S
SLAVE of THE STATE
Guest
On Apr 18, 7:48 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:ca1f1d22-9399-43fc-886d-3c0ab7784ee3@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > Voluntary (peaceful) trade implicitly tells us that property
> > rights are a social meme as old as the hills. It is one aspect of
> > human (social) nature.
>
> Human nature being what it is you need to keep a close watch over that heart
> of mine. Or more succinctly - trust but varify because not all humans are
> honorable.
No kidding: that is why I made a special point to include the language
of "one aspect."
The power aspect of human nature does not seem mysterious to anyone,
or it does not appear that way in any talk I listen too. What does
seem mysterious to many is what is socially balanced against power:
the social principle of liberty and its offshoots like property
rights.
I view a lot of discussion as heavily biased on the power aspect, and
therefore I bias my counters to instead focus on the power balancing/
tensioning aspect of liberty. Therefore, my individual positions
(taken together) have an appearance of undue focus on that one
aspect. But I do that to restore a collective equilibrium, since
people have no compunction about affecting me with their notions.
This means that whatever I say (which) appears to be the words of an
unbalanced individual is actually everyone else's fault. {laughs}
> "SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:ca1f1d22-9399-43fc-886d-3c0ab7784ee3@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > Voluntary (peaceful) trade implicitly tells us that property
> > rights are a social meme as old as the hills. It is one aspect of
> > human (social) nature.
>
> Human nature being what it is you need to keep a close watch over that heart
> of mine. Or more succinctly - trust but varify because not all humans are
> honorable.
No kidding: that is why I made a special point to include the language
of "one aspect."
The power aspect of human nature does not seem mysterious to anyone,
or it does not appear that way in any talk I listen too. What does
seem mysterious to many is what is socially balanced against power:
the social principle of liberty and its offshoots like property
rights.
I view a lot of discussion as heavily biased on the power aspect, and
therefore I bias my counters to instead focus on the power balancing/
tensioning aspect of liberty. Therefore, my individual positions
(taken together) have an appearance of undue focus on that one
aspect. But I do that to restore a collective equilibrium, since
people have no compunction about affecting me with their notions.
This means that whatever I say (which) appears to be the words of an
unbalanced individual is actually everyone else's fault. {laughs}