HEllo Bob,

On Sat 2038-Nov-13 14:39, BOB KLAHN (1:123/140) wrote to BOB ACKLEY:



BK>  Pro-lifers believe in a lot of restrictions on individual
BK>  freedom. Which means you need to be a democrat.

BK>  Anti-gays don't have much belief in individual freedom at all. 

And usually they're the same, in most cases.  OFten one is
the other I find.

BK>  I believe in freedom of religion, and freedom from religion,  which
BK> puts me one freedom up on the right.

AS well here.

BK>  I believe in freedom of speech, even when I don't agree with  what
BK> is said, which puts me one freedom up on the Tea Party. 



BK>  I believe in freedom to live your own life as long at you don't 
BK> harm others. That puts me one freedom up on most people.

AS do many of us who are truly libertarians.
LIke you I'm also a firm believer that the freedom to keep
nad bear arms comes with a responsibility, as do most
freedoms.
BK>  If Heinlein really believed in what he appeared to, he could  stand
BK> by and watch a child die and not believe anyone was
BK>  obligated to do anything.

WHich, from my readings of HEinlein I would infer that he
would have a problem with that.

BK>  Libertarianism doesn't seem to believe in much of anything. 

BK>  Libertarians seem to believe in whatever is convenient for them. 

NOt necessarily.  My problem is both major parties and their apparent
splinter factions (tea party anyone) have too much
in their agenda that I can't get behind for any reason.
What you do in the privacy of your own home is your
business.  What you believe, etc. is none of my business.
But, when you want me to support your bad decisions, i.e.
having more kids than you can afford, engaging in unsafe
practices then wanting me to fund your care, or speculating
with other peoples' money on wall street then expecting a
bailout, you're asking too much.
SO, if the uneducated mother wants to have five kids she
should be able to support five kids.  IF aIG wants to play
speculation with derivatives AIG should bear those
consequences.

Education and opportunity should be extended to all who
would take advantage of them, but, for those who refuse to
avail themselves of same we should bear no further
responsibility.

BK>  No thanks, I prefer a moral philosophy based on some actual 
BK> principles.

sO do I, and my principles are that if the playing field is
as level as possible then those who don't choose to partake
aren't owed anything.  But, often the biggest barriers are
attitudinal, both in society at large and within the
individual.   remove the real barriers, whether they be the
inaccessible building that the man in the wheelchair can't
reach, the information kiosk with the touchscreen and no
usable output that the blind man can't use, etc.  THose are
physical barriers.  ELiminate them, and work on the
attitudinal barriers.

BK>  And any moral philosophy that doesn't apply obligations to
BK>  others is not a moral philosophy likely to be successful in the 
BK> real world.

Indeed this is true, but imho there are limits as to how far we should be
obligated.  What obligates me to  support
mitigation of another's irresponsible behavior?


Regards,
           Richard
... Creationism is to science what storks are to obstetrics.
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+