Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site oberon.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!oberon!walker
From: walker@oberon.UUCP (Mike Walker)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Logic, fact, preference, and social
Message-ID: <131@oberon.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 4-Oct-85 22:13:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: oberon.131
Posted: Fri Oct  4 22:13:28 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 7-Oct-85 04:11:27 EDT
References: <234@umich.UUCP> <28200115@inmet.UUCP>
Organization: U. of So. Calif., Los Angeles
Lines: 47

> 
> [Nat Howard]
> > >...  I know of no postulates, anywhere, that have any basis in logic or fact.
> 
> 
> > >As you say, and as I said, "logic" cannot be the basis for what you 
> > >prefer.  I'm real curious to see if Paul Torek can come up with any
> > >social order that has a basis in "logic or fact".
> 
> [Paul Torek]
> > Logic can't be the basis for what you prefer, but fact can.
> 
> *Both* logic and fact can. Either can *falsify* one choice, and by
> so doing, dictate another.
> 
> Consider two persons, Alpha and Beta. Alpha favors social order
> (a), based on (irrationally chosen) criterion A. Beta favors so-
> cial order (b), based on criterion B. Now suppose Beta has been
> able to show Alpha an unknown fact F, or an unexpected logical
> connection L between known facts, that proves, to Alpha's satisfac-
> tion, that A is better served by (b) than by (a). Alpha is now a
> convert; his new preferred social order is (b), and the basis
> for his preference is *both A and L, or both A and F*.  
> 
>  E.g., a creationist is shown that evolution is really in the Bible.
> 
>                 Jan Wasilewsky 

Jan has just explained how the free market place of ideas operates.
An excellent explanation.
But a prerequisite to this is free speech (and hopefully free from
external control thought).  If the government is so powerful as to
control a man's life (food etc) then free speech is dead.  The idea
that a weak government leads to tyranny is not correct.  There must be
a power vacuum.  If other private social institutions took up where
government left off then no such vacumm would exist.  For a good example
look at the USSR.  Lenin and (at the time) associates took over while
the royalty was in decline.  The was no modern market place or even a
weak parliment (sic?) to expand into the gap.  They were gonna build
an anarchist society but they were gonna have to have an all powerfull
government to do it :-) uhuh!

-- 
Michael D. Walker (Mike)
Arpa: walker@oberon.ARPA
Uucp: {the (mostly unknown) world}!ihnp4!sdcrdcf!oberon!walker
                 {several select chunks}!sdcrdcf!oberon!walker