From: Rick McCallister
Message: 58805
Date: 2008-05-24
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallisterAs you put it, Libertarianism is the perfect system,
> <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
>
>