Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site ea.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!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: <9800028@ea.UUCP> Date: Thu, 16-Aug-84 01:51:00 EDT Article-I.D.: ea.9800028 Posted: Thu Aug 16 01:51:00 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 19-Aug-84 02:23:26 EDT References: <366@hogpd.UUCP> Lines: 44 Nf-ID: #R:hogpd:-36600:ea:9800028:000:2000 Nf-From: ea!mwm Aug 16 00:51:00 1984 #R:hogpd:-36600:ea:9800028:000:2000 ea!mwm Aug 16 00:51:00 1984 /***** ea:net.philosophy / ecsvax!dgary / 12:28 pm Aug 12, 1984 */ A little strongly stated, but I tend to concur. Obtaining freedom is loads harder than just putting limits on government. Wish I could get all Libertarians to read John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. That may be asking a lot from people who consider Ayn Rand a philosopher, however... :-> D Gary Grady USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary /* ---------- */ I tried to find a copy of "On Liberty". The local libraries copy was missing, and my favorite book store (not a very good book store, but there isn't much choice around here) didn't have a copy - or any other Mill, for that matter. They did have Rand. I can't tell you whether she deserves to be called a philosopher, as I haven't read any of her works. On the other hand, I did find the following comment on "On Liberty", from the Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 14 of the Macropedia, pg 270: In [On Liberty] he stated the case for the freedom of the individual against "the tyranny of the majority," presented strong arguments in favor of complete freedom of thought and discussion, and argued that no state or society has the right to prevent the free development of human individuality. Sounds like he has completely dropped his fathers stance (the greatest happiness for the greatest number) and adopted a libertarian viewpoint to me. Or has EB completely misinterpreted what Mill was trying to say? If that's so, let me know, and I'll go looking for a copy again, and evaluate it for myself; otherwise I have more important things to do. Or maybe you were holding it up as a parody of libertarian thought? As for putting limits on government not being sufficient for freedom, you're right. You have to put the same limits on individuals. In the US, this second form has mostly happened, and even been over-extended in places. Since it's the government that is doing the over extending, that makes the government a doubly prime target.