michael.bast@convergys.com wrote:
>
> This, I think, is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. You are defining force to fit
> your principles, and then telling people they need to use your new definitions
> of old words. Most people do NOT think it is stealing to receive government
> benefits, nor do they think it is initiation of force for government to make you
> pay taxes. If I were wrong, we would not have the government we do, people would
> not allow a system with which they didn't at least partly agree. Telling them
> that they're wrong might convince some, but most will go on as before. As I keep
> saying, there are more of them than us. An important point.
Do you believe in objective facts in the realm of politics and rights or
not? Do you believe there is such a think as inalienable rights due to a
sentient creature by virtue of its nature, required by its nature for
its best functioning, or not? If not then you are correct. This
discussion is going nowhere.
>
> >From: Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>
> >Subject: Re: Random comments on some late discussions.
> >Well, it wasn't. And no one has a right to benefits stolen by force from
> others. Ever.
>
> Right, according to whom? I keep trying to make the point that people are not
> operating from libertarian values, theory, etc. and then violating them. They
> simply do not think libertarian theory is right, they don't value what we do.
>
According to an objective view of what rights do and do not consist of.
Which is the only thing that could possibly support any position on
human ethics. If they think differently then lets compare the quality
of the thinking, the reasoning and philosophy and its results (if any)
and decide which appears more reasonable. Once again, truth is not a
matter of opinion. Some values are mostly opinion at the current
primitive state of our philosophies and knowledge. But what is needed
for humans to flourish is not arbitrary or infinitely malleable. Truth
is not democratically arrived at.
> >Will you change there minds by telling them they are right when they are not?
>
> I think I'm getting great examples from you, actually. I keep trying to say that
> a large number of libertarians/extropes come off as know-it-alls, and keep
> people from paying attention to what they're saying. This in turn allows savvy
> members of the more statist political ideologies to get their attention (they
> see what we're doing wrong, and don't do that) and then they play into the
> values voters hold. Not good at all for us. NOT everyone values individual
> freedom 1st, and there's nothing any of us can do about that. And yet, when
> confronted with it, we quote authors no one has ever heard of, beat people over
> the head with theory no one agrees with, tell them it's ok for people to starve
> or sell themselves into slavery, etc
Huh? I have never told anyone any such thing. "Come off as
know-it-alls"? Do we really need to care whether there is a huge
anti-intellectual bias in this country? You can put the situation into
words that have nothing to do with theory and are as down home as the
laundry. You don't need to wave a copy of "Atlas Shrugged" or
"Libertarianism in One Lesson" or whatever. The fundamental principles
are actually not nearly as complex as the contorted rationalizations for
violating individual rights.
> You and I might (I think do) agree that if I earn money by honest means, I
> ought to be able to do with it as I will. Not everyone does, however. There are
> a lot of people who think the government should control a portion of the economy
> (with the largest arguments being over which portions) and should control what
> people may do (pornography, scientific research into controversial areas, smart
> drugs, etc.) I want to live, healthily, for a very long time. If the
> technologies which would enable me to do this aren't ever allowed to be
> developed because the government is listening to people swayed by anti-tech
> ideologues, because they thought I was a smart-ass, what do I get??? The
> satisfaction of being right? Fat lot of good that does you, dead.
>
Then your only logical alternative is to do your best to minimize
government coercion across the board so they don't stop those
technologies from being developed.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:34 MDT