Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!laura
From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.politics,can.politics
Subject: Re: Liberty and Isolation are not the same things
Message-ID: <4323@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 16-Sep-84 17:10:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.4323
Posted: Sun Sep 16 17:10:32 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Sep-84 17:10:32 EDT
References: <5167@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 57

Peter,
I can only conclude that you have not read *any* Libertarian
philosophy, or you don't pay attention to what you read. If
you didn't understand the issue of *voluntary co-oporation*
as opposed to *compliance under force of threat of force* then
you are going to have to re-read. If it wasn't there, then
you either *aren't reading Libertarian philosophy* or you are
reading a highly specialised book dealing with a small area of
philosophy (say Libertarian Analytic Philosophy).

If you want a popular read, you can try *Robert Ringer's* *Restoring
the American Dream*. 

Personally, I thought that you were just trying to bait me, and I won't
be baited. Lay off terms like ``psychotic'', will you? Nobody is going
to be willing to argue with you if your basic position is to call
someone who does not measure reality according to your lights ``psychotic''.
There is no future, because you are not saying that ``Libertarians have
made a mistake in believing X'' but rather ``Libertarians are crazy to
believe X''. If you honestly believe that we are crazy then you come
off rather the fool in arguing with us, since a crazy person is not
expected to be reasonable (either all across the board, or at least in
the area of his mania). If you do not believe that we are crazy, but believe
that we have made a mistake then you are simply indulging in gratuitous
insults. Now that your tactic is known we are all going to avoid arguing
with you like the plague until you reform your behaviour because we
all have got better things to do than be a receptical for abuse.

Enough.

The basic difference between Philosophical Anarchism and Philosophical
Libertarianism is ``the Libertarian tag''. Libertarians believe that
to get one's way through force or threat of force is evil. So when a
Libertarian talks about ``the freedom to do X'' there is always
implied (if not explicitly stated) ``as long as X does not violate the
freedom of another''. So ``the freedom to have whatever I desire''
and ``the freedom to be a mass-murderer'' and ``the freedom to bomb
the Montreal train station'' are all contradictions in terms.

Philosophical Anarchists are not so constrained. Some of them believe
in the Libertarian tag, but some of them do not.  In particular, many
Philosophical Anarchists are Utilitarians, or for some other reason
believe that ``the end justifies the means''. Pure Libertarian philosophy
is opposed to this. No matter how much I would like to decentralise
govenment I do not get to bomb the Parliament buildings. 

Philosophical Anarchism thus can be as tolitarian as it comes. (Not all
Philosophical Anarchists are tolitarians, of course, and, indeed some
of the non-tolitarian Philosophical Anarchists have tried to disown
the tolitarian ones). Tolitarian Philosophical Anarchists, to the extent
that they are going to impose ``freedom'' (or at least, the absense of
government) by force or threat of force are not going to be accepted
by Libertarians.


Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura