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)