Hi Bo7b and Jean-Louis,
it seems we are completely off-topic now. Let us see, where our instincts
are leading us to. :-)
Bo7b, you wrote:
>Classical Liberal, I assume, as opposed to the modern statist variety?
>:-)
Classical Liberal, you can bet on it!
Bo7b:
>My GUESS is that he
>relied on observation of thousands of guests at his concentration camp
>rather than on mice, probably using fairly detailed health/nutrition
>/lifestyle
Does "concentration camp" has the same sense to you as to me, i.e. is
it meant to be the same as the camps the Nazis built?
If so, I wouldn't agree. Aiming at the residents of Montrame I like to
speak of an instincto ghetto, but the guests are quite harmless. And
what happens in a ghetto is quite different from the events in the
camps of the third Reich.
Bo7b:
>1--"Society" is only a word, much like "government". Those entities do
>not exist in physical reality, only in the minds of us screwed-up
>cerebral animals
Hm. If it existed in ancient times long enough, that we can consider us
to be genetically adapted to it (whatever that means) we need to take
it into account if thinking over our lifestyle. Since apes already are
forming tribes I think it's for sure that (small) societies are somehow
important for humans.
On the other hand we might find out one day, that our big societies
are n o t what humans are thriving on. In nature a tribe, grown too
big would have divided...
Bo7b:
>2--Only one economic system provides the conditions for "as many people
>as possible have access to decent conditions". Laissez Faire
>Capitalism, free-market economy.
I couldn't agree more. What is needed then is just a small number of
institutions to make sure, that the rules of a free market are obeyed
by all participants (no cartels allowed, no insider information be
usable at the stock exchange, no hidden prices, etc).
Bo7b:
>Seems there are two types of people, those who look to "authority",
>"law" for their decisions , "what's legal" & those who look for
>"what's right".
Hm, yes. But even if you belong to the second group, you will find
yourself involved in the discussion about "what's right". For me,
"what's right" is everything, that is in correspondence with a system
of universal ethics. For me personally this means consequential utili-
tarism. Anyway, deciding, to live without laws and authority is only
the first step. There the work begins, in my oppinion.
Jean-Louis: (initial statement from 7/9/97)
>For instance, I know many people who have studied 4+ years
>at university, and yet who have to accept an employment of secretary.
>And in my case (7 years university), I would rather be unemployed
>for a while than empty public garbage.
.. and 7/12:
>There are definitely jobs which are damaging for your health and
>that I wouldn't do for more than 1 month.
That wasn't clear from your initial statement. Your initial statement
looked, as if you felt to be "to good" to do a job beneath your
qualification. That's the point I discussed.
Stefan:
>That's why I chose the example with the Ferrari. This would give me
>the financial stop.
Jean-Louis:
>But health is fundamental, whereas Ferraries are not.
Some people would deny that. :-) Anyway, I wanted to express, that
there is a limit for e v e r y o n e being he poor or rich.
Jean-Louis:
>You are free to TRY. But it can be proven scientifically that people
>coming from the lowest class are at disadvantage (at school, etc).
>I mean that, since they didn't have the benefit of being in contact
>with highly-educated parents, they have a lower IQ, etc. Not to
>mention emotional and financial aspects.
And there are lots of counter-examples where people coming from the
lowest class were reaching the highest goals.
To have a practical reference: in the U.S. there is still the dis-
cussion if the black americans after all those years since slavery
was abolished, still have disadvantages that are forced to them by
society OR if they can be considered to be self-responsible now and
any disadvantage is on their own guilt.
Personally I favorite the second explanation. Also statistical proves
don't say anything about one individual. Even if you were coming from
the lowest class, had the worst school etc. it could happen, that you
work hard and become a famous mathematician earning $200,000 per year.
;-)
I think, we disagree at the point, where we draw the borderline bet-
ween what society must supply and what you have to do on your own.
For me society must supply some basic rights (already mentioned that)
and that's it. Everything else is on you.
For you, society also must supply health. Sorry, that's too much for
me. You have to care for your health on your own. If this implies ex-
pensive raw food, this also is your deal.
Well at least, this discussion brought the result, that Bo7b and me
are believing in a free market while you, Jean-Louis are not.
Accepted. But which system would you establish if you were the one
to decide? All other systems failed in history.
Instinctive liberal wishes,
Stefan
|
