Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/7/84; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!fagin
From: fagin@ucbvax.ARPA (Barry Steven Fagin)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Problems with libertarianism.
Message-ID: <6592@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 29-Apr-85 14:56:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.6592
Posted: Mon Apr 29 14:56:10 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Apr-85 06:14:06 EDT
References: <485@cybvax0.UUCP> <6438@ucbvax.ARPA> <509@cybvax0.UUCP>
Reply-To: fagin@ucbvax.UUCP (Barry Steven Fagin)
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 52
Summary: 

Odd # >'s == Mike Huybensz, even # >'s == me
>> >I don't believe rights exist ... 
>> 
>> I thought as much.  I'm content to leave the discussion here, although
>> I hope all netters will ponder carefully the consequences of Mr. Huybensz's
>> statement.
>
>Golly, isn't it fun quoting out of context?  

The original quote, with some more context, was:

> I don't believe rights exist.  They are convenient legal fictions like
> corporations.  Thus the search for "natural rights" is akin to the
> quest for other supernatural entities (like gods.)

Was this enough context?  Does this really add anything?  Mike doesn't say "I 
don't believe rights exist, except in certain circumstances", or "...I don't 
believe most rights libertarians talk about exist".  He says that he believes 
that rights do not exist, and the rest of his quote proceeds to explain why.
Thus I did not feel like I was quoting Huybensz out of context.  Since he
disagrees, here's the rest of the quote:

> We choose the legal fictions based on social goals, one of which is
> non-coercion.  Another common goal is social stability.  There are trade-
> offs between all these goals, and I have yet to see a convincing argument
> for one to be placed above all others.



>And then use the citation as an
>excuse not to respond to any of the points?  What a shoddy tactic.

I did not respond to any of the points because I felt that further discussion
would be non-productive.  I believe that natural rights do exist; you do not.  I
cannot "prove" that these rights exist.  Seemed like a good point to stop
the discussion.  But of course you may disagree ...

>Would you like to try again?

Not particularly, since as I said I don't think it would be productive.
I'm grateful, however, that if nothing else our discussion has shown that 
one fervent believer in the use of coercion to stop discrimination
also believes rights do not exist.  This is something EVERYONE, conservative, 
liberal and libertarian, should think about.

>Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh

--Barry


-- 
Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley