Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site ea.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!mwm From: mwm@ea.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: "Majority" rule Message-ID: <22400028@ea.UUCP> Date: Fri, 2-Nov-84 16:51:00 EST Article-I.D.: ea.22400028 Posted: Fri Nov 2 16:51:00 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 6-Nov-84 04:19:03 EST References: <461@unmvax.UUCP> Lines: 24 Nf-ID: #R:unmvax:-46100:ea:22400028:000:1118 Nf-From: ea!mwm Nov 2 15:51:00 1984 /***** ea:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 4:00 pm Oct 30, 1984 */ 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. Wayne /* ---------- */ I don't think that individual liberty is the highest good, I think that "a better society" is the highest good. Of course, my definition of "a better society" and yours is probably different. I feel that restricting liberty is generally (but not always) bad; bad enough that it offsets many goods that can come from it. Maybe we should decide what "a better society" is, then we can worry about whether taxation helps or hinders that goal? Better yet, we can even consider whether there are better ways to finance government than through taxation (I think the answer is yes, and even have some suggestions).