Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!peterr
From: peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley)
Newsgroups: net.politics,can.politics
Subject: Re: Liberty and Isolation are not the same things
Message-ID: <5167@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 16-Sep-84 12:36:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.5167
Posted: Sun Sep 16 12:36:07 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Sep-84 15:44:09 EDT
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 41

>From Brad Templeton
>Where do people get the idea that capitalists and libertarians (small l)
>don't believe in cooperation?   That's the very essence of capitalism.
>
Capitalism and socialism are entirely other issues, that I didn't even
mention.  I get the idea that libertarians don't believe in cooperation
very strongly from the relative lack of institutions for compromise in
their philosophy.  In a world with (a) differing views on how things
should be done and (b) limited resources, some means of compromising to
settle on common goals for various groups needs to be found.  Saying that
one believes in cooperation but then providing no mechanism to reach
agreement on what to cooperate on is like buying a car and refusing to buy
gas.

>So what is it that makes you attack capitalism?  Is it because it
>advocates competition and you think that's wasteful and destructive when
>a central authority could resolve issues from above and settle matters?
>
I didn't attack capitalism.  And I certainly wasn't advocating central
authorities.  I was pointing out the possible contributions of anarchism.
THAT philosophy, more than any other, abhors central authority.

>Now cut the name calling folks.  I don't call you socialists psychotic!
(This debate is being confused by the fact that Brad and I have discussed
socialism and capitalism before.  Right now, I'm only talking about
libertarianism and anarchism, however.)
>I understand perfectly why you advocate what you do.  It's not a mental
>disorder, just an error in judgement.   I hope you can give the same credit
>to capitalists.  To call somebody psychotic because you can't understand
>them is rather weak, don't you suspect?  Especially you Peter.  Do you
>really think I have a brain disorder that disconnects me from reality?
I must admit to the use of the word "psychotic" as a rhetorical device,
and it has long since served its role, so I won't use it again.  But I do
think it is a mistake not to take into serious account the (a) and (b) of
above.  In fact, one might say that the acid test for any political
philosophy is how they deal with those issues.  Philsophical libertarianism
doesn't seem to pay much attention to them (perhaps I am wrong on this).

peter rowley,  University of Toronto Department of C.S., Ontario Canada M5S 1A4
UUCP  {linus ihnp4 allegra floyd utzoo cornell decwrl uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!peterr
CSNet peterr@toronto