EDU: Public Schools (Was: Re: [extropy-chat] Gametheoryofcommoncold

[Technotranscendence]

On Tuesday, January 20, 2004 2:40 AM Harvey Newstrom
mail at HarveyNewstrom.com wrote:
>> I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression
>> that your life, career, works, example, spending
>> and creating (non-exhaustive list) already give
>> back amply to your community and beyond it.
>
> You are not mistaken.  We are very active in
> volunteer work and spend huge amounts on
> various charities we support.  This attitude is
> only possible because we believe in our
> community and in helping others.

Hey, good for you.  However, it seems you're using your so called
charitable works to boast about your moral superiority, no?:)

The fact is that actually working, creating, etc. does more overall to
help others than charity.  Nothing wrong with charity, but if most
people didn't do productive things and interact through trade, most of
humanity would have to die out.  Simply volunteering and reshuffling
wealth would not improve much.  Wealth has to be created before it can
be given -- or redistributed.:)

> If I were a bitter old Libertarian clutching my
> gun and grumping about all taxes being theft,
> I would be so busy wallowing in my self-pity
> and victim mentality that I would not give back
> anything to anyone.

I'm sure there are a few people like that out there, but almost all of
the libertarians I know are not like that.

> It is this very fact that I have been blessed in
> my life that empowers me to help others.
> If I really felt that I had to claw and scratch out
> every single penny with no help from anyone,
> seeing the government and social institutions
> as enemies, I would bury all my money in the
> back yard and never help anyone.

I think you're setting up a package deal here -- meaning you're packing
together things that don't necessarily go together.  I see nothing wrong
with making wealth and deciding what to do with it -- i.e., not having
the government come in and take some or force you to use your wealth in
certain ways.  As long as you don't harm others, you should be free to
produce, create, trade, give, and consume as you see fit.  If you agree
with this -- and this is basically the standard libertarian ideal --
then why can't you be charitable?  Many people I know who call
themselves libertarians do just this.

The package deal is that you are assuming that that libertarian ideal
must make you out to be a Scrooge-like character and that only people
who support government welfare schemes can be truly generous.  (Now,
don't think I'm making the opposite package.  I'm sure many people who
believe in government welfare mean well and feel it's the only way to
help others.  They're wrong, misguided, and their efforts are
counterproductive.  Likewise, not everyone who is allowed to pursue his
or her happiness is going to be charitable.  There will be misers, but
misers tend to be rare anyhow.  They actually tend to do less harm
because they don't stop the rest of us from being generous.)

Cheers!

Dan
  See "The Hills of Rendome" at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/Rendome.html