Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!sdsu!bionet!arisia!sgi!shinobu!odin!maddog!pkr
From: pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Phil Ronzone's stereo
Message-ID: <2948@odin.SGI.COM>
Date: 18 Jan 90 19:50:25 GMT
References: <4813908a.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> <2905@odin.SGI.COM> <13028@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Sender: news@odin.SGI.COM
Distribution: usa
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 73

In article <13028@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>Why is it sickening?  He's pointing out the way things are!  You've
>snuck "moral" into your definition of "rational."  He has not.  Can you
>justify what you've done?

Auschitwz in 1945 was sickening. And that was "the things were". Are you
implying that whatever happens is O.K.?


>>Who decides the "convenience" of another persons life?
This was an obvious rhetorical question. Sorry you missed it.
No one can morally decide the "convenience" of life.


>Or do simple property rights make the issue of convenience irrelevant,
>and override the issue of right-to-life at all?

There is NO right to life. I HAVE a right to my own life. And you to yours.
What RIGHT does a drowning man have? A rock climber whose belay just failed?
Someone who has no food?

I.e., I can decide to do with my life as I will (barring coercion unto
others). But a meteorite or the Securitate can end it at random. We
can't do much about meteors, BUT we sure can do something about the
Securitate's of the world.



>Can you decide the relative convenience of resolving conflicting rights
>one way and another?

Yeah -- just ask "whose property is it".



>First of all, the American Revolution was not fought over the Divine
>Right of Kings.  Either come up with some evidence for such an assertion
>or chuck it.  
>
>It was fought over economic matters: taxation; and specific political
>ones: representation.  Had Parliament suddenly given the Colonies full
>voting status, even by Divine Royal Decree, I suspect there would have
>been no revolution -- at least not for a long while.  

Eh? So who was the King after we won? WHAT! There was no King? Well,
who ruled over the people? WHAT! You mean that they say that
governments are instituted FOR the people, and that taxes are only
FOR the people!!!




>You tell us you don't vote because the system you'd be participating is
>evil because it's less than perfect.
>
>You are very much like a monk in that attitude.  Think about it.

Eh? What are you going on about perfect for? I never said or implied
anything about perfection.

I don't vote because it is immoral. It is immoral because voting
involves coercion. If you don't think coercion is involved,
let's make taxes voluntary or remove any and all penalties for
tax evasion.

I don't do things I consider immoral. Do you?



------Me and my dyslexic keyboard----------------------------------------------
Phil Ronzone   Manager Secure UNIX           pkr@sgi.COM   {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr
Silicon Graphics, Inc.               "I never vote, it only encourages 'em ..."
-----In honor of Minas, no spell checker was run on this posting---------------