Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-ngp.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Reply to R. Caley Message-ID: <1407@ut-ngp.UUCP> Date: Fri, 1-Mar-85 11:33:58 EST Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.1407 Posted: Fri Mar 1 11:33:58 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 4-Mar-85 06:20:03 EST References: <487@whuxl.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: U.Texas Computation Center, Austin, Texas Lines: 28 [] From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) >> Yes being human entails obligations but It's wrong for someone to **FORCE** >> his Idea of those obligations on me. > >This deals with one of my primary points: YES, being human implies certain >*obligations* to one's fellow humans and particularly children. Why is that? > ... >I think Libertarians if they consider it, will have to agree that there is >some sort of positive *duty* to care for the next generation. It is >not just a "nice idea", it is essential to maintaining humanity! I'm not a [Ll]ibertarian, per se, but I still disagree with the idea that I have a "*duty*" to care for the next generation. Why is it my duty to maintain the continuity of the species? > tim sevener whuxl!orb -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]