From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Aug 24 2002 - 21:12:13 MDT
--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury@aeiveos.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> > [snip] Free association requires an emphasis on freedom. A
> > libertarian must trust those he/she invites on his or her property
> > enough to leave them in full posession of their liberties or else
> > he/she is no libertarian. "Oh, you can be free, but not in MY back
> > yard." I don't think so.
>
> I would disagree. I can be a libertarian *and* view all humans as
> inherently untrustworthy. There are no hard-wired protocols in
> humans that make them inherently trustworthy such that none of them
> will screw people when they discover an opportunity to do so.
> (Look at Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia, etc.). In other words humans
> are not programmed with the "Laws of Robotics". So some fraction
> of the time people *will* betray you or take advantage of your
> generosity (or trust).
If you don't trust someone, you shouldn't invite them on your property.
Would you invite people to a barbecue but insist that everyone wear
shackles? Of course, they have the freedom to refuse to show up as
well.
You trust millions of strangers every day: tens of millions of fellow
Americans with firearms, tens of thousands of Americans with nuclear
weapons, as well as a similar number of Chinese, Russian, Indian,
British, French, Israeli, Pakistani people, not to mention hundreds of
thousands of fellow humans around the world who handle nuclear fuels.
That so few individuals have betrayed these trusts demonstrates that
people are inherently trustworthy almost exclusively. To insist that
people are untrustworthy in the face of such facts is demonstrable
proof that those who continue to distrust others are no kind of
libertarian whatsoever.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:24 MST