Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site wucs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!ihnp4!wucs!esk
From: esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Eureka, I've struck nerves! (Re: Mussolini)
Message-ID: <631@wucs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Jan-85 17:33:29 EST
Article-I.D.: wucs.631
Posted: Thu Jan 24 17:33:29 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Jan-85 08:59:35 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Washington U. in St. Louis, CS Dept.
Lines: 76

[]
From: stewart@ihldt.UUCP (R. J. Stewart)
>>>  The axiom that Libertarians
>>>believe in (even more basic than the non-initiation of force), is:
>>>     There are about as many views of "right" and "wrong" as there are
>>>     people in the world.  None of these can be shown to be better, in
>>>     any objective way, than any other.
>>>
>>> Given that this is true, libertarians then reason that it is wrong for
>>> one person, or a group of persons with similar views, to force their
>>> (rather arbitrary) set of values on other people.

>> Benito Mussolini drew some very different conclusions
>> from that relativistic axiom:
>>	...  From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all
>>	ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that
>>	everybody has the right to create for himself his own
>>	ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy
>>	of which he is capable.

> Certainly the free-for-all approach is consistent with the relativistic
> axiom. 

Thanks for conceding my point!  Unfortunately, what you give with one hand,
you try to take away with the other:

> The proponent of the free-for-all approach is in the dubious position of
> claiming that:
>  - No philosophy has special significance.
>  - Nevertheless, MY philosophy SHOULD have special significance.
> I suppose that if you are a true nihilist, this sort of reasoning
> wouldn't bother you much.  

There is no conflict there; the first statement means "no philosophy has
special significance *from a neutral point of view*" but the second means
"my philosophy should *from my point of view* have special significance."
And it is a corollary to the axiom that these "from ___ point of view" phrases
are necessary.

> To a libertarian, however, the relativistic
> axiom suggests a principle, that goes something like:
>    Since my philosophy has no special significance, I should not do
>    things to promote it that I would not want other people to do in
>    promoting *their* philosophy.	Bob Stewart 	ihldt!stewart

Sounds like the Golden Rule in disguise to me.  I have nothing against
the Golden Rule but it is ludicrous to suggest that it has anything to
do with your axiom.

From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
>  Are you saying that Mussolini's logic was correct?  It
> sure doesn't seem so to me, particularly the bit about "enforcing" one's
> ideology on others.					

Yes, his logic was valid:  the axiom implies that everyone has a right to
(i.e., it is permissible to; there is no compelling reason not to) do
whatever he damn well pleases.  Which for Mussolini meant enforcing his
ideology.  Now, that his logic was valid doesn't imply that his conclusion
is sound -- maybe this shows there is something wrong with the axiom?(!)

>  Your quote from Mussolini begins:
>>	If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories
>>	and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective,
>>	immortal truth ... then there is nothing more relativistic....
> I think it quite clear the the libertarian logic begins with a LACK of
> contempt for the beliefs of others ...

It's statements like that which make the net amusing.  Does this lack of
contempt extend to beliefs that claim their own absolute superiority and (on
top of that) their impose-ability?  No, and the next question is, if those
beliefs are not "fixed categories" and "claims to objective, immortal truth,"
what are they?
				--The aspiring iconoclast,
				Paul V. Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047
Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's.