
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
"Robert N. Newshutz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:The usual rationalization for violence. It is alright to send them to death camps, because they are not really human.
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Robert N. Newshutz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Would it have been better if they had stayed home and not brought water into LA?
It would have been better if they had a shred of human decency.
Sure, but that is not one of the choices you get.
Of course it is. I consign those without human decency to the category of "subhuman".
Irrelevant. You can either accept the conditions under which they will be willing to undertake the task, or you can force them.
Or I can consign them to the pit of oblivion and deal with someone who is a human being.
I quite sure that those who brought the water would not do so if the price they asked for could be retroactively judged unfair and be punished for it.
Even if you force them to behave as you would wish they behave,
Force? I wouldn't force them to do anything. I am more interested in *preventing* crime against humanity.
Interesting hyperbole. Strange such a simple question has brought you such discomfort.
You leave me with the impression that you do wish no one had brought water rather than have someone profit by bringing water.
I am quite sure that plenty of people could and would bring water without gouging, given a strong moral and legal stance against it.
LOL, you really are too funny. This article is precisly about how a system that eschews violence (the free market) and allows greed is prefereable to systems that use violence.
Libertarians prefer greed, however.
Nope, libertarians prefer people to be free from force.
Translation: they prefer selfish greed.
if the alternative is violence, sure.
They prefer selfish greed whether there is violence or not. At least the most extreme libertarians, the objectivists, admit it. http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Heroes/JohnStossel.asp
And call for the government to use violence against those you don't like.
They prefer the kind of society that tolerates greed, over the kind of violence that would be necessary to suppress it.
I suppress it without violence. I look down my nose at those who champion it.
LOL, come see the violence inherent in the system.
Your plan to force other people to behave as you wish is not charity either.
I have no such plan.
This is your plan in your words:
"I for one would have no problem with government confiscation of vital supplies from both hoarders and gougers"
How do you "confiscate" without the use of force?
That isn't forcing THEM to behave as I wish. That is simply removing one means of their behaving criminally, for the benefit of society. How they behave thereafter is none of my concern.
Since property is a social artifact, and government is the formal embodiment of society, redefining ownership is not "force".
Bullshit. Libertarians are thoroughly amoral when it comes to their own actions.
This is just sad. You really have no concept of what libertarianism is do you?
I know what libertarians claim it is. I also know what they end up with given their claims. I reject the conclusion as thoroughly immoral, and therefore the entire ideology is pure bullcrap.
As I've said, I don't necessarily require logic in order to reach conclusions. Libertarianism generates a visceral disgust in me.
lojbab
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |