RE: A Libertine Question

I find it funny that I'm considered Conservative by most people who know me.
Your opinion may vary. ;-)

tcmay@got.net wrote:
>Who takes responsibility when people fail to save enough of their
>paycheck to last them through the month? Who takes responsibility when
>people drink too much, miss work, and are fired? And so on.

One common thread in many of these discussions is the ease with which moral
judgements are made about the situation: "fail to save", "drink too much".

I know the social psychology explanation that people who view the world as
ordered attach these types of judgements to situations which violate their
ordered view of the world. "She was just asking for it dressed like that..."

However, now I'm puzzled. From what I've read of Tim May, he does not hold such
an orderly view of the world. The "rules" of existence may prove to be
deterministic, but the results are chaotic. So Tim, where are these moral
judgments coming from? 

>The issue of "who takes care of" people who can't hold their liquor, or
>who overeat, or who smoke too much, does not enter into the equation. 

Think of how many of our laws are being enacted that tacitly make being  poor or
indigent a crime. Curfews being a recently discussed example. If the equation is
one of economics, then "who takes care of" people does indeed enter the
equation. I suggest that it is more economical to provide for a minimum quality
of life- if only as a form of insurance for myself. Think: Rawls. 

The alternative is to have garbage collectors to "take care of" those that fall
behind. Think: Soylent Green.

Better twisted than bitter, as Tiny Tim Cratchet used to say.

James

jbugden@smtplink.alis.ca wrote:

> tcmay@got.net wrote:
> >Who takes responsibility when people fail to save enough of their
> >paycheck to last them through the month? Who takes responsibility when
> >people drink too much, miss work, and are fired? And so on.
> 
> One common thread in many of these discussions is the ease with which moral
> judgements are made about the situation: "fail to save", "drink too much".

Uhh, "fail to save" isn't a moral judgement; it's an observable 
phenomenon.  Either somebody does save money or they don't.  I
don't see in Tim's wording any judgement being made.  It's a 
numerical thing.

If you replace "drink too much," with "drink enough that they", you
get another observable phenomenon.


______c_____________________________________________________________________
Mike M Nally * Tiv^H^H^H IBM * Austin TX    * For the time being,
       m5@tivoli.com * m101@io.com          *    
      <URL:http://www.io.com/~m101>         *    three heads and eight arms.

On Mon, 29 Jul 1996 jbugden@smtplink.alis.ca wrote:

> Think of how many of our laws are being enacted that tacitly make being
> poor or indigent a crime.

   Horseshit. This is a poorly-disguised re-tread of one of the standard 
lines of the Patrice Lumumba University brand of leftist agitprop.

Tell it to the starving Cubans who have to watch Fidel sitting in his 
palaces.

Alan Horowitz writes:

> On Mon, 29 Jul 1996 jbugden@smtplink.alis.ca wrote:
> 
> > Think of how many of our laws are being enacted that tacitly make being
> > poor or indigent a crime.
> 
>    Horseshit. This is a poorly-disguised re-tread of one of the standard 
> lines of the Patrice Lumumba University brand of leftist agitprop.
> 
> Tell it to the starving Cubans who have to watch Fidel sitting in his 
> palaces.

Perhaps, but I can think of a lot of examples.  Laws that make it illegal
to ask for money.  Laws that say you can't sit on the sidewalk.  Laws
that make it illegal to feed soup to people without a stack of permits
six feet high.  Laws that make it illegal to perform an excretory function
outdoors in a city with almost zero public toilets.  (You should have
gone before you became homeless. :)

Certainly, it would be naive to think that such laws are passed without
being targeted at particular populations of individuals, especially 
during a period when "compassion fatigue" is on the rise.  

Here in Seattle, we have an city attorney who specializes in creating
ordinances to annoy and harrass the underclass, often paving new roads
over former civil liberties in the process.

I'm not sure starving Cubans have anything to do with it. 

--
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $

> From: Mike Duvos <mpd@netcom.com>
> Perhaps, but I can think of a lot of examples.  Laws that make it illegal
> to ask for money.  Laws that say you can't sit on the sidewalk.  Laws
> that make it illegal to feed soup to people without a stack of permits
> six feet high.  Laws that make it illegal to perform an excretory function
> outdoors in a city with almost zero public toilets.  (You should have

   .....You should move out of the city to a place you can afford. 
There is no Constitutional right to live in Seattle.

This country has gone through many many many business cycles, financial 
panics, etc.  Only in the recent era have cities been forced to do these 
crackdowns (you think that herding and pacifying drunk/stoned panhandlers 
is pleasureable?  Try working as a Seattle cop for a week, oh Mr 
Armchair Sociologist) as a desperate measure of self-defense.

We are importing farm labor. There is plenty of work for those who want 
it. Ask the Vietnamese/Cambodian/Laotian refugees who've arrived in Seattle.

I am a strong libertarian. Sell crack cocaine, rent your pussy to horny 
middle-aged businessmen, do any non-violent, 
non-damaging-to-others-property you want, but damn well maintain public 
order and decorum. Or I will scream to my councilman for the cops to 
adjust your attitude with their billy club.