From: rbeckham@bnr.ca (Rick Beckham)
Subject: Re: Hey, Tim Starr
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Tx.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:01:38 GMT

In article <BzD1oL.2or@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>rbeckham@bnr.ca (Rick Beckham) writes:
>>mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>>Here's a guy that lacks your pollyana view that everything will magically
>>>be all right if only we all adopt libertarianism.
>>>
>>*sign*, it's been stated over and over again Mike. libertarians freely admit
>> there will be problems. We don't think all of mankinds woes will magically
>> disappear. The opposite is true with Dems/Repubs, where a belief that
>> social engineering will improve mankind's lot. This has never been
>> demonstated.
>
>The opposite is true?  You mean all those nasty pollyannic Dems/Repubs
>belive that with a bit of social engineering, all of mankind's woes
>will magically disappear?  How come they never say things like that
>then?  [Note: social engineering has actually improved mankind's lot.
>For example, giving blacks and women the right to vote is blatant
>social engineering.]
>
Why else would they apply bandaids to social problems unless they truly
thought they could heal the wound? Giving minorities the right to vote
in my view is not social engineering; it is merely extending the same      
constitutional powers white males enjoyed.

>> Let's look at it this way; if mankind is basically good we need no govt,
>> if mankind is basically bad you don't want a big govt (why? because the
>> same percentage of 'badness' will infect the body politic.) If however
>> mankind is neither basically good or bad, why would you need a large govt?
>
>To organize things that individuals and companies are apparently
>unable to organize otherwise, to resolve issues of justice in
>an equitable way, to provide for infrastructure that benefits
>everyone (but no single group enough to make it economically
>attractive to the private sector)...
>
reread what I typed. For that we need big or large govt?

>> You've consistently stated you oppose libertarian philosophy. Does this
>> mean you back statism? Where do you draw the line? Are you a total
>> collectivist? or are you only socialist when it benefits you?
>
>This is funny.  Don't you love people drawing false dichotomies?
>
 I was asking questions to find out Mike's beliefs, not drawing false
 dichotomies.

>> If you
>> truly believe the good of the many outweigh the needs of the few then
>> would you have no problem with exterminating all people who have
>> life threatening incurable contagions? Since the govt is spending your
>> childrens money, where will they get the money for govt services for
>> those same children once the children become adults? Where do you
>> draw the line with taxation? 10%, 20%, 40%? Why not 100% if the govt
>> is truly giving our money's worth of services and making life
>> 'idealistic'?
>
>And people setting up strawmen?  If you want to discredit someone,
>give them an extreme position that they don't hold and that is
>indefensible...
>
 Ditto. No strawman was erected.

>> Libertarianism is a belief in the individuals' rights, where they cannot
>> be trampled by the majority just because the majority suddenly finds
>> it convenient.
>
>Sounds like the modern liberal or the modern conservative to me.
>Everyone's in favour of apple pie, as well.
>
>> By that end we systematically apply the same logic
>> across the board. If it is wrong for a single person to steal, it is
>> wrong for a group to steal, even if the group calls itself a govt or
>> if the group is a majority.
>
>Systematically applying any principle across the board without
>regard to circumstance is almost always a bad idea.  Jean Valjean
>should have been killed.
>
 It's much preferable to systematically applying a law across the board
 without regard to circumstance.

>> So Mike, how far could the govt push you, trampling over your individual
>> rights before you decided to resist?
>
>How far has it pushed you already, with the WoD?  Have you resisted,
>aside from complaining on the net?
>
 You peg me as complaining? I've tried very hard to debate the issues Mike
 has raised, but he merely posts to assert he is right and libs are wrong.
 Moreoften than not, he ignores my posts (maybe he's not receiving).
 I resist in other ways, against the WoD and other govt'al abuses of power.
 But if I'm a complainer, why are you standing up for Mike?

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Discord, the Goddess of the Net, was developing a taste for blood sacrifice.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian