From: Jerry Mitchell (jmitch12@tampabay.rr.com)
Date: Fri Jul 20 2001 - 21:08:24 MDT
> I would approve of people seeking a middle-ground: we have to
> publicly retain the traditions that created success and wealth
> in the first place, but also exercise charity in those local
> situations about which we are very knowledgable, and judge
> that it can do some good.
>
> Lee
>
2 thoughts come to mind...
Any compromise between poison and food, its the poison that wins
Ayn Rand
and
Always walk on side of road. Left side of road good, right side of road
good. Walk middle of road *squish* just like grape.
Little Chinese guy from Karate Kid.
So once you are in this glorious middle ground, what principle do you use to
guide your decisions? If someone breaks in my house, do I ask their demands
and only give them half of that? Principles are there to guide you and yes,
they must be taken to logical extremes. Don't fear extremes though, that's
simply a unit of measurement. Extreme health, extremely good food, extremely
good friends are good things. On the other side, extremely lethal poison or
deadly sharks are bad. Notice, that extreme is contextual. You cant say an
extremely principled government is bad without a definition of what your
talking about.
This dawned on me talking to a co-worker today when I told him about the new
libertarians mayoral candidate (The guy Kramer is based on from Sienfield,
yes he's running). He said he believed in freedom, but didn't want to become
like California with all its "liberal" crazies. He didn't want the people
that use drugs, prostitutes, and other types that he felt were morally
opposite. I didn't get a chance to ask him this question because he left
before I thought about it. My question was.... How does a government
determine what its people are allowed to do? I'm sure he will not have an
answer because he doesn't think in terms of principles, and that's the only
way to answer a question like that. You cant say "whatever the majority
says".... You cant say "What ever helps the most people without causing too
much trouble". Who gets to define what these things are?
So here we are having given up the principle that property cannot be taken
and now we sit back and argue what is the proper amount to take, with no way
to answer that question... With the result being a slide into socialism,
then communism, then dictatorship and death (unless the singularity saves
us!). Well be led down the road to hell with the best intentions, with all
the people screaming at the wealthy about how greedy they are, for being
prosperous and not giving their property to those who didn't make it. "The
little ole ladies NEED it though" they yell, blanking out the fact that they
destroy the very principles that allowed the wealthy man to gain wealth,
build companies that employ many people, through productive effort. "But
single mothers need it for their children" they yell as they destroy the
only system that gives the children any hope of survival.
I can only hope that the wise one day can fabricate a place where its
possible to escape such madness, I can tell you Ill have my resume put in
with em, and while I'm waiting on the answer, Ill be closing the bank
account... packing.. and getting the U-haul, cause I would rather sweep
floors in a free system with the hope of a good future, then to be a slave
in a system that allows me to have a Lexus till they grow tired of watching
me drive it, and take it away. Keep arguing over how to split the spoils,
but just don't plan on holding me hostage forever. First bus out, I'm on it.
Jerry Mitchell
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:56 MST