Quote:
Originally posted by Feynman
Please explain why you seem to imply that the making of money disqualifies the claim about defending personnal liberties ?
The desire to make money is the desire to lead a productive life as traders, an act of mutual consent between the traders.
Tell me why a de-facto authority who usurped the monopoly of legitimate use of violence for it's own purpose can take moral high ground and claim, for whatever alledged reason, a right to limit the consensual traders' freedoms to live and act as they wish among temselves?
Your basic premise is: the desire to make money disqualifies you morally.
My basic premise is: the absence of a desire to make money disqualifies you morally.
You have only four possible choices in life:
1- be a trader
2- be a beggar
3- be a looter
4- starve and become very dead
Please do pick your favorite.
|
Well, that's certainly one possible explanation of things: simplistic, perhaps, and not one I subscribe to - but it's an explanation. By that definition, the good folks at the ACLU would be "morally disqualified" by the absense of a profit motive - an idea IMHO every bit as ludicrous as suggesting that any one
with a profit motive is "morally disqualified."
There are some folks in this industry who couldn't give a fine flying fuck about free speech as long as they are getting $$$$. There are others who are genuine
civil libertarians (not in any way to be confused with the political party using/abusing the name).
I think you are kind of lookng for black or for white, and there isn't any ... just varying shades of gray.