Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site frog.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!tdh
From: tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: STUBBLEFIELD's misrepresentation on TIA
Message-ID: <199@frog.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Jun-85 01:35:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: frog.199
Posted: Mon Jun 17 01:35:33 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Jun-85 02:39:40 EDT
Reply-To: frog!tdh
Organization: Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA
Lines: 44

I took a second look at Schwartz's article "Libertarianism:
The Perversion of Liberty", in order to see if
Stubblefield's following argument (upon which I have already
commented) was contained within it (since I had not
remembered seeing it) (I cleaned up the careless margins.):

> Schwartz's whole article to this point has been illustrating
> the theoretical argument that in the context of today's
> culture a political MOVEMENT to promote liberty is doomed.
> The theoretical argument is as follows:
>    1. To defend the value of liberty, you must defend the
> basic philosophical ideas on which it depends--to name a
> few: in politics, individual rights; in ethics, selfishness;
> in epistemology, reason; in metaphysics, reality.
>    2. The success of a political movement is measured by its
> popularity-- its ability to get its members'representatives
> in office.
>    3. The basic philosophy on which liberty depends is not
> popular.
>    4. To the extent that a political movement for liberty
> becomes popular before the basic philosophical ideas on
> which it is based are popular, it must hide its basic ideas
> from its members or it must collaborate with those who hold
> other basic philosophical ideas--i.e., ideas more consistent
> with slavery than with freedom--ideas such as collectivism,
> sacrifice, and irrationality.

It wasn't.  Part of point (1) was used as a premise for the
published first segment.  Point (4) was partially used, but
not in the form of showing necessity, to show collaboration.

I then skimmed the past 2 1/2 years of issues for articles
that might have contained such an argument.  I didn't see
the argument in the few articles that might have been
appropriate.  So, assuming that I didn't goof in my search,
I am left with two possible conclusions:

1) Stubblefield is arguing from imagination that such an
   argument appeared.
2) Schwartz is not only not a very good thinker, but also is
   an incompetent writer.  That I have no previous evidence
   for, and much against.

				David Hudson