Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Re: labels

Expand Messages
  • eupraxis@aol.com
    CSW, As usual in these circumstances, we agree to disagree. Wil ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 15, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      As usual in these circumstances, we agree to disagree.


      In a message dated 2/15/07 7:14:57 PM, existlist1@... writes:

      > On Feb 15, 2007, at 12:13, eupraxis@... wrote:
      > > I think there are other ways to go than just Hazel Barnes
      > > (especially if one has sat through any lectures by her, as I had
      > > years ago -- zzzzzzsnore! years ago -- zzzzzzsnore!<wbr>). But one n
      > > just to decide what "side" one is on. Either one is for-other; or
      > > one is for-self primarily. That is, either one understands oneself
      > > as a social being with social responsibility; or one is egoistic or
      > > self-oriented, libertarian, etc.
      > The problem with the above is the simplification. I can be "for the
      > other" without thinking government is much help and might even be the
      > primary tool of those least interested in helping others.
      > For example, it was a Libertarian move here in Minnesota to remove
      > the city manager in Rogers. The problem was that this community had
      > used all manner of tax incentives (aka Corporate Welfare) to attract
      > huge retailers at the expense of local businesses. Studies have
      > shown, from very diverse political groups, that local businesses
      > cycle more money through the local economy, pay better, and often
      > equal or even surpass chain store pricing. But, the city government
      > gave way land, payroll tax breaks, and other incentives.
      > Now, there's a new government and an unemployed city manager.
      > It is easy to confuse an opposition to government, which is often an
      > extension of larger economic interests, to an opposition to helping
      > other people. I don't think governments owning businesses (Volkswagen
      > comes to mind) or making special allowances for businesses (almost
      > any airline recently) is a reasonable use of my tax money. Yet, at
      > least in Western democracies, more money goes to corporate welfare
      > than direct aid to individuals.
      > Libertarians, generally speaking, are more concerned with ending
      > larger-scale government waste/abuse than ending spending on truly
      > essential aid to individuals. Gene Burns and Ron Paul have tried to
      > explain this, but the American Libertarian Party is often caricatured
      > as being on the "right" of issues. The Libertarian Party has worked
      > with the ACLU on many issues -- but people focus more on the notion
      > that "libertarian" means property rights taken to absurd extremes.
      > A concern for personal responsibility and personal freedoms is not
      > analogous to letting unemployed people starve or cutting school
      > budgets. I just think government aid tends to be less efficient than
      > many of the private charities I support and champion.
      > - C. S. Wyatt
      > I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
      > that I shall be.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.