Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/23/84; site ucbcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!faustus
From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Re: 'Majority' rule
Message-ID: <2761@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Nov-84 10:53:52 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.2761
Posted: Fri Nov  2 10:53:52 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Nov-84 21:15:08 EST
References: <1775@inmet.UUCP>
Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 22

> >The whole problem, though, is that libertarians think that individual
> >liberty is the highest good, and I think that a better society is the
> >highest good. (Although certainly not in the manner of Ellsworth Toohey.)
> >You can take your pick -- all I want to argue is that if you accept that
> >society is more important than absolute liberty for the individual, the
> >sort of government I am advocating is the best.
> 
> You seem to be ignoring the possibility that we believe that society
> would be better off if its members were free.    Remember -- 
> libertarians in general believe that almost everyone in a free
> society would be better off than if the society were not free.

I remember a posting a while ago that said "Even if a worse society would
result, libertarians still believe that absolute freedom is the most 
important thing". Obviously you aren't this sort of libertarian. If you
can argue in a rational manner that complete freedom would work for the
benefit of society, I'd like to see your arguments, because I haven't
seen many arguments like this on the net. Almost everybody who has been
arguing for libertarianism has been taking absolute freedom as an end
in itself, which is an assumption that I can't accept.

	Wayne