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: <374@umich.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Dec-85 13:38:40 EST
Article-I.D.: umich.374
Posted: Thu Dec 19 13:38:40 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Dec-85 21:57:12 EST
References: <841@mmintl.UUCP> <353@umich.UUCP> <618@calgary.UUCP> <365@umich.UUCP> <2@calgary.UUCP>
Reply-To: torek@zippy.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 18
Summary: 

In article <2@calgary.UUCP> radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes:
>For an analogy, consider the derivation of classical electrodynamics from
>quantum electrodynamics. The classical laws can be derived as statistical
>approximations, but not absolutely.
>
>In practice, this means that I can apply the usual "rules" of libertarianism
>to a large number of real cases but don't have to try to defend *every*
>application of them to peculiar circumstances. I don't think this is
>cheating; everyone does it.

Well, it depends.  Note that one can predict when the classical laws fail,
and when they do fail, one can turn to quantum-mechanical desription for
principled answers.  Now, what analogous recourse does your libertarianism
have in the problem cases?  If there is none, I think something very fishy
is going on.

--Paul V Torek						torek@umich
(Or is that torek@zippy now?  Darn rn headers!)