--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...>
wrote:
>
> Any ideology that puts property above human beings is
> right-wing.
Libertarianism most certainly does not put property above
human beings. Property is a natural and necessary adjunct
of any free human being, with the freedom of human beings
being what libertarianism puts above all else.
In the real word it is simply impossible for a human being
to see to his basic needs, to say nothing of his pleasure,
without control over a certain amount of matter: property.
> And any ideology that abrogates investment in the well-
> being of the people while preserving social inequity
Not all individuals are equal. That's simply a fact of
life. If you have a problem with that, then take it up
with your god. The type of system you're arguing for,
which is socialism, applies the penalty of failure evenly
among those whose bad choices, lack skill, or whatever,
caused the failure, and those who were wiser, better skilled,
etc. We all saw the result in Eastern Europe of socialism.
> at all costs is far right-wing. You need to come down and
> live in El Salvador for a year or two --not in the mansions
> of the rich, but in the slum where I live,
I don't need to live in a slum in El Salvador, because my
parents made the wise choice of producing no more children
than they could properly feed and give an education that
allowed us a higher standard of living than attains in your
slum. The people in your slum are, in part, in their
situation because they have nothing to offer the world market
besides unskilled labor, and in a world as grossly over-
populated as ours, with a large percentage of that population
being unskilled labor, the value of such labor is naturally
going to be very low, and is dropping everyday; do I need
to go into the science of economics? When the value is as
low as it is now, it's inescapable that unskilled laborers
are going to have a hell of a time keeping themselves and
their children fed.
Now while I pity these people I am not responsible for them.
The only other person besides myself that I would ever feel
responsible for is one of my own children, for I would have
created them without their prior permission, and none of the
people in your slum is my child.
> so you can see libertarianism in action.
I guess I have to tell you again: that is not libertarianism.
> In a week or two, you will become a card-carrying bolshevik
> singing the Internationale.
I most certainly would not, because I am not deluded about the
source of the problem, which is the insistence of members of
our world's poorest groups on having each as many children as
he can.
If there's no realistic opportunity in sight of you ever being
able to properly feed, clothe, shelter, and give your children
an education which will allow them to become something other
than an unskilled laborer, then DON'T HAVE CHILDREN.
If you choose to exercize your right to have then anyway, and
which right I fully recognize, then I have no choice but to
exercize my own right to refuse you that part of my resources
that you're asking for to help take care of them.
Individual freedom cannot be divorced from individual
responsibility.
David