--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "david_russell_watson" <liberty@>
> wrote:
> >
> > No, that's not necessary. Since the list is privately owned
> > the owner can haul off anybody he likes. No question about
> > bias comes up when one hauls a trespasser out of his own house,
> > does it? We accept that one may invite into his own house, or
> > exclude from it, anyone he pleases and on any basis he pleases,
> > do we not?
>
> I agree. I was talking about the general case.
- edit -
> > If you're asking how that is to be done in the great big world,
> > then that's a difficult question, and one off topic, but we're
> > talking only of cybalist,
>
> I think I know what I was talking about.
You were responding to my comments about a madman, in which
I was referring to cybalist. I'm clarifying the context in
which I was writing myself, not scolding you for anything.
When one responds to a comment it's assumed that he writes in
the same context given by the author of that comment, though
in this first case maybe I wasn't clear what my context was,
and thus the clarification. New comments of your own can of
course change the context, as you will.
I think I've kept up with the context at each point in our
discussion, and responded accordingly each time.
> > where it's very easy: Piotr owns the
> > group and his frame of reference works just fine for me.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > Of course, but why should the rest of us care? I don't like
> > nations myself, and would love to see them collapse every one.
>
> Would you like the one you live in right now to collapse like
> Yugoslavia did?
Better that than Yugoslavia had remained under communist rule,
I think. Sometimes an old building must be demolished before
a new one can be put up in its place. However remember that
the mayhem in Yugoslavia took place precisely due to the tribal
mentality about which I've complained. After the weakening of
central authority ethnic groups strived to carve out ethnic
states for themselves, each striving to make sure that their
own group ended up with as much land after the smoke cleared as
possible, as well as to kill off as many of their traditional
enemies as possible, with little or no concern for human rights
or even human life.
So all you've done is to cite a perfect example of the evils of
ethno-nationalism.
> In the previous paragraph you were talking about the world at
> large. Make up your mind.
In the previous paragraph I was responding to comments of yours,
which were about the world at large.
> > And the whole would probably be better off as one big nation,
> > with such things as language, culture, and religion a purely
> > private matter, as is proper for all states. Better yet, let
> > the whole world be so united. Ethnic groups don't have the
> > inherent right to monopolize regions, I don't believe.
>
> So this analogy: 'No question about bias comes up when one hauls
> a trespasser out of his own house, does it? We accept that one
> may invite into his own house, or exclude from it, anyone he
> pleases and on any basis he pleases, do we not?' doesn't apply
> to regions?
Certainly not. You, just as the vast majority of people I come
across, make the enormous error of equating a state with a human
individual. Is it really necessary to explain that a "region"
and a human being are two very different things?
> Is that a general principle, or do you make exceptions?
Understanding that these are the rights of a human individual
over his own person and property, not the rights of nations,
states, or other such collectives, then I do make no exceptions.
> > I strongly resent others presuming to set up borders between
> > me and potential employers, employees, or business partners;
> > landlords or tenants; teachers or students; providers of raw
> > materials, arts, crafts, services, or entertainment; or mates,
> > friends, or sex partners.
>
> Presumably you don't lock your door either and have no firewall
> on your computer?
Of course I do, because my house and my computer belong to me,
and borders put up by me around person and my property are
perfectly proper. However borders put up between you and me
by a third party when neither of us want them, and maintained
by violence and threat of violence, are certainly not.
Did you not understand the reality behind my paragraph, quoted
above, about access to products, services, etc. across borders?
That is a real problem, especially here in the U.S. where the
government daily interferes with U.S. citizens trying to employ
citizens of Mexico. Many, probably the majority, of Americans,
under the popular delusion of group rights, believe they somehow
own any job opportunites that come into existence within U.S.
borders. Naturally they do not, for any job belongs to the
would-be employer alone, and the labor belongs to the would-be
employee alone, and no third party has any right to interfere
with their freely entered exchange.
There are countless other examples now and throughout history
of states similarly interferring with the rights of individuals,
as I'm sure you well know.
> > Where do they get the right?
>
> The same place the moderators got the right to moderate cybalist
> to your satisfaction?
Yahoo doesn't own any country, does it?
> > P. S. Isn't (other people's) offtopic chat annoying?
>
> Those that disagree with you?
I was referring to the annoyance that other list members are
surely feeling having to read about _my_ political ideas no
less than your own, and my real point is that this thread is
off topic and should probably be dropped. That would put an
end to me talking about my political ideas no less than it
would you talking about your own, would it not?
Another Yahoo list to which I once belonged became at one point
extremely bogged down with off-topic chat, especially political
discussions, and sometimes religious, which led naturally to a
lot of heat. Finally the owner and moderators decided to open
a separate list for off-topic discussion open solely to people
already members of the main list. Maybe cybalist should think
of doing the same thing.
David