In my last response to Sheri, I said that the Golden Rule was simple but not EASY.
As an example, I pointed out that libertarians, like Puritans and Inquisitors, have EASY answers.
I said that someone who follows the Golden Rule doesn’t have it so easy. The example I gave was that the easy answer for a Puritan or an Inquisitor would be that they would do unto others as I would want others to do unto me means that they woud force me to have the exact same amount of sugar in my food as they do.
But I also said the libertarian answer is just as wrong. The libertarian would say that everybody should be given his own sugar bowl.
I then said waht Mark disagrees with: I said I would fight a diabetic I thought was being irrational to get the sugar bowl away from him.
Mark replied,
“A libertarian can make it easy. he can just say, “Damn my opinion. Just give everybody a sugar bowl.”
“Generally I agree. But if that person is a diabetic and am sure he is not being rational, I will fight to keep hiim OUT of the sugar bowl.”
“If you fight to keep the man out of the sugar bowl you may as well enter the camp of the Democrats or the Republicans and their ever-growing all-the-more-intrusive form of government — which has led us (the white race) the problems we now face. What ever happened to letting a man use his own eyes and ears instead of forcing him to see thru some form politcally correct reading glasses? And what happened to the idea of being responsible for you own actions?”
Comment by Mark
But, Mark, libertarians demand open borders on exactly the same basis. They say the government should not interfere.
In MY opinion, and nothing here is more than my opinion, just being against GOVERNMENT won’t do the job.
In fact, “individual responsibility” and “being against government” are two of what I regard as standard dodges against talking about the reality of race.
Here’s one more:
To keep from talking about RACE, people use another dodge. They say the whole problem is POPULATION.
But population in the third world is not the same as population in white countries.
I regard all these as easy dodges.
I will not sit there while a person with diabetes commits suicide.
And you are right. For me to make a judgement like that is a huge power-grab on my part.
As Anonymous says, you and I disagree on the facts and on principle.
You HAVE principles. You KNOW facts.
Above all, you are fighting against genocide against MY race.
What more could I ask?
#1 by Mark on 12/09/2005 - 5:45 pm
“But, Mark, libertarians demand open borders on exactly the same basis. They say the government should not interfere.”
You assume I am a Libertarian when in fact I am an anaarchist admitting that only very limitted government is really ever needed. One of the things limited government is required to do is keep the borders closed to outsiders. Again, you assume and you assume wrong. And technically, your lust for power to keep the sugar bowls out of the diabetic hands has little to do with my original comment.
Your lust for power is the same as what both Democrats and Republicans practice. Both are in favor of big government curtailing thought and activity. The only difference betwen the two are the types of thought and types of actions they want controlled. Your sugar bowl is an example of such control.
#2 by Mark on 12/09/2005 - 5:49 pm
Sorry, I said, “your lust for power to keep the sugar bowls out of the diabetic hands” was a mistake on my part. I meant to write, “your comment on the LIbertarian’s dogma of open borders has little to do with my orignal comment.”
I should learn to write what I’m thinking instead of thinking while I’m writing.
#3 by Bob on 12/09/2005 - 8:11 pm
Mark, there is a great difference betweenmy personally stopping someone I think is beng
irrational and having the government do it.
I was just looking for an analogy and the sugar one came up.
In fact when the artificial no-calorie fat olestra came out it was stopped for thirty
years by the professional panickers. The danger to the public was growig obesity, but they just had to panic over the fact that olestra loosened some people’s bowels.
I said that people should be free to try it,and if it caused them problems, just stop.
In the course of that discussion I pointed out that there was a substance that, if used
wrongly, would KILL people, which even the most fanatial could not acuse olestra of
doing.
That substance is sugar. But, I said, what kind of nut would control teh amount of sugar
a person was ALLOWED to buy?
But if person with serious diabetes were clearly irrational and gobbling down sugar, a
situation I can’t really see happeneing, I would stop him.
You may not agree but I can’t see how you would call that a grab for power.
As to your to your second comment, that you made a mistake in what you were writing, I
have the opposite problem in getting people to comment. Some are so worried that they
might say something wrong or even use bad spelling that they put it off indefinitely.
Nobody gets graded here. This is a good place to make mistakes or garble things and I do
it all the time.
Thinking while you’re writing is a damned good way to get your thoughts out. It beats the
hell out of most professional writers, who don’t think at all.