At 11:19 PM 7/29/96, jbugden@smtplink.alis.ca wrote:

I find it funny that I'm considered Conservative by most people who know me. Your opinion may vary. ;-)

I don't find it surprising (a different word from "funny") that you are a kind of "conservative." Many folks calling themselves conservatives actually want various kinds of laws, safety nets, social order, etc. (Many "conservative farmers" want government price guarantees, for example.)

tcmay@got.net wrote:

...

Who takes responsibility when people fail to save enough of their paycheck to last them through the month? Who takes responsibility when people drink too much, miss work, and are fired? And so on.

One common thread in many of these discussions is the ease with which moral judgements are made about the situation: "fail to save", "drink too much".

This is quibbling. Use whatever other word or weasel phrase for "fail to save" and "drink too much." Common euphemisms are: "became a victim of ethanol addiction," "lacked personal financial skills," etc. My point was an obvious one, clearly made, which I won't repeat here.

I know the social psychology explanation that people who view the world as ordered attach these types of judgements to situations which violate their ordered view of the world. "She was just asking for it dressed like that..."

This is fatuous nonsense. I made no comment even remotely similar to this. (In fact, in my view, a woman can wear a tiny string bikini and, if attacked, blow away her attacker; though the bikini may make concealed carry a bit harder.)

However, now I'm puzzled. From what I've read of Tim May, he does not hold such an orderly view of the world. The "rules" of existence may prove to be deterministic, but the results are chaotic. So Tim, where are these moral judgments coming from?

The likely reason you are confused is that you set up a straw man, found it conflicted with other things I have argued, and now wish me to "explain."

Think of how many of our laws are being enacted that tacitly make being poor or indigent a crime. Curfews being a recently discussed example. If the equation is one of economics, then "who takes care of" people does indeed enter the equation. I suggest that it is more economical to provide for a minimum quality of life- if only as a form of insurance for myself. Think: Rawls.

I have strongly argued against curfews, as I don't want cops telling my 15-year-old child when she or he can and can't be on public roads. As to "insurance," be my guest. That is, you and others are perfectly able to form insurance pools, old age retirement funds, etc. These are usually called "pension plans." However, please don't hold a gun to my head and demand that I contribute to a plan, especially one which is a Ponzi scheme like Social Security (SS is not self-funding, and "IOUs" are being placed in the pot for the future, as is well-known.) Sounds fair to me.

The alternative is to have garbage collectors to "take care of" those that fall behind. Think: Soylent Green.

A bad form of argument, citing bad SF movies to prove your points. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."