Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!mhuxv!mhuxh!mhuxj!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!bbnccv!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Strange Bedfellows
Message-ID: <28200298@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 21-Nov-85 16:45:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200298
Posted: Thu Nov 21 16:45:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Nov-85 21:01:13 EST
References: <549@qantel.UUCP>
Lines: 38
Nf-ID: #R:qantel:-54900:inmet:28200298:000:1586
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Nov 21 16:45:00 1985


[Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,hplabs,intelca}!qantel!gabor ]
I  hope to return to Gabor's article, and I am sure others will.
So, I feel free to do just a bit at a time.

>So a discussion of the remarkable symmetries between the two camps
>might be refreshing and also help break up the monotony of the ritual
>Socialist vs. Libertarian slugfest for a while.

A worthy goal. But that's the property of party  spirit  in  gen-
eral.   Liberal  vs.  Conservative  is even worse. In addition to
your "remarkable symmetries" (all negative) it would be  nice  if
someone  could  make  a  list  of  what  they  thought *positive*
features in these two (and other) camps. That could be a base  to
build on.

>The most obvious traits shared by libertarians and socialists are matters
>of style: a strident tone of moral superiority ...

Have you read the two Friedmans ? Do you detect that tone ? (I'll
grant you Ayn Rand in this respect).

>... frequent appeals to first principles ...

That's their situation as weak minorities: they can't assume
their principles are more or less recognized, and they can't
appeal to practical politics at this stage.  It has nothing
to do with the *content* of their creed. You won't find
Socialists in power spending much time on first principles.

>... and, shall we say, a selective approach to history.

Do you mean they *distort* it (some do, I'm sure)  or  that  they
select  what is relevant to them ? The latter is as legitimate as
a strategist concentrating on military history, or  an  economist
on economic history.

[Till next time]	Jan Wasilewsky