Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!usc!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!apollo!nelson_p From: nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) Newsgroups: alt.individualism Subject: Re: Phil Ronzone's stereo Message-ID: <4813908a.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> Date: 16 Jan 90 22:18:00 GMT Sender: root@apollo.HP.COM Distribution: usa Organization: Hewlett-Packard Apollo Division - Chelmsford, MA Lines: 87 >In article <47ef3a7b.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: >> So to answer Mr. Ronzone's question in detail: How many does he >> need to take the stereo? If he is living in a feudal society and he >> is the Lord of the Manor, then 1 is probably sufficient. If he is >> living in a democracy then he needs however many votes are required >> to pass an "eminent domain" law and make it stick. It may turn out >> that the numbers are not so important as the political connections >> that these people have. If he is living in a "state of nature" than >> the numbers are not as important as the strength or weapons of >> the individual parties. In the US he would need sufficient numbers >> influence law and public opinion. In the USSR perhaps having a >> friend in the NKVD would do. > >Another glorious justification to "might makes right". How is this a "justification" for anything? I am merely describing how many people it requires to take someone's stereo against their will in different legal/ethical systems as the exist in the Real World. Does Mr. Ronzone disagree? Does he live in a different world? Perhaps... > >> And why should I care it it applies to ALL men? It may be rationally >> inconvenient that a certain man should continue to live or be free to >> use his mind. > >A walking want-ad for ex-Securitate personnel ... > >Sieg Heil. While he may lack for ideas or expressions of thought, Mr. Ronzone never lacks for catcalls. It has not yet ocurred to him that a cogent argument counts for more on this newsgroup. >> I have said before that there are NO demonstrable transcendent >> rights. Morality is a function of the culture you're in. > > >So in Germany in the 30's and 40's it was MORAL to kill Jews, the insane, >and anyone declared by the state to be "unfit"? > That's right. By their standards it was OK. But don't forget, by OUR standards it was OK to invade them and stop them and so we did. Good for us (by MY standards). If Mr. Ronzone thinks that the world actually works Some Other Way, he is welcome to present his reasoning to the group for us all to consider and comment on. Personally, I don't think he's up to it. >It was MORAL to treat blacks, Chinese, etc. as subhuman in American >50 years ago? > Again, by the standards of the people doing these things, Yes. By the standards of others, No. That's why the Jim Crow laws and other discriminatory policies were eliminated. The Others (being most of us) won. That's how the Real World actually works. Mr. Ronzone should consider reading some history or stepping away from his terminal for a moment and walking up and down the streets. If Mr. Ronzone thinks that there IS some great, transcendent moral force at work perhaps he can show it to us. But I doubt it. >Sicko ..... Ooooh, brilliant! Such a way with words. Such a deep, insightful grasp of complex issues. Who needs to put together a rational argument when there are insults? My God, why didn't I think of this earlier? I could have neatly disposed of Steve Mason, June Genis, Dave Hudson, et al, not to mention George Bush and Mike Dukakis through the miracle of modern insults! Five little letters and think of all the typing I could have saved. I'm sure I would have had them on the run in seconds..... ---Peter PS. My apologies for lumping my favorite net.adversaries in with certain Demopublicans. I only did it for theatrical effect.