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!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!cca!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Politics and Ethics [Liberty as
Message-ID: <28200409@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Dec-85 20:53:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200409
Posted: Tue Dec 17 20:53:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Dec-85 21:51:32 EST
References: <561@qantel.UUCP>
Lines: 37
Nf-ID: #R:qantel:-56100:inmet:28200409:000:1842
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Dec 17 20:53:00 1985


> [Bob Stubblefield]       The libertarian umbrella shelters conservative
> "capitalists" who dare not speak in favor of selfishness, hippies who believe
> in communal living, pragmatists who believe crime can be rational for
> criminals, anarchists who believe that the concept of contract has meaning
> in the absence of government, and anyone else who proclaims to be in favor
> of liberty.  This is the sense in which libertarianism takes liberty as an
> axiom.  And this is the reason that libertarianism is anti-philosophical.

In effect, Bob accuses libertarians of forming an eclectic coali-
tion in which everyone compromises her principles.  There cannot,
of course, be a coalition without a compromise.   

There are two kinds of compromise. Suppose one of us thinks twice two
is six, the other that it is four. The wrong kind of compromise
would be to split the difference and declare to the world 2*2 = 5.
The *right* kind of compromise is to agree that the result is,
at least, EVEN. Now we can confront the ODD party together !

One might suggest there is a third way: check the result.
Being both rational, we will quickly agree.
The trouble with this is that problems vary in difficulty.
The time it takes for rational people to agree varies from
seconds to millennia (during which, the problem keeps changing on us).

Meanwhile, there is a need for cooperation and there are points of
agreement.

I believe the libertarian coalition to be of the right  kind:  it
is  united  around a *principle* which is, for various members of
it, a part of their respective  comprehensive  philosophies.  The
philosophies  need  not  be identical, though they all have some-
thing in common. There is nothing unphilosophical in this plur-
alism. Refusal to *discuss* the differences would, indeed, be un-
philosophical.

		Jan Wasilewsky