Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!ima!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <1920@inmet.UUCP> Date: Sun, 27-Jan-85 01:25:36 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.1920 Posted: Sun Jan 27 01:25:36 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Feb-85 21:17:10 EST Lines: 82 Nf-ID: #R:ucbcad:-7100:inmet:7800279:177600:4181 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Jan 26 01:22:00 1985 Xref: seismo net.politics:7479 >***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 9:40 am Jan 22, 1985 >> > > However for Libertarians to argue that the reign of private property >> > > will mean the end of all force is an error. >> > >> > Excuse me, but I don't recall hearing any libertarian advance that >> > position. To tell people that your opponents make points that your >> > opponents do not in fact make is called "building a straw man". >> >> Yes, indeed. But what you may not realize is that Sevener just LOVES to >> build straw-men. > >I have seen some pretty silly things that libertarians have posted >lately, which leads me to suspect that Tim Sevener doesn't really need >to build straw men to make people look stupid. Whoa! Let's not have any linkage between the validity of Sevener's straw man and the (arguable) incorrectness of OTHER libertarian arguments. If Sevener uses straw men, he should be called on it (I did so). >Here are some from the >recent Libertaria debate: (I have forgotten who posted this, but there >was not a shred of support for these claims) Not every statement need be supported from first principles in every article: I offer this sentence, for example. For some, the quotes you give, listed below, are self-evident. If you wish support for them, by all means, contact the authors. Now let's take a look at how another libertarian (me) sees the quotes you list. >> ... the legal code would be so much easier to understand it would >> be inconceivable that a lawyer's prowess would enter into the play. I agree that this (as stated) is incorrect. It's certainly conceivable that a lawyer's prowess might be required. On the other hand, without excusing the original author whom I believe to be wrong, the point of what was being said was that lawyers are less NECESSARY in a private justice system. In particular, any member of a libertarian society might say "I'm a lawyer" and start practicing. I very much doubt we'd demand the same degree of overeducation from our lawyers if they had to compete with slick-talkers from Podunk High with a good feel for an agreeable solution, and a good eye for detail. As it is, Lawyers artificially limit their own numbers, *WITH THE COLLUSION OF THE STATE* and keep their priesthood sacrosanct. It is EXTREMELY unlikely, in my view, that a libertarian society would either tolerate or require *THAT* sort of lawyer/priest. >> How about Jill is constantly employed, since there is no unemployment. >> Jill doesn't have to worry about inflation and has had enough money to >> save up for her future years. I'd say that mck has dealt pretty well with inflation. As he points out, unemployment would very likely be quite limited (I didn't understand the term he used) in a libertarian society. If you wish to argue economics with him, please be my guest (I'm glad that mck and I seem to agree, it sure looks like he knows more than I about the subject). On the other hand, before launching into him, perhaps you could forward that list of monopolies, hmmmm....? Or perhaps, as was the case with that list, you should simply concede the point (nothing unmanly about it) in the face of your own relative ignorance (again, I'm not trying to be pejorative) of economics? >> Her sons both opted not to join the service >> since there was little incentive (think what the volunteer armed services >> would be like if there were 100% employment of civilians...). I don't recognize this quote, but I'd be surprised if nobody elected to join the armed forces -- think of how many are "weekend" members of the National Guard now! Even in the face of 100% employment, there are some opportunities that don't exist except in the military (certain forms of patriotism demand it, certain sorts of people are happier under very structured regimes). Whether this military is private or not is another, separate, question. >Now, I wouldn't think of claiming that these are typical Libertarian >arguments, but they certainly aren't "straw men" either... It bears repeating: Sevener misrepresented the libertarian position. It's worth saying: NOBODY is saying the the quotes you give above are straw men.