Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek
From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Pollution: no libertarian solution!
Message-ID: <365@umich.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 14-Dec-85 16:13:17 EST
Article-I.D.: umich.365
Posted: Sat Dec 14 16:13:17 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 16-Dec-85 20:13:50 EST
References: <841@mmintl.UUCP> <353@umich.UUCP> <618@calgary.UUCP>
Reply-To: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 21
Summary: 

In article <618@calgary.UUCP> radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes:
>This isn't particularly surprising. All political philosophies have
>similar "weak points", arising because they are social approximations
>to more base moral principles. I don't think it is a valid argument against
>libertarianism to point this out.

It depends.  If you regard your libertarianism as logically derived from
certain moral "axioms" (whether or not you regard the "axioms" as provable),
then it IS a valid argument.  If you fudge your logical derivation at any
point in such a system, you ruin the whole system.

If you regard your libertarianism as merely an attempt to systematize some 
conflicting intuitions, then you shouldn't be worried by the pollution
argument.  However, first, I wonder how anyone could admit that this is the
only foundation of his ethical views, and still be a libertarian -- after
all, libertarians seem to be pretty dogmatic about exceptionless rules.
Second, I tend to agree with Stubblefield that one's ethical views should
have a better foundation (note that this assumes they CAN have a better
foundation!).

--Paul V Torek						torek@umich