Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site ea.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!mwm From: mwm@ea.UUCP Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Were not drifting; were being tugged - (nf) Message-ID: <9800023@ea.UUCP> Date: Mon, 13-Aug-84 20:30:00 EDT Article-I.D.: ea.9800023 Posted: Mon Aug 13 20:30:00 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 16-Aug-84 01:13:44 EDT References: <366@hogpd.UUCP> Lines: 118 Nf-ID: #R:hogpd:-36600:ea:9800023:000:5912 Nf-From: ea!mwm Aug 13 19:30:00 1984 #R:hogpd:-36600:ea:9800023:000:5912 ea!mwm Aug 13 19:30:00 1984 [My opponent stooping to name-calling is not sufficient reason for me to do likewise. It is *not*.] > /***** ea:net.philosophy / ism780b!jim / 11:52 pm Aug 9, 1984 */ > >Seems to me that you're blaming society for a problem that people have. You > >can try and force society to be the way you want it to by threatening to > >throw people in jail, or execute them, for misbehaving. It won't make the > >people any better, and will (I think) make society worse in the long run. > > This reflects what I believe is an error that you and most libertarians > make. I believe that a better education in the humanities would help > eliminate that error (recall that what started this whole discussion was > a question as to why so many high-tech'ers are libertarians). > > The solutions involve changing the > institutions and attitudes of society through education, and through changes > in the laws which change priorities and atmosphere. There are currently > plenty of laws which create and support the form our society now has. Believe it or not, I agree with you. I believe that many of the ills that society suffers from could be solved by better education. I don't think that the humanities (or any field, for that matter) is "the answer." I think that an ability to evaluate the validity of what they read/see/hear, and to think logically would go a lot further. > How can you be so philosophically naive? Gee, neat. Calling me philosophically naive without knowing what my philosophical background is. See the bug eater. You find the main hole with libertarianism: people aren't perfect. Because of this, you need a government. This doesn't give the government the right to decide what my productive capacity should be used for, and to threaten my life if I don't do as they say. > What if I want to shoot you through > the head? Should I be free to do that? Oh, but that's violence, you say. I don't care if you want to be violent. When you start threatening me, though, you're infringing my rights. We need to go to the government to decide whether restricting your rights by not letting you shoot me through the head outweighs the infringement of my rights the act causes. If you don't wait for such a settlement, you are unstable enough that you need to be forcible removed from society. > Well, what if I want to develop a drug that will make you want to do what I > want you to do, but never realize it wasn't your own desire? Should I be free > to do so? Oh, that's impossible, or those so weak deserve what they get, you > say. Wrong and blind. Well, what if I want to set up scams and cons and rook > you of your possessions? "Think of it as evolution in action." If I am silly enough to take drugs, that's my business, not the governments. Ditto for falling for con games. Laws that protect people from their own stupidity are *not* good for the race. If you think otherwise, try saying something other than "wrong and blind." Some facts (or at least some logic) would be nice. > What if I want to find the most gullible people I > can and train them to rob you in any way they can and use the proceeds to > build an empire and buy off politicians and military people and eventually > take over your government? If you're doing this inside a libertarian society, and your followers aren't violating my rights, then what you've revealed is a basic weakness in governments, period. After all, I could do the same thing in a democratic society, unless it's already so totalitarian that I wouldn't want to live there, anyway. If you're doing it outside the society (in another country), then you're advocating foreign intervention, etc. I personally think that's justified, but *not with a drafted army*. "Any country that can't get enough volunteers to defend is isn't worth saving" or words to that effect. On second thought, what you've described sounds like the liberal movement in America - they get the executive branch to rob people at gun/jail-point, and use the money to buy off votes to take over the government. The difference is, I can't go to the government to complain, as they're the gullible people who are being used. > Should I be free to do those things? What if I > want to maximize my profit, at the expense of all other values? What if > everybody wants to do that? As long as you don't interfere with my rights, I don't care. When you do start interfering, it's time to appeal to a higher authority. If that authority has the force to back up it's decision (which it must, given the way people are), then it's a government by definition. > Your stated philosophy simply does not deal with > *conflicts* between different people's desires, or with the shared nature of > many resources ("Tragedy of the Commons"). It doesn't? Sure looks like it does to me. Maybe you're talking about anarchists, and not libertarians? > I am not saying what laws there should be, nor do I want everybody to do > exactly what I tell them, nor would I expect that to create a very good world. > I have never given you any reason to think so; I believe that comes from your > dogmatic and uninformed notions of where your political opposition stands. I wasn't accusing you of doing so, I was asking if that's what you wanted. Apparently not. So, tell me what kind of society you want, and how we should go about getting there? > I am interested in discussing institutions and their effects on societies > and the people who make them up, and ways of changing those institutions > to achieve better societies. I am tired of arguing with simplistic > libertarians who have no philosophical depth. Does anyone else out there > have any constructive ideas? Gee, I have the same interests. I'm tired of arguing with people who either don't know what they want, or don't have any idea of how to get their. Does anyone else out there have any constructive ideas?