mwm@ea.UUCP (07/26/84)
#R:hogpd:-36600:ea:9800016:000:735 ea!mwm Jul 26 14:26:00 1984 I like people who like to give to other people; I don't care so much for people who are constantly trying to explain how they earned everything they have. I like people who like to give to other people too. I also like to give things to other people. What I don't like are people who *make* me give things to other people. Especially when it goes through such an incredibly inefficient and unconstitutional system as the US Welfare Department. If I could get 1-1 tax credit for it, I'd give more than goes into income taxes to local charities. I would feel better, and those who needed it would get more good out of the money. Plus, of course, I could give to the charities I chose, and not what someone else chose for me. <mike
mwm@ea.UUCP (08/02/84)
#R:hogpd:-36600:ea:9800020:000:1245 ea!mwm Aug 2 15:35:00 1984 /***** ea:net.philosophy / ism780b!jim / 12:25 am Jul 31, 1984 */ > I would like to live in a society in which caring about the old and disabled > was more honorable and desirable than increasing the yearly profit of your > employer. > > I only want to work toward a society which does not, through its values > and mores, encourage people to become that way. Seems to me that you're blaming society for a problem that people have. You can try and force society to be the way you want it to by threatening to throw people in jail, or execute them, for misbehaving. It won't make the people any better, and will (I think) make society worse in the long run. > Then say something about the world you want. I look around me and see a > world full of hate, alienation, destruction, pollution, crime, suffering, > and misery. It seems to me that your philosophy is a major contributor > to the nature of that world. > > -- Jim Balter (ima!jim) /* ---------- */ I want a world where people are as free as possible to do what they want, as opposed to what others want them to do. This doesn't contribute to hate, alienation, etc, does it? Or do you really think that if everybody did exactly what you told them, we'd all be better off? <mike
dsaker@iuvax.UUCP (08/03/84)
[] I just wanted to show my support for Jim Batler's reply in a visible way. RIGHT ON, JIM! Daryel Akerlind ...ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!dsaker "Your ignorance makes me ill and angry. This savagery must cease."
mwm@ea.UUCP (08/06/84)
#R:hogpd:-36600:ea:9800021:000:3057 ea!mwm Aug 5 17:52:00 1984 > /***** ea:net.philosophy / ism780b!jim / 11:46 pm Aug 2, 1984 */ > > I like people who like to give to other people too. I also like to give > > things to other people. What I don't like are people who *make* me give > > things to other people. > > What about the people who make you make you pay for the invasion of Grenada, > the attempted assassination of Castro, the overthrow of Allende, the > Australian coup, support for the overthrow of Nicaragua, more money for > military marching bands than goes to the rest of the nation's musicians, > vastly inflated prices for nuts, bolts, tanks, and all other forms of military > hardware, military aid to the El Salvadoran, Guatamalan, and Honduran > generals, 30000 nuclear warheads, 17000 more scheduled in the next 5 years, > MX missiles, cruise missiles, Pershing missiles, B-1 bombers, M-1 tanks, etc.? Yup, I don't like being made to pay for any of that, either. Do you? Some of it I would be willing to pay to support, but I don't like being told that I *have* to pay. It's like giving things to people - it's something I'd do if left to myself, but I *still* don't like being forced to do so. > What about the people who make you pay for massive advertising campaigns > for products you don't want or need, for their lobbying and wining and > dining and bribing of politicians or buying of politicians through massive > campaign contributions, all to allow them to continue to pollute your > environment and to pass laws that protect them from their precious > free-market competition? There is a tax for these things in everything you > buy. The fact that it doesn't say "tax" and "government" all over it doesn't > mean it isn't there. Not nearly so bad - I have the option to not buy things. This is *far* preferable to the government holding a gun to my head and taking things from me. If I like a companies products *and don't own the company*, then all I can really do to see that they survive is buy their product. I assume that their management is trying to achieve the same end, and their massive advertizing campaigns are good for the company. Of course, in buying their products, I also support unions lobbying to get laws passed to support there precious seniority system, to continue to place more value on years worked than actual ability, etc. There's a tax for these things in everything I buy - but once again, I have an option. Nobody makes me buy things at union-inflated prices. > You think you have worked hard for what you have, but your attitude is like > the programmer who slaves to find the optimal intruction sequence for the > inner loop of his bubble sort. You just have no concept of the costs inherent > in the way the system is currently structured. You think you've done a careful analysis of the problem, but your attitude is like the programmer who implements a quicksort to find the largest element in the list - you're solving the wrong problem. You just have no concept of how the system is currently structured. > -- Jim Balter (ima!jim) <mike
kissell@flairvax.UUCP (Kevin Kissell) (08/06/84)
(who were not drifting? And where were they being tugged?)
An awful lot of this discussion seems to be on the level of
it's-mine-and-I-don't-wanna-share and I-shouldn't-have-to-do-it-
if-I-don't-want-to. Both of these are familiar patterns of child
behavior which usually diminish as a child is socialized. I suspect
that anyone who has reached adulthood without such socialization
is not going to be very susceptible to argumentation.
Kevin D. Kissell
Fairchild Research Center
Advanced Processor Development
uucp: {ihnp4 decvax}!decwrl!\
>flairvax!kissell
{ucbvax sdcrdcf}!hplabs!/
"Any closing epigram, regardless of truth or wit, grows galling
after a number of repetitions"jim@ism780b.UUCP (08/08/84)
> I like people who like to give to other people too. I also like to give > things to other people. What I don't like are people who *make* me give > things to other people. What about the people who make you make you pay for the invasion of Grenada, the attempted assassination of Castro, the overthrow of Allende, the Australian coup, support for the overthrow of Nicaragua, more money for military marching bands than goes to the rest of the nation's musicians, vastly inflated prices for nuts, bolts, tanks, and all other forms of military hardware, military aid to the El Salvadoran, Guatamalan, and Honduran generals, 30000 nuclear warheads, 17000 more scheduled in the next 5 years, MX missiles, cruise missiles, Pershing missiles, B-1 bombers, M-1 tanks, etc.? What about the people who make you pay for massive advertising campaigns for products you don't want or need, for their lobbying and wining and dining and bribing of politicians or buying of politicians through massive campaign contributions, all to allow them to continue to pollute your environment and to pass laws that protect them from their precious free-market competition? There is a tax for these things in everything you buy. The fact that it doesn't say "tax" and "government" all over it doesn't mean it isn't there. You think you have worked hard for what you have, but your attitude is like the programmer who slaves to find the optimal intruction sequence for the inner loop of his bubble sort. You just have no concept of the costs inherent in the way the system is currently structured. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
greggt@ncoast.UUCP (Gregg Thompson) (08/08/84)
Instead of looking down on
life an society look for all the *GOOD*
things. If people would change their
attitude and their way of looking at
life and society I am sure it is a
turn for the good.
--
Gregg Thompson
{ucbvax}!decvax!cwruecmp!ncoast!greggt
{ucbvax}!decvax!cbosgd!aat!m-net!greggt
{ucbvax}!decvax!microsoft!trsvax!sneaky!greggt
{decvax}!ucbvax!dual!proper!greggt
{ucbvax}!decvax!vortex!ihnp4!wlcrjs!greggtdgary@ecsvax.UUCP (08/09/84)
<> >From: jim@ism780b.UUCP Wed Aug 8 00:31:13 1984 >Not *all* people have these problems. The percentage of people which have >these problems vary widely from society to society. This is because *people >are a product of their environment*. This includes you. Valid point. It's interesting to look at crime statistics in various countries. Why is murder so much rarer in Switzerland than in Italy? (Switzerland having much weaker gun laws to boot, I believe.) And why is the US rate of violent crime so high, in spite of our having the largest portion of our population in prison of any Western democracy (and someone correct me if that isn't true)? >I am interested in discussing institutions and their effects on societies >and the people who make them up, and ways of changing those institutions >to achieve better societies. I am tired of arguing with simplistic >libertarians who have no philosophical depth. Does anyone else out there >have any constructive ideas? >-- Jim Balter (ima!jim) A little strongly stated, but I tend to concur. Obtaining freedom is loads harder than just putting limits on government. Wish I could get all Libertarians to read John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. That may be asking a lot from people who consider Ayn Rand a philosopher, however... :-> D Gary Grady Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-4146 USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
mwm@ea.UUCP (08/14/84)
#R:hogpd:-36600:ea:9800023:000:5912 ea!mwm Aug 13 19:30:00 1984 [My opponent stooping to name-calling is not sufficient reason for me to do likewise. It is *not*.] > /***** ea:net.philosophy / ism780b!jim / 11:52 pm Aug 9, 1984 */ > >Seems to me that you're blaming society for a problem that people have. You > >can try and force society to be the way you want it to by threatening to > >throw people in jail, or execute them, for misbehaving. It won't make the > >people any better, and will (I think) make society worse in the long run. > > This reflects what I believe is an error that you and most libertarians > make. I believe that a better education in the humanities would help > eliminate that error (recall that what started this whole discussion was > a question as to why so many high-tech'ers are libertarians). > > The solutions involve changing the > institutions and attitudes of society through education, and through changes > in the laws which change priorities and atmosphere. There are currently > plenty of laws which create and support the form our society now has. Believe it or not, I agree with you. I believe that many of the ills that society suffers from could be solved by better education. I don't think that the humanities (or any field, for that matter) is "the answer." I think that an ability to evaluate the validity of what they read/see/hear, and to think logically would go a lot further. > How can you be so philosophically naive? Gee, neat. Calling me philosophically naive without knowing what my philosophical background is. See the bug eater. You find the main hole with libertarianism: people aren't perfect. Because of this, you need a government. This doesn't give the government the right to decide what my productive capacity should be used for, and to threaten my life if I don't do as they say. > What if I want to shoot you through > the head? Should I be free to do that? Oh, but that's violence, you say. I don't care if you want to be violent. When you start threatening me, though, you're infringing my rights. We need to go to the government to decide whether restricting your rights by not letting you shoot me through the head outweighs the infringement of my rights the act causes. If you don't wait for such a settlement, you are unstable enough that you need to be forcible removed from society. > Well, what if I want to develop a drug that will make you want to do what I > want you to do, but never realize it wasn't your own desire? Should I be free > to do so? Oh, that's impossible, or those so weak deserve what they get, you > say. Wrong and blind. Well, what if I want to set up scams and cons and rook > you of your possessions? "Think of it as evolution in action." If I am silly enough to take drugs, that's my business, not the governments. Ditto for falling for con games. Laws that protect people from their own stupidity are *not* good for the race. If you think otherwise, try saying something other than "wrong and blind." Some facts (or at least some logic) would be nice. > What if I want to find the most gullible people I > can and train them to rob you in any way they can and use the proceeds to > build an empire and buy off politicians and military people and eventually > take over your government? If you're doing this inside a libertarian society, and your followers aren't violating my rights, then what you've revealed is a basic weakness in governments, period. After all, I could do the same thing in a democratic society, unless it's already so totalitarian that I wouldn't want to live there, anyway. If you're doing it outside the society (in another country), then you're advocating foreign intervention, etc. I personally think that's justified, but *not with a drafted army*. "Any country that can't get enough volunteers to defend is isn't worth saving" or words to that effect. On second thought, what you've described sounds like the liberal movement in America - they get the executive branch to rob people at gun/jail-point, and use the money to buy off votes to take over the government. The difference is, I can't go to the government to complain, as they're the gullible people who are being used. > Should I be free to do those things? What if I > want to maximize my profit, at the expense of all other values? What if > everybody wants to do that? As long as you don't interfere with my rights, I don't care. When you do start interfering, it's time to appeal to a higher authority. If that authority has the force to back up it's decision (which it must, given the way people are), then it's a government by definition. > Your stated philosophy simply does not deal with > *conflicts* between different people's desires, or with the shared nature of > many resources ("Tragedy of the Commons"). It doesn't? Sure looks like it does to me. Maybe you're talking about anarchists, and not libertarians? > I am not saying what laws there should be, nor do I want everybody to do > exactly what I tell them, nor would I expect that to create a very good world. > I have never given you any reason to think so; I believe that comes from your > dogmatic and uninformed notions of where your political opposition stands. I wasn't accusing you of doing so, I was asking if that's what you wanted. Apparently not. So, tell me what kind of society you want, and how we should go about getting there? > I am interested in discussing institutions and their effects on societies > and the people who make them up, and ways of changing those institutions > to achieve better societies. I am tired of arguing with simplistic > libertarians who have no philosophical depth. Does anyone else out there > have any constructive ideas? Gee, I have the same interests. I'm tired of arguing with people who either don't know what they want, or don't have any idea of how to get their. Does anyone else out there have any constructive ideas? <mike
mwm@ea.UUCP (08/14/84)
#R:hogpd:-36600:ea:9800024:000:694 ea!mwm Aug 13 19:33:00 1984 /***** ea:net.philosophy / flairvax!kissell / 11:24 pm Aug 8, 1984 */ An awful lot of this discussion seems to be on the level of it's-mine-and-I-don't-wanna-share and I-shouldn't-have-to-do-it- if-I-don't-want-to. Both of these are familiar patterns of child behavior which usually diminish as a child is socialized. I suspect that anyone who has reached adulthood without such socialization is not going to be very susceptible to argumentation. /* ---------- */ Of course, the opposing attitude of "we're stronger than you are, and you'll do what we tell you whether you want to or not" is an attitude that most bullies hold. Unfortunately, people don't normally outgrow that. <mike
jim@ism780b.UUCP (08/15/84)
>Seems to me that you're blaming society for a problem that people have. You >can try and force society to be the way you want it to by threatening to >throw people in jail, or execute them, for misbehaving. It won't make the >people any better, and will (I think) make society worse in the long run. This reflects what I believe is an error that you and most libertarians make. I believe that a better education in the humanities would help eliminate that error (recall that what started this whole discussion was a question as to why so many high-tech'ers are libertarians). Not *all* people have these problems. The percentage of people which have these problems vary widely from society to society. This is because *people are a product of their environment*. This includes you. You *are not* a self-made person. You were created. (cf. the discussion elsewhere in this newsgroup about free will). Widespread violence, hostility, and alienation help develop these problems among people. The solutions involve changing the institutions and attitudes of society through education, and through changes in the laws which change priorities and atmosphere. There are currently plenty of laws which create and support the form our society now has. My own tendency is for law to turn toward focusing more of the GNP on education and support of arts, crafts, and other creative modes, and away from destructive endeavors. >I want a world where people are as free as possible to do what they want, >as opposed to what others want them to do. This doesn't contribute to >hate, alienation, etc, does it? Or do you really think that if everybody >did exactly what you told them, we'd all be better off? How can you be so philosophically naive? What if I want to shoot you through the head? Should I be free to do that? Oh, but that's violence, you say. Well, what if I want to develop a drug that will make you want to do what I want you to do, but never realize it wasn't your own desire? Should I be free to do so? Oh, that's impossible, or those so weak deserve what they get, you say. Wrong and blind. Well, what if I want to set up scams and cons and rook you of your possessions? What if I want to find the most gullible people I can and train them to rob you in any way they can and use the proceeds to build an empire and buy off politicians and military people and eventually take over your government? Should I be free to do those things? What if I want to maximize my profit, at the expense of all other values? What if everybody wants to do that? Your stated philosophy simply does not deal with *conflicts* between different people's desires, or with the shared nature of many resources ("Tragedy of the Commons"). I am not saying what laws there should be, nor do I want everybody to do exactly what I tell them, nor would I expect that to create a very good world. I have never given you any reason to think so; I believe that comes from your dogmatic and uninformed notions of where your political opposition stands. I am interested in discussing institutions and their effects on societies and the people who make them up, and ways of changing those institutions to achieve better societies. I am tired of arguing with simplistic libertarians who have no philosophical depth. Does anyone else out there have any constructive ideas? -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
mwm@ea.UUCP (08/16/84)
#R:hogpd:-36600:ea:9800028:000:2000
ea!mwm Aug 16 00:51:00 1984
/***** ea:net.philosophy / ecsvax!dgary / 12:28 pm Aug 12, 1984 */
A little strongly stated, but I tend to concur. Obtaining freedom is
loads harder than just putting limits on government. Wish I could get
all Libertarians to read John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. That may be
asking a lot from people who consider Ayn Rand a philosopher, however...
:->
D Gary Grady
USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
/* ---------- */
I tried to find a copy of "On Liberty". The local libraries copy was missing,
and my favorite book store (not a very good book store, but there isn't
much choice around here) didn't have a copy - or any other Mill, for
that matter. They did have Rand. I can't tell you whether she deserves to
be called a philosopher, as I haven't read any of her works.
On the other hand, I did find the following comment on "On Liberty", from
the Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 14 of the Macropedia, pg 270:
In [On Liberty] he stated the case for the freedom of
the individual against "the tyranny of the majority,"
presented strong arguments in favor of complete freedom
of thought and discussion, and argued that no state or
society has the right to prevent the free development
of human individuality.
Sounds like he has completely dropped his fathers stance (the greatest
happiness for the greatest number) and adopted a libertarian viewpoint to
me. Or has EB completely misinterpreted what Mill was trying to say? If
that's so, let me know, and I'll go looking for a copy again, and evaluate
it for myself; otherwise I have more important things to do. Or maybe you
were holding it up as a parody of libertarian thought?
As for putting limits on government not being sufficient for freedom,
you're right. You have to put the same limits on individuals. In the US,
this second form has mostly happened, and even been over-extended in
places. Since it's the government that is doing the over extending, that
makes the government a doubly prime target.
<mikemmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (08/17/84)
***********
Of course, the opposing attitude of "we're stronger than you are, and
you'll do what we tell you whether you want to or not" is an attitude that
most bullies hold. Unfortunately, people don't normally outgrow that.
***********
Exactly the problem that the "free world" has with the USA these days.
Their administration has never grown up (or it has learned well from
the Mafia, who have).
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtneal@denelcor.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (08/20/84)
************************************************************************** >Well, of course Laura *did* speak of ice cream scoopers improving themselves >and becoming computer programmers.... That seems to me to be a question to be decided by the individual who's faced with the choice. If an ice cream scooper thought he could have a better life as a computer programmer, then he might want to do something about it. If not, not. No Libertarian of my acquaintance would object either way. > ... And I consider the fallback to the notion >of supply and demand given that we were discussing human worth to indicate the >sort of fundamental philosophical blindness that must be overcome before we >can intelligently discuss political or social philosophy. Run out of rational (sounding) arguments? Ta-ta-da-ta-da Ad Hominem to the rescue. >I tend to think better of artists and poets and their contributions to >society than I do of corporate executives. I would like to live in a >society where the former were relatively more rewarded than in our society. >I would like to live in a society in which caring about the old and disabled >was more honorable and desirable than increasing the yearly profit of your >employer. And I would like to live in a society in which you were free to reward either group as you saw fit WITH YOUR RESOURCES; and I were free to do likewise with mine. >Of course I can't insist that you not be a selfish asshole, I can only >dislike you for it, as I said. What do you mean you "can't insist"? This whole discussion is about money and other resources taken from me at gunpoint (i.e., by the government). If you have a stronger notion of insistence than that, I'd like to hear about it. >I never insisted that anyone give up what they truly earned. >But I do insist that most people who think they truly earned what they >have are stupid and blind, because they think in absolute and not >relative terms. There are people who have worked much harder than you >but have much less, and there are people who have not worked as hard >as you but have far more. Who are you to judge what I have "truly earned"? I totally reject the Marxist philosophy that the amount of labor that goes into a product determines its worth. I hold that the worth or value of a product is whatever someone else is willing to give up to get it -- the "free-market" value. >-- Jim Balter (ima!jim) Regards, Neal Weidenhofer "Nothin' ain't worth nothin' Denelcor, Inc. but it's free" <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal