Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!nsc!turtlevax!spar!baba
From: baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Regarding libertarians and arguments thereof
Message-ID: <193@spar.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 20-Apr-85 16:44:43 EST
Article-I.D.: spar.193
Posted: Sat Apr 20 16:44:43 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Apr-85 06:19:54 EST
References: <3594@alice.UUCP>
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 54

> Dan McK comments that he would find the discussions of libertarianism
> more interesting/enlightening/whatever if those who were discussing
> it would not build straw men (ideas deliberately developed and
> untruthfully associated with libertarianism) and then shoot down these
> carefully, or occasionally not so carefully, constructed falsehoods
> that have been set forth for the purpose of being misleadingly
> dismantled.  (I will include the deliberate emotional blackmail
> of the "women's rights" issues, even though there isn't a trace
> of logic in it  in this discussion simply because it's a deliberate,
> and conciously misleading method/act of debate.)

Some of the argumentation that has taken place on the subject can indeed
be so described.  But there is another game that gets played as well.
Libertarianism is not a universally agreed upon and well-defined
ideology.  People proclaiming themselves to be illuminated libertarians
sometimes post some pretty silly assertions.  Occasionally some poor
fool will attack these with "libertarians believe X, which is bullshit,
therefore libertarianism is bullshit", only to discover to their dismay
that there are plenty of libertarians who *don't* believe X, and who
don't believe that any real libertarian would make such an assertion.
They then pillory the critic for his "straw man" argument.  For example,
I seem to recall that one of the examples of ludicrous straw men given 
by DKMcK was in fact a proposition put forward by a self-proclaimed 
libertarian several weeks earlier.


> Dan McK, I feel, does not realize the one fear that many people have
> of libertarianism<If he does indeed realize it, he is far too
> politic to explain it>, namely that under a libertarian philosophy,
> individuals will be responsible for their own actions, triumphs,
> and errors(, as well as much more, but let's not cloud the
> issue.)  Many individuals fear that they cannot survive under such
> circumstances, and are thus driven to use any tactic that they
> can conceive of or uncover to discredit or slow the spread of a system
> that they regard as threatening to their way of life.  In fact,
> it is terrifying to many people to think that they must, in the
> end, rely on only themselves. (Children often appear to learn
> about "growing up" when they begin to understand the concept and
> feel the terror.)  It is indeed unfortunate that many people who
> have either been mislead or who, in fact, feel this terror would
> fare much better under a less restrictive and more individually responsible
> system.

As long as we're on the subject of debating practices, jj, you should
know that attacks on the motives or character of participants is
considered very bad form.  Even if your assertion were true (don't worry,
I'm not going to ask for *evidence*), what difference would it make?
Ideas have to stand on their merit.

> "I'm amazed that men like you can be so shallow, thick and slow"
> 
> (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj

						Baba ROM DOS