At 11:36 -0600 1/26/01, Barbara Lamar wrote:
>It was a challenge I wish I'd tried harder to meet. Even in
>retrospect, though, I can't think of a more tactful but still honest
>way I could have responded.
I appreciated the discussion, although I could have done without the
repeated questioning of my motivations. Despite some obvious cheap
shots I could have taken, I tried very hard to discuss only the
contrast of techniques and benefits/detriments, not the possible
deficiencies in the practitioners of techniques with which I don't
agree.
>Maybe by focusing on the libertarian ideal that one human should not
>initiate force against another? That may have been another bit of
>common ground.
:) Maybe, maybe not. Whenever people discuss the beautiful rights
of libertarianism, I notice that they often gloss over the
ramifications of the weighty responsibilities of libertarianism.
If you're going to relate any libertarian rights to toddlers, you're
also going to need to relate the corresponding responsibilities.
Okay, force can't be initiated against the toddler.
Does that include:
- When he's wobbling out into traffic?
- When he's about to drink some Liquid Plumber(tm)?
- When he's found a locked and loaded gun with a hair trigger?
- When he wants to eat Winnie the Pooh(tm) candy at every meal?
- When he wants to shave his head and join an extropian cult?
Children have a necessarily separate list of rights and
responsibilities in our society. This fact wouldn't likely change
much in a libertarian society.
Regards,
Chris Russo
--
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought
or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet
hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance
which does harm."
-- Marcus Aurelius, MEDITATIONS, VI, 21
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:25 MDT