Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: What is a libertarian? - (nf)
Message-ID: <1738@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-Aug-84 00:36:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.1738
Posted: Wed Aug 29 00:36:06 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Aug-84 12:12:49 EDT
Lines: 101

#R:hao:-110800:inmet:7800131:000:4431
inmet!nrh    Aug 27 22:23:00 1984

>***** inmet:net.politics / hao!ward / 11:55 am  Aug 21, 1984
>
>All the statements I make and questions I ask are meant to be
>made in good faith, and, I think, hardly deserving of hostile,
>emotional attacks.  Especially if the attackers don't even have
>the courage or the courtesy to sign their articles.

I am assuming that it was my article that ticked him off as it is my
article he quotes below.  Well excuuuuuse me!  My name is Nat Howard, I
stand behind what I say, and simply regard my logname as sufficient --
people can send me mail, there are (so far as I know) no other "nrh"'s
on the net, and I dislike the impact Sturgeon's law (90% of everything is
crap) has had on signature lines.  I don't understand why it should be
so important to Michael that I sign my full name, but please consider it
done, if that makes you happier, or my article more strongly backed.

>
>I posted:
>
>>
>>So to Libertarians I ask this: assume, for the sake of argument, without
>>judgment on its real-world validity, the following statement.  
>>"The adaption of Libertarianism will inevitably lead to the loss of liberty
>>for the majority of people."  Would this make Libertarianism invalid?
>
>"Somebody" replied:

If the article was mauled by news or notes software I mourn, but if not,
it should have had "inmet!nrh" on it, not "Somebody".  

>>>
>>>An uninteresting question -- I assume you meant "adoption", not "adaption".
>>>The question is uninteresting because it proceeds from a proposition
>>>you're practically admitting is "false" in the view of libertarians.
>>>To put it another way:
>>>"Suppose all your suppositions are wrong.  Does this invalidate your ideas?"
>>>
>I did not admit, or even almost admit, that the proposition was
>false.  

I did not say (read it over, please) that you admitted your proposition
was false.  I said that you were practically admitting that it was false
in the view of libertarians.  It seems to me that you're practcially 
admitting that libertarians would regard the question's premise is false
because you're asking people to consider it hypothetically rather than
actually -- you're saying: "Never mind whether this proposition is true
or not -- accept it, let it put you in an awkward position, and then
evaluate it".  Sounds to me like you didn't want to support the
proposition.

>My purpose in stating it the way I did was to determine
>if the proposition was worth discussing.  That is, if Libertarians
>feel that *their* liberties were important, to the exclusion
>of all others, then I need not waste time arguing about the loss
>of liberty of most people.  

Happy to respond: for myself, a libertarian society would only
be worthy of the name if EVERYBODY is accorded certain rights,
within the framework of human possibility -- in other words,
the world ain't perfect, so I wouldn't demand that a libertarian
society administer itself PERFECTLY -- merely as well as can
be done by human beings.

As for the freedom of others, many of the benefits of a libertarian
society vanish if you make only SOME of the people in it free (arguably,
this is one of the worst problems with our society today).

Of course, personally, I do regard my liberties as MY business.  While
I definitely support the attempt to make this into a freer country
for everybody, I get the most violent when (no surprise) my personal
liberties are encroached upon.

>On the other hand, if the *general*
>increase in liberty was a goal of Libertarianism, then arguments
>about how this should be brought about are important, indeed.

And indeed they are.

>This discussion has so far been held on a mature, rational level.
>I would hate to see it degenerate as have so many before it.

Ummm, okay.  I've signed (retroactively, but no less authoritatively
I hope) my article, and I've tried to point out what I saw as the 
kernel of the logic flaw that led you to ask the question.  Shall
we continue?

By way of concession, I'll sign this article, but I'd rather 
not have to sign each one explicitly.  Now that you know who I am,
can we just take it as "read"?  I'll be glad to sign them now
and then......  Many users on the net do not bother to sign their
names, others sign them effusively.  I don't mind being known
as inmet!nrh (pronounced "inmet-bang-nyrrh"), and I'm not
particularly trying to be anonymous, or cute.  


					Nat Howard

"That's MISTER 'inmet-bang-nyrrh' to you, fellah" :-)