Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: What is a libertarian? - (nf)
Message-ID: <1716@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 18-Aug-84 00:35:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.1716
Posted: Sat Aug 18 00:35:29 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 19-Aug-84 13:44:35 EDT
Lines: 44

#R:hao:-110800:inmet:7800128:000:2129
inmet!nrh    Aug 16 12:59:00 1984

>***** inmet:net.politics / hao!ward /  2:10 pm  Aug 14, 1984

>Also, history has made it clear that concentration of land into the hands
>of a few, which is the normal result of uninhibited property rights, leads
>to the deprivation of liberty for those who have no land. ie, most people.

Thanks SO much for the history lesson.  Now, if you would care to 
give some examples of this happening WITHOUT government intervention?
Remember, YOU said "uninhibited property rights".  Uninhibited -> no
taxation, no seizure, no eminent domain.

>
>So to Libertarians I ask this: assume, for the sake of argument, without
>judgment on its real-world validity, the following statement.  
>"The adaption of Libertarianism will inevitably lead to the loss of liberty
>for the majority of people."  Would this make Libertarianism invalid?

An uninteresting question -- I assume you meant "adoption", not "adaption".
The question is uninteresting because it proceeds from a proposition
you're practically admitting is "false" in the view of libertarians.
To put it another way:
"Suppose all your suppositions are wrong.  Does this invalidate your ideas?"

Sure!  

So your question is a conversational gambit, nothing more.  As such,
it's hardly worth "refuting", but one may point out that your criteria
are bad (I'd support Libertarianism, even if it resulted in a 
loss of liberty for MOST of the population, so long as there was
a net INCREASE in liberty -- for example, the freeing of a slave 
population on whose enslavement the "liberty" of the majority
depended would result in a net increase in liberty even though
the majority lost some liberties).

So to Michael Ward, I ask this: Assume, for the sake of argument, without
judgement on its real-world validity, the following statement:
"Agreement with Michael Ward on any issue will inevitably result in 
death in great pain for the majority of the population."
Would this make Michael Ward's ideas invalid?  If no, why did you bother
asking the question above?  If yes, please explain what good it is to 
know this, given that the proposition is either incorrect or undecidable.