave humans and basic rights such as
equality and justice out of the equation.

>>Our system of democracy is an integration of the hopes, desires and wishes of
>>people since the beginning of time.  Processes of government, taxation and
>>welfare have come into being over time because society at large *wanted* them.

>I agree completely.  It is because of the wide-spread acceptance of
>the doctrines of interventionism and the emotional appeal of
>anticapitalism that most people are so statist.

So you say. So because people want a fair start in life for their children and 
equality and justice for all, that makes them communists/socialists/statists?
(so you imply).

>>Your ideas are nothing new.  Societal evolution wiped away your concepts
>>hundreds of years ago - why should it have to happen again just because
>>you've arrived on the planet and think you've got a *new* idea?  Society has
>>voted a resounding "no" to your concepts but you don't accept the verdict.

>It won't happen again just because I want it to.  If it does I
>wouldn't have to try to convince the readers of aus.politics.

So? Why don't you address the issue?

>>I've tried hard to be restrained in my discussions here, but I'm afraid you've
>>pushed me too far.

>Hey, come on.  It's only a computer.

Unfortunately, Daniel, this fairly well reflects your attitudes to your
fellow humans shown by you in this discussion.

>>I've seen no evidence from you, Daniel, that you have any care or compassion
>>for your fellow man.  All I have seen is greed and selfishness dressed up as
>>a pseudo-intellectual argument for a "freer" society.  If that's the way *you*
>>want to live your life, fine, but you'll die a soulless and lonely man.

>It does not matter in the slightest whether I, or you, have any care
>or compassion for our fellow men.  I have deliberately tried to avoid
>these questions.  I have simply argued, from a purely utilitarian
>point of view, the social advantages of the economic system of
>capitalism.

You **cannot** argue for the social advantages of any economic system without
including people. What do you think comprises the participants of any 
economic system? Who is affected by an economic system? People. You have
shown well that you have no care or compassion for your fellow men by your
arguments for a system that has seen widespread opression and exploitation
in the past (and the Industrial Revolution era is not the only time that
the laissez faire system has been tried and seen to fail, Daniel). It's no
good trying to convince the rest of us to consider an economic system
without considering the people it affects. You see, we actually care about
our fellow man. So that's why your arguments fall on deaf ears. Get it?

Marty.
---------------------=============***O***=============-------------------------
Martin J. Gleeson  | Computer Science, Melbourne Uni, Oz |    ...  __o    Outta
gleeson@mundil.cs.mu.oz.au |     E Pluribus Unix         |  ...   -\<,       my
"We gladly feast on those who would subdue us." - Addams |  ....(_)/(_)..  way!
 "I can't give you brains, but I can give you a diploma." - The Wizard of Oz
---------------------=============***O***=============-------------------------
Newsgroups: aus.politics