Hmm a bit overly complicate: Hawking and Right good science, when Left to there own devices. (Rimshot)
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:18 PM, glen <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/09/2014 11:52 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > > On 01/08/2014 06:56 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > >> > >> Wouldn't be wonderful if one of the right wingers on the list would > >> agree to explore the foundations of this value difference. > >> > > > > I would say that many liberals would be willing to risk a few murderers > > and rapists be left on the loose to avoid hanging even *one* innocent > > person, while most conservatives (and libertarians?) would be willing to > > risk hanging a few innocent persons (as long as they don't look too > > much like themselves) to avoid allowing anyone to go unpunished for > > their sins. > > The conversation will remain hopelessly befuddled as long as nobody > makes an effort to define "right" vs. "left". Roger tried to do so in > his Altemeyer posts. And I tried a different one in my Ukraine vs. US > parties post awhile back. But those are incomplete efforts. > > For example, if we define "right" to mean no intentional market > design/interference and "left" as government designed markets, then > we're lead to some answers to these questions. But if we define "right" > to mean status quo inertia and "left" to mean something like "change for > the sake of change", then we're lead to different answers. > > From my perspective (as a libertarian who can't call himself libertarian > anymore because that word has been hijacked by morons), no libertarian > would ever risk a government sponsored hanging of an innocent person. > We libertarians would much rather all criminals were set free to be > handled by the implicit, systemic checks and balances of an undesigned > society. In other words, if they're really a bad person, then they'll > eventually have a run-in with another person who decides they're an > @ssh0l3 and simply kills the jerk. > > I tend to think there's quite a bit of affinity with this perspective > amongst most "right" leaning people I know, as well, even if they're not > libertarian ... hence the tendency to cling to our guns (the means for > implicit checks and balances) and religion (the justification for those > checks and balances). "Of course, Jesus would want me to shoot that guy." > > From a different perspective, actual libertarians are completely willing > to admit that life isn't fair. Plenty of people who earned stuff failed > to retain that stuff or were never properly rewarded for their efforts. > That's just how it all works! You not only have to be creative and > _useful_. You also have to be willing to kick @ss and TAKE your share > ... even if you sometimes take too much or too little. > > So, based on these two scenarios, I think it's safe to assume that > libertarians (as I define the term) don't even play this "fair play" > game. That aphorism is meaningless to us. A better aphorism is "He who > has the gold rules." > > -- > =><= glen > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
