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!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!bbnccv!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Strange Bedfellows
Message-ID: <28200323@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Nov-85 19:02:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200323
Posted: Fri Nov 22 19:02:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Nov-85 21:02:28 EST
References: <549@qantel.UUCP>
Lines: 28
Nf-ID: #R:qantel:-54900:inmet:28200323:000:1241
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Nov 22 19:02:00 1985


[Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,hplabs,intelca}!qantel!gabor ]
The following is Gabor's criticism of libertarians and  Marxists,
respectively.

>The democratic process will not do [for libertarians] as a  source
>of  legitimacy for the state: this is the translation of the slo-
>gan 'Taxation is Theft'.

>Marx's ... assertion that 'human essence is the totality  of  so-
>cial  relations'  is,  as far as I can see, incompatible with any
>notion of inalienable rights.

There seems to be an implicit contradiction here. Can  the  demo-
cratic  process,  in  your  view,  legitimize  alienation  of all
rights, or only of some rights; and if so, which ?

(I myself buy neither the idea of an unchangeable human  essence,
nor  of  a  constant set of inalienable rights; nor, on the other
hand, of majority will as a legitimate source of individual right
abrogation.  Human  nature changes, but it exists. Rights are not
granted by society; nor do they pre-exist society; they are esta-
blished  by  individuals' successful resistance to society. It is
an ongoing fight. I prefer societies  in  which  liberties,  once
gained,  become  inalienable.  This  has  been, by and large, the
Anglo-Saxon tradition from 1689 until WWI).

		Jan Wasilewsky