judy@ism780.UUCP (07/13/84)
#R:pyuxn:-82800:ism780:20200011:000:1075 ism780!judy Jul 11 14:35:00 1984 As the resident Libertarian I object to your GROSS generalizations. You are confusing outright selfisheness (which would become an anarchic philosophy) with the philosophy of responsibility. I am willing to take full responsibility for my life and my actions. Therefore, I do not want a government taking that responsibility for me and telling me what is good for me and what is bad for me. I do NOT have the right to abuse any other person. I DO have a moral obligation to the others that live in this world with me. I would like to teach them to take responsibility for their lives too. Thus, if the flow of traffic is going 55, I do not have the right to endanger other drivers by driving 80. However, I object to the 55 mile speed limit because it is arbitrary. If the traffic is going 80, I shouldn't drive 55. Speed limits should be set according to the safety conditions of the roads. The people you were describing as Libertarians sound much more like adolescents. A government based on individual responsibility is of neccessity anti-adolescent mentality.
jim@ism780b.UUCP (07/14/84)
#R:pyuxn:-82800:ism780b:27500008:000:1814 ism780b!jim Jul 12 11:50:00 1984 > I am willing to take full responsibility for my life and my actions. > Therefore, I do not want a government taking that responsibility for me > and telling me what is good for me and what is bad for me. I do NOT > have the right to abuse any other person. I DO have a moral obligation > to the others that live in this world with me. You and other libertarians say "we are responsible; we don't need you to govern us". The question is, even if everyone who says that is telling the truth (which I don't believe for a minute), how do we separate you from all other folk who are not responsible and do not feel a moral obligation toward others? It is very self-centered and immature to see these laws as personal interferences with your freedom. The laws are intended to keep people from doing harm. If *everyone* were responsible then there would be no need for laws. The fact that there are *some* who are responsible is self-evident (except to survival-of-the-fittest cynics, of whom there are plenty among Libertarians) but irrelevant, and it is really silly for Libertarians to continually mention it as if it meant something. "Why pass that law? I obeyed it voluntarily just last week." > The people you were describing as Libertarians sound much more like > adolescents. A government based on individual responsibility is of neccessity > anti-adolescent mentality. A *society* based on individual responsibility is mature (some of my best friends are adolescents); a *government* that presumes all individuals are responsible best serves those who are not. It would be more honest to take your philosophy of personal responsibility out of politics and into the classroom and the churches. I too yearn for a society where laws are not *needed*. -- Jim Balter, INTERACTIVE Systems (ima!jim)
judy@ism780.UUCP (07/27/84)
#R:pyuxn:-82800:ism780:20200013:000:2011 ism780!judy Jul 18 16:07:00 1984 >> I am willing to take full responsibility for my life and my actions. >> Therefore, I do not want a government taking that responsibility for me >> and telling me what is good for me and what is bad for me. I do NOT >> have the right to abuse any other person. I DO have a moral obligation >> to the others that live in this world with me. >You and other libertarians say "we are responsible; we don't need you to >govern us". The question is, even if everyone who says that is telling >the truth (which I don't believe for a minute), how do we separate you >from all other folk who are not responsible and do not feel a moral >obligation toward others? It is very self-centered and immature to see >these laws as personal interferences with your freedom. The laws are >intended to keep people from doing harm. If *everyone* were responsible >then there would be no need for laws. Jim, the statement "I do NOT have the right to abuse any other person" makes for a reasonable set of laws against murder, assault, etc. These keep people from doing harm. The "morality laws" (like drug abuse laws, sex laws, etc.) are intended to keep me from doing harm to myself. That is where I want to claim responsibility for myself. Now if some irresponsible person chooses to abuse himself with drugs and die from it, that's his responsibility. Therefore, I would be against a law forbidding alcoholic consumption while being for one which forbade driving while under the influence. If I am straying from the Libertarian dogma, then I am, perhaps, not a die hard Libertarian. ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** Property laws enable people to keep what they have earned. Most of them are of the "you are not allowed to steal from me" genre. I was using these laws as a given in my argument about abolishing inheritance being government interference. If we are indeed restructuring society, then those laws would not be given. But I imagine they would be recreated damn fast!
jim@ism780b.UUCP (07/27/84)
#R:pyuxn:-82800:ism780b:27500019:000:3110 ism780b!jim Jul 19 00:35:00 1984 > Jim, the statement "I do NOT have the right to abuse any other person" makes > for a reasonable set of laws against murder, assault, etc. These keep people > from doing harm. The "morality laws" (like drug abuse laws, sex laws, etc.) > are intended to keep me from doing harm to myself. That is where I want to > claim responsibility for myself. Now if some irresponsible person chooses to > abuse himself with drugs and die from it, that's his responsibility. I'm sorry, but the subject *was* about laws preventing people from abusing others, *not* about "victimless" crimes. I don't understand why you introduce this strawman here. From your statement you support laws enforcing "moral responsibility", and so you would not make the libertarian argument against gun control, since owning a gun has a much different effect on the saftey of others from shooting heroin. Or would you make that argument? Bringing in this bit about self-abuse, which no one was arguing about, seems like a rhetorical dodge. Let me remind you that you were arguing against the 55 mile an hour speed limit, on the basis that it was arbitrary. But I don't believe you; I think you are trying to argue that you are responsible enough to judge traffic conditions, despite statistical evidence that the 55 limit reduces traffic fatalities and fuel consumption. Now, if society as whole favors dissolution of that speed limit, then I don't think the government should retain it, because I believe in *representative* government, which we certainly do not have now. And of course you only want a reasonable set of laws against murder, assault, etc., because those are the crimes of the powerless. Libertarians refuse to see the criminal and immoral and irresponsible acts of the empowered as crimes. > Property laws enable people to keep what they have earned. Most of them > are of the "you are not allowed to steal from me" genre. Oh, come on. There is little in property laws in our society that refers to the way that property was obtained. Property laws allow people to keep things they didn't earn just as much as things they did. The industrialist owns far more than he earned, and the worker far less, in my opinion. You may dispute my opinion, but you certainly can't validate your property laws *despite* that opinion. > I was using these > laws as a given in my argument about abolishing inheritance being government > interference. Society defines the government and with what it is allowed to interfere. Once you allow a single law, you must give up the "government interference" red flag and argue about individual laws on their own merits in terms of their effects. > If we are indeed restructuring society, then those laws would > not be given. But I imagine they would be recreated damn fast! I would retain laws regarding forceful removal of property, but there would also be governance of the acquistion of power. And in designing a society, I would aim for social structures, institutions, and priorities that do not focus on the acquisition of property and power. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)