At 21:56 -0700 10/25/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
>I don't think your Hitler example applies, because he could not prove
>that the Jews were causing pain. In any case, my formulation of act
>utilitarianism seems to suffer from those sorts of attacks less than
>the normal formulation, and I have yet to
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 05:15:06PM -0700, Nathan Saper wrote, quoting me:
> > For instance, what are the economic effects?
>
> Again, it depends on the economic framework under which we are operating.
Nope. You don't get it. Economics is in part hte study of people
acting in their own rational
At 5:02 PM -0700 10/25/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 12:41:49AM -0700, Rev. Parker Bright wrote:
>> If you truly believe this why not take a hint from Camus and kill yourself.
>> You could one, lose nothing due to inherent lack
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 10:09:53AM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> It's a not entirely uninteresting approach, but one doesn't have
> to resort to libertarian rights-theory to refute it (not that
> arguing about rights is going to resolve anything a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 03:24:35PM -0500, Kevin Elliott V wrote:
> >
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Here is my last post in this thread, because I feel that it is going
> > nowhere:
> >
> > My views are irreconcilable with those of the libertarians on this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 12:41:49AM -0700, Rev. Parker Bright wrote:
> If you truly believe this why not take a hint from Camus and kill yourself.
> You could one, lose nothing due to inherent lack of value, two, exercise
> the one undeniable right, t
- Original Message -
From: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 10:35:53AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> > It's not so much that he's "wrong" as that he's "naive." He arrives
> > on the CP list and begins regurgitating socialist blath
At 10:09 AM -0400 10/25/00, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>It's a not entirely uninteresting approach, but one doesn't have
>to resort to libertarian rights-theory to refute it (not that
>arguing about rights is going to resolve anything anyway).
>
>Simple pragmatism can do the same. I mean, Nathan, hav
It's a not entirely uninteresting approach, but one doesn't have
to resort to libertarian rights-theory to refute it (not that
arguing about rights is going to resolve anything anyway).
Simple pragmatism can do the same. I mean, Nathan, have you ever
considered what happens when taxes are raised
