-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 12:04:20AM -0700, petro wrote:
From: petro <petro@bounty.org>
The point is that you are *forcing* me to part with my productive labor to support someone else.
This makes me unhappy. Under your beliefs, you can't do this, as I have a right to be happy.
No dipshit, you have a right to TRY TO BE HAPPY.
You're the "dipshit" that can't track a conversation.
If you could, you would have noticed that it wasn't *me* that was making the assertion that one has a right to "be happy", I was poking at the original poster for his asserting that happiness is an entitlement.
Yes, this was my assertion. However, my assertion was accompanied by my stating that I really don't feel too sorry for the rich-ass Insurance Co. CEO. If his losing a small percentage of his millions causes him to be as unhappy as a poor person dying slowly of cancer, than I guess you have an argument. Yes, you could say that "happiness is subjective," and you would be right. However, I was stating "right to be happy" as a generalization, not as something concrete.
Typical anarcho/libertarian bullshit misprepresentation. And another prime example of 'freedom for me, but not for thee'.
This is a perfect example of the failure of libertarian/anarcho thought, it is completely focused on the 'me'.
When will you learn that free market economics is about the market and its stability and not the individuals attainment of nirvana. I'll answer my own question, never.
This would have a lot more weight if you could follow a converstation.
Nathan Saper (natedog@well.com) | http://www.well.com/user/natedog/ GnuPG (ElGamal/DSA): 0x9AD0F382 | PGP 2.x (RSA): 0x386C4B91 Standard PGP & PGP/MIME OK | AOL Instant Messenger: linuxfu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/> iD8DBQE59n9g2FWyBZrQ84IRAqr4AJ9d47B2aTAvdjcTu4ZsOouLjEJsEgCgk4eK 7QnhHU2VnYPzUhWFMIi8ios= =Lvm8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----