Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!decvax!cca!ima!ism780b!jim
From: jim@ism780b.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Were not drifting; were being tugged
Message-ID: <55@ism780b.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 15-Aug-84 00:31:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: ism780b.55
Posted: Wed Aug 15 00:31:13 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 10-Aug-84 02:29:32 EDT
Lines: 54
Nf-ID: #R:hogpd:-36600:ism780b:27500035:000:3394
Nf-From: ism780b!jim    Aug  6 20:39:00 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).

Not *all* people have these problems.  The percentage of people which have
these problems vary widely from society to society.  This is because *people
are a product of their environment*.  This includes you.  You *are not* a
self-made person.  You were created.  (cf. the discussion elsewhere in this
newsgroup about free will).  Widespread violence, hostility, and alienation
help develop these problems among people.  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.  My own
tendency is for law to turn toward focusing more of the GNP on education and
support of arts, crafts, and other creative modes, and away from destructive
endeavors.

>I want a world where people are as free as possible to do what they want,
>as opposed to what others want them to do. This doesn't contribute to
>hate, alienation, etc, does it? Or do you really think that if everybody
>did exactly what you told them, we'd all be better off?

How can you be so philosophically naive?  What if I want to shoot you through
the head?  Should I be free to do that?  Oh, but that's violence, you say.
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?  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?  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?  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").

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 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?

-- Jim Balter (ima!jim)