Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: What is socialism?
Message-ID: <1393@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 14-Feb-85 16:59:24 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.1393
Posted: Thu Feb 14 16:59:24 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 14-Feb-85 18:57:51 EST
References: <309@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <329@topaz.ARPA> <501@fisher.UUCP>  <1340@dciem.UUCP>  <1363@dciem.UUCP> > ...  Now I feel "libertarian" to be a disgusting
>> epithet for a person whose selfishness knows no bounds and who has
>> a trumped-up excuse for a philosophy to cover his (or her) essentially
>> childish magical view of the world.
>> 
>> Martin Taylor
>
>If this isn't an ad hominem argument, I don't know what is.  It seems to
>be ok for those calling themselves "socialist" to attack the motives
>of those who call themselves "libertarian", but when it happens the
>other way they scream to high Heaven.  
>
>I'll be quite frank: if you will not respect the motives of libertarians,
>and base your objections to the ideology on questions of fact and 
>economic and political theory, I can hardly trust your own claim
>to humanitarian motives, and will confront you with the real-world
>results of your misbegotten philosophy at every turn.
>
>Unfortunately, I fear the libertarians on the net will continue patiently
>explaining their position and their motives, in muted, reasonable tones,
>to your (and Sevener's) deaf ears.  They seem to have the patience of Job,
>the gift to "suffer fools gladly."  I don't.
>
>--JoSH

I guess you don't know what an ad hominem argument is, then.  First:
the section you quoted starts "Now", which in the absence of context
seems to mean "as a consequence of preceding argument" whereas in the
actual context of my posting it meant "since reading all the libertarian
screaming (sorry, muted, reasonable discussions of Socialist genocide)."

I did not impugn the arguments of anyone.  In a moment of utter disgust,
I allowed myself to present my personal feelings to the net, without
attempting any argument whatever.  So it can't be an ad hominem argument.

Now, as for childish magical views, what else can you call a set of
rationalizations that starts out with a view of the world as you
would like it to be and then asserts without evidence that the laws
of nature are such as to make the world that way?  When arguments
are presented to suggest that perhaps the laws of nature are not as
you believe, you just reiterate that they are (in muted, reasonable
tones, of course).

As for deaf ears, would I have so drastically have changed my position
away from what you espouse, if my (visual) ears had been deaf?  I think
I would probably still be calling myself a libertarian if I had not
read the thousands of lines written by those who do give themselves
that name.  No, you are right: I don't suffer fools gladly.

For what it's worth, Henry Spencer also persuaded me (rationally and
correctly) that what I really espouse (my misbegotten philosophy) isn't
technically Socialism either; but nothing the self-proclaimed socialists
on the net have written causes me to be ashamed of having used that
label.

As you suggested to Carnes, perhaps we should forego the use of the labels
libertarian and socialist; but it's hard when there are no other suitable
labels for what you believe.  My preference is to use the labels, but
allow that they may have wider connotations than the technically correct
ones.  Don't demand that any self-proclaimed socialist be a down-the-line
follower of Marx, or that a libertarian must agree with all of Ayn Rand
(or whoever).
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt