Terry,
Now, since you've erased the line between human behavior and
inanimate objects, I'm even more confused about what should and
shouldn't be called good or bad. If I'm reading you correctly,
the only thing that should be called "bad" is aggressive human
behavior, and nothing can be called "good". If the latter is
incorrect, tell me something you think is good.
IMO, things don't have to preclude occasional harm/abuse to be
deserving of "good" labels. I say hammers are good, even though
I'm sure they've been responsible for many sore thumbs and some
murdered people. Unless you are talking about things like torture
chambers and big governments, the benefits of a tool usually
outweighs its disadvantages. Or maybe not; but in any case, we
can use our intelligence to do the sorting and make accurate use
of "good" and "bad".
I'll accept your mission. I think can see both good and bad
potential in each. But. I'm not sure murder-for-hire could fall
under free-market capitalism, since murder would not be a free
market. I see few-to-no "bad" (relative to "worse" systems)
things coming from free-market capitalism. So why should I not
call free-market capitalism "good"? Let's turn this around a bit
and throw fascism into the pot. I can't see a whole lot of
potential good coming from it. Can you?
Maybe I can address the core of your reasoning: personal
responsibility. I see most attempts to duck it as scapegoating,
which consists of falsely labeling something as bad ("the bad
booze/drug made me do it"). I am having a hard time seeing how
one would duck personal responsibility by falsely labeling
something as good. Maybe you could give an example. I submit that
your goal could be better reached by exposing such "bad" labels
as false, since false "good calling" would seem to be less the
culprit (far less common).
-Mark
_____
Mark, that cpaitalism 'is usually life-supporting without
a non-consensual victim)' does NOT preclude its being used
in harmful (bad) ways which murder non-consensuals, too :(
Capitalism, socialism, communalism, individualism, collectivism
and so on, are all ways that persons can interact. They can
be 'good' or 'bad' means (tools) for interaction depending
on how 'persons' decide to use them. But, responsibiltiy for
doing 'good' or 'bad' can NOT be exported away from the 'person'
who acts.
Persons can use capitalism as a means for doing good OR bad!
Jim, er... I mean Mark, your mission, if decide to accept it:
As an exersize, try to imagine and describe implementations
of capitalism, socialism, communalism, individualism,
collectivism
and so on, with EACH employed as a means (tool) for BOTH 'good'
and 'bad' ends.
as usual, the non-thinkers will disavow this effort
and this e-mail will self-destruct in five minutes :)
-Terry Liberty Parker
Please read what I wrote in
What's at the Heart of What Libertarians are Selling?
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/30419
_____
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/KlSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
