Read it and weep...
joel s. kollin
the Jeffersonian ideal to date.
The size of the Federal government has increased from ~21-~23.5% of
GNP even while social spending has been cut and the economy is
booming. The latter is not due to any "supply-side" increase of
savings or investment, but to a strictly Keynesian consumption
stimulus built on the deficit. A major collapse of the system has
been skillfully avoided by Paul Volcker, who Reagan was stupid enough
not to reappoint. Carter sacrificed his Presidency to let Volcker put
the brakes on the economy and bring back stable money. Reagan has
taken 3 painful years of austerity and thrown it all away on a
spending spree for the rich.
Attacks on civil liberties continue, although with generally limited
"success". Whenever possible, the administration has eroded freedom
of speech, the separation of church and state, the right to privacy
and any other guaranteed or implied rights it could get its hands on.
When Reagan said "Get government off of the backs of the people" he
meant only the rich and the monopolies. If you don't doubt his
sincerity by now take a good look at his right hand man, Ed Meese.
The best "libertarian" presidents we've had since WWII are Eisenhower
and Carter. And obviously that's not saying very much.
Individualists - I can see why most of you won't vote Democratic.
But please think twice before you vote Republican. At least while
the candidates are arguing over who's closer to Reagan.
If ten million people vote third party we can put an end to this
tweedledee-tweedledum nonsense. Vote for the third party of your
choice.
Joel S. Kollin
Dave Tilley
+If ten million people vote third party we can put an end to this
+tweedledee-tweedledum nonsense. Vote for the third party of your
+choice.
OK I'll bite. Who are some reasonable third party people? The last one I
can remember is John Anderson. Anybody that good today?
Dave
Adam Kao
I don't even remember _him_.
Adam
Andy McFadden
>Path: agate!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!mit-amt!joel
>From: jo...@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (joel s. kollin)
>Message-ID: <21...@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>
>The size of the Federal government has increased from ~21-~23.5% of
>GNP even while social spending has been cut and the economy is
>booming. The latter is not due to any "supply-side" increase of
>savings or investment, but to a strictly Keynesian consumption
>stimulus built on the deficit. A major collapse of the system has
>been skillfully avoided by Paul Volcker, who Reagan was stupid enough
...
This is dandy.
If alt.individualism is a forum for expressing views about the Reagan admin,
I think the (U)nsubscribe key is about to hatchet another news group.
(alt.politics? soc.politics?)
--
My opinions are my own, damn it!
Dave Tilley
-> The last one I can remember is John Anderson.
-
-I don't even remember _him_.
1980
Lucien Van Elsen
this year. A refreshing change from the current flock of Democrats
and Republicans - how many of them would actually come out in favor of
abolishing the income tax, the gold standard, and personal freedoms?
joel s. kollin
>can remember is John Anderson. Anybody that good today?
>Dave
Any ol' 3rd party is fine. Libertarian or any environmental party
would be my choice, but since they won't win anything major it doesn't
matter this time around. The main thing is to vote for something, so
people won't mistake your distaste for apathy.
The reason why I flamed Reagan was because I was sick of
self-proclaimed "libertarians" telling me why I should vote
Republican. Sorry if I pissed anyone off.
As it stands I doubt I'll vote Democratic either, although I might
if Bush wins the Republican nomination. If anyone wants to know why
I hate Bush, go back and look at some of the things he said in '80 and
'84. 'Nuff of that for this group...
BTW, what I meant to say before was that Federal spending as a % of
GNP has increased from 21% in 1980 to 23.5% in 1987(?). This is
in spite of a "boom" economy (less welfare, etc.) Someone pointed
out that I was previously unclear on this point, so I thought I'd
repeat it.
joel
eric
> abolishing the income tax, the gold standard, and personal freedoms?
He's in favor of abolishing personal freedoms? Oy!
Personally, I favor the Grateful Dead ticket standard - the amount in
circulation is guaranteed to decrease as the boys age. :-)
--
...rutgers!!husc6!necntc!ima!cfisun!eric
Dan'l DanehyOakes
You're saying he's in favor of abolishing the gold standard and personal
freedoms?
I thought the former had already been abolished. And as for the latter --
well, that makes him just like all the other candidates...
Roach
John K Hayes
Too soon to tell. Wait until after the nominees are clear; then you will
see third party candidates popping up. Probably we'll see Pat Robertson
running with the New Order Fundamentalist Fascist Party (NOFF). Most likely
we'll not be seing Jesse in a third party (if he's smart); he'll have a real
good chance 4 years from now. Who knows, maybe he'll be on the vice prez slot
this time.
--
---{john hayes} Old Dominion Univ; Norfolk, Virginia USA
UUCP: ai...@xanth.UUCP or {decuac,harvard,sun,hoptad,...}!xanth!aiko
ARPA: ai...@xanth.cs.odu.edu CSNET: ai...@odu.CSNET
Home: (804) 622-8348 Work: (804) 460-2241 ext 111 {8am-4:30 EST Mon - Fri}
Bob Bickford
+Don't forget Ron Paul! (Who?) The Libertarian Presidental candidate
+this year. A refreshing change from the current flock of Democrats
+and Republicans - how many of them would actually come out in favor of
+abolishing the income tax, the gold standard, and personal freedoms?
Uh, in case that's not entirely clear, Ron wants to:
1) Abolish the IRS and the income tax as quickly as possible,
2) Implement sound money, the gold standard, and put an end to
government/central bank manipulation of the currency = inflation,
3) Maximize personal freedom of expression, lifestyle, etc., by
getting the government "the hell out of the way".
Ron served four terms as a Congressman from Texas, served on the U.S.
Gold Commission, has the best-ever vote rating from the National
Taxpayer's Union, and has many other things going for him.
The Libertarian Party expects to be on the ballot in all 50 states
again this year (as we were in 1980 with Ed Clark) and we expect to
get significant media attention. Ron has already appeared on CNN several
times, on Buckley's _Firing Line_, and on _Crossfire_. Both Ron and
his running mate, Andre Marrou (who was elected to the Alaska Legislature
as a Libertarian), have gotten excellent local media coverage of their
campaigns wherever they go.
Ron was recently in California, and was introduced by Jim Eason on
KGO radio with the following words (among others):
"Unlike these other, *minor* candidates such as Haig and Simon,
who *won't* be on your ballot in November, this man *will* be
on your ballot, and you *will* have the chance to vote for him
if you so choose."
If you want more information, just drop me a note. Thanks!
--
Robert Bickford {hplabs, ucbvax, lll-lcc, ptsfa}!well!rab
/-------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
| Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian | Ron Paul: Libertarian for President |
\-------------------------------------^-------------------------------------/
Russell Turpin
I can only hope that Ron Paul does not favor abolishing personal
freedoms, though this is something that must be scrutinized in
someone who is just barely libertarian and frequently threatens
to slide back into the conservative morass.
For those who don't know, libertarians put a great emphasis on
personal freedoms. It should not come as a vague after thought
behind restoring the gold standard, an issue whose libertarian
pedigree is questionable. Libertarians would legalize the use,
production of and trade in all drugs; would repeal all
"victimless" crime laws, including those against sodomy and
prostitution; would keep abortion legal, though not government
subsidized; and otherwise get the government off the backs of
the people. (This phrase has received unfortunate and hypocritical
treatment in the hands of the Reagan administration. Politicians
have a vested interest in preventing real education, otherwise,
they might be understood.)
Russell
Pavan Vohra
>In article <84...@eddie.MIT.EDU>, l...@eddie.MIT.EDU (Lucien Van Elsen) writes:
>pedigree is questionable. Libertarians would legalize the use,
>"victimless" crime laws, including those against sodomy and
>prostitution; would keep abortion legal, though not government
>subsidized; and otherwise get the government off the backs of
>Russell
I think that this is not necessarily so.
I do not wish to address the issue of abortion here, but only to
address whether a libertarian would legalize abortion or not.
Please take the following with that in mind.
This is going to start with "if ..." and will continue through "But
if ...", to a conclusion, so please keep in mind that there is
more than one part to this posting. (Please also keep in mind that the
real poster is not the person named on the account, so that he is not
responsible for any indiscretion that I might inadvertently commit.)
If a libertarian (I cannot speak for Libertarians, i.e. the political
party, for I do not know enough about them; they are little covered in
the press) finds that an abortion (or one type of abortion, or all
abortions) is hurting another person (the other person here is that
which is aborted), then that libertarian would be against the use of
abortion, on principle. This is because, unless I am mistaken, all
libertarians are against things that hurt other people, on principle.
(This is simplifying it somewhat for some libertarians, but I will not
discuss the metaethics of what is considered an object of ethical
behavior here, just as I do not discuss the abortion issue here. For
the moment please take "person" to be that which is a legitimate object
of ethical behavior, and bear with me on that simplification.)
With me so far? By "against" I mean (very roughly) "takes an attitude
toward it that it is wrong and intolerable, according to the
libertarian principle of not hurting other people ..."
Quite a few libertarians are in favor of laws to protect people from
other people hurting them. (Please excuse that bit of grammar; I am
being somewhat specific about who is taking what action.) Most
libertarians are at least not opposed to such laws, and see them as
part of the very few genuine obligations/tasks/mandates/purposes of a
government. Some take such laws to be not only genuine, but
essential.
OK, so we have gotten to the bottom line:
As a result, some libertarians, those who see abortions as hurting
other people, will be in favor of laws that protect against abortions.
That's all that I set out to say in this posting, but we still have a
"But if ... not ..." to go, and a conclusion, too.
But if the libertarian does not see the abortion (or a class of
abortions) as hurting another person, then he will not be against it.
Now, I do not know thousands and thousands of libertarians and their
metaethical views, but I expect that upon lengthy-enough discussion, a
considerable number of them would base whether abortion is hurting
another person or not on factors dealing with the developmental stage
of the child about to be aborted. Probably (and this too is a guess),
many would say that a two-cell child is abortable with no ethical
consequences, and an about-to-be-born child is unabortable, in that the
ethical consequences are intolerable. (Please bear with me on the use
of the word "child" here, if it bothered you; I am trying to use terms
that are descriptive and non-loaded and non-evocative and otherwise
appropriate, all at the same time.)
So where does this leave us? Probably most libertarians are against
some abortions and not against others, depending on developmental
issues. We did not cover the attendant Sorites problem concerning the
implementation of policy. (i.e. the old 'drawing a line is difficult'
problem.) We did not explain the metaethics. We did not cover the
topic of abortion per se. Those issues can mostly be handled in other
newsgroups better than here, probably.
But I hope that I did convince you that it is not necessarily the case
that a libertarian would have all abortions be legal.
Now, if you were referring to some Libertarian Party Platform, or
something like that, then I cannot say. I need to find out more about
the Libertarian Party, if I am going to vote in the next election.
I realize that I am taking the huge risk of starting flame wars here,
because abortion is an extremely loaded, emotional issue. I rely on
the integrity and judgement of this audience not to start or continue
such wars here, but to take them to "whatever.abortion" if they desire
to post about that subject. This posting is perhaps a test to see that
this newsgroup can survive as itself.
Please feel free to reply, but please also remember that I do not wish
to discuss abortion, and also that this is not the newsgroup for that
discussion anyway.
Thanks for your patience in reading this long article.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not Mr. Vohra, and he does not have anything to do with this
posting. The posting is my fault, since I am borrowing his account,
by his kindness, and I would appreciate that
any replies have "KC" in the "Subject" line of the mail.
For example:
Subject: Hey KC! Great article abt. libertarians.
or
Subject: To KC. You jerk, I was talking about ...
--
---
Pavan Vohra {..hplabs|ames|ihnp4|decwrl}!amdahl!vohra
Amdahl Corporation
Sunnyvale, CA 94086-3470
---
William Linden
No argument from _this_ libertarian. A libertarian would oppose
abortion if he considered the initiation of force against another
human being-- and that is precisely what the entire controversy is a
dispute over.
However, the anarchist wing, whatever their personal views on the
subject, might ask how a "law" forbidding something would be enforced
in their ideal libertarian society. It does not lend itself to a
"restitution" approach.
--
Will Linden {sun,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\
Compuserve 72737,2150 {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!wlinden
MCI Mail WLINDEN {portal,well,ihnp4,amdahl}!hoptoad/
John Wallner
>In article <10...@ut-sally.UUCP> tur...@ut-sally.UUCP (Russell Turpin) writes:
>
>If a libertarian (I cannot speak for Libertarians, i.e. the political
>party, for I do not know enough about them; they are little covered in
>the press) finds that an abortion (or one type of abortion, or all
>abortions) is hurting another person (the other person here is that
>which is aborted), then that libertarian would be against the use of
>abortion, on principle. This is because, unless I am mistaken, all
>libertarians are against things that hurt other people, on principle.
The Libertarian Party Platform clearly recognizes the right of any woman
to an abortion. However, the platform also calls for an end to government
subsidies for abortions (and just about everything else, in fact.)
>As a result, some libertarians, those who see abortions as hurting
>other people, will be in favor of laws that protect against abortions.
I believe there is a group called "Libertarians for the rights of the
unborn", or something like that. However, every Libertarian I ever met
agrees with the LP platform on the issue.
>
>But I hope that I did convince you that it is not necessarily the case
>that a libertarian would have all abortions be legal.
Of course you are correct. The LP contains many people, and they do
not all think alike. In fact, the LP presidential candidate, Ron Paul,
has stated that he is personally against abortions, but that he would
follow the letter of the LP platform in this matter.
It is difficult for me to imagine person running for office on the LP
ticket who does not favor legal abortions, but I will admit it is possible.
In my opinion, Ron Paul is the best candidate out there at this time.
--
John D. Wallner |
Bitnet: jwallner@ucsd | Witty comment goes here.
Internet: jwal...@ucsd.edu |
UUCP: ihnp4!ucsd!wallner |
joel s. kollin
I thinks that's the center of the controversy, libertarian philosophy
probably doesn't enter into this determination.
Carl F. Huber
>the Jeffersonian ideal to date.
.
.
>Attacks on civil liberties continue, although with generally limited
>"success". Whenever possible, the administration has eroded freedom
>of speech, the separation of church and state, the right to privacy
Look again, there is no such right guaranteed by the constitution,
either directly or implied.
>and any other guaranteed or implied rights it could get its hands on.
.
.
.
>
>Joel S. Kollin
joel s. kollin
human being. Libertarian philosophy probably has nothign to do with
this determination.
Phil Thrift
>>Attacks on civil liberties continue, although with generally limited
>>"success". Whenever possible, the administration has eroded freedom
>>of speech, the separation of church and state, the right to privacy
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Look again, there is no such right guaranteed by the constitution,
>either directly or implied.
>>and any other guaranteed or implied rights it could get its hands on.
>.
>.
>.
>>
>>Joel S. Kollin
Article IV: "The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated ..."
Article IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Article III: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in
any house, without consent of the Owner ..."
...
In any case, it is arguable that privacy rights are not "implied".
Phil Thrift
Russell Turpin
> So where does this leave us? Probably most libertarians are against
> some abortions and not against others, depending on developmental
> But I hope that I did convince you that it is not necessarily the case
> that a libertarian would have all abortions be legal.
> Pavan Vohra
Different libertarians take different stands on abortion.
Some libertarians, a small minority, take the "pro-life"
position: a fetus is a person, and all persons have a right to
live (libertarian ethical claim), and therefore abortion is
wrong.
Some libertarians do not accept the claim that the fetus is a
person. Others take a mid-way position: that before a certain
developmental stage the fetus is not a person, but that
afterwards he or she is and then deserves legal protection.
Many, perhaps most, libertarians take a stance on abortion that
makes the personhood of the fetus irrelevant to the legal issue.
It goes thusly. Even if the fetus is a person, the mother has an
absolute right to control her own body. Neither the fetus, nor
any other person, has the right to demand the use of the mother's
body for his or her own purposes. Therefore the mother has the
right to "evict" the fetus from her body, even though by doing so
she is depriving it of its life. (As an objectivist would put it:
One has a right to life, but not the right to live at another's
expense.)
I believe this last position is most consistent with libertarian
principles. Notice that this position addresses only the legal
issue of abortion, not the broader ethical issue. It is entirely
consistent with a moral position that holds abortion to be wrong.
As with so many other activities, the libertarian (holding this
position) declares that abortion should remain legal, that no one
should use coercion against those who engage in it, but remains
silent on the question of whether it is right or wrong.
Russell
G Fitch
There is also the question of how much power the state should be given
to control the bodies of its constituents. Preventing abortion by
state power, that is, force, is equivalent to invading the body of
the woman carrying the fetus.
--
G Fitch {uunet}!mstan\
The Big Electric Cat {ihnp4,harvard,philabs}!cmcl2!cucard!dasys1!gf
New York City, NY, USA (212) 879-9031 {sun}!hoptoad/
Bob Bickford
(Excellent non-emotional summary of positions of libertarians
on abortion.)
>Now, if you were referring to some Libertarian Party Platform, or
>something like that, then I cannot say. I need to find out more about
>the Libertarian Party, if I am going to vote in the next election.
Speaking only as myself, and not in any official capacity with
the Party, I can say that the California Platform waffles on the
issue, precisely because the question ("When does abortion become
an aggression against a human being?") is such a difficult one.
Mostly, we consider it wrong, but more importantly we consider that
government money shouldn't be used for it even if it's "right".
Many Libertarians are Pro-Choice, just as many are Pro-Life. As
I say, it's a tough issue.
Ron Paul, our Presidential candidate, is a doctor, an obstetrician.
He is personally opposed, but acknowledges that the National Platform
is not opposed to abortions.
If I had a copy of the Platform, I'd quote it at you. Unfortunately,
it seems to be buried. Hence my "unofficial" posting.
Bob Bickford
DON'T WASTE YOUR VOTE
by Steven J. Alexander
Many people hear about the Libertarian Party and say "I don't want to
waste my vote." That's quite understandable and commendable; voting is
the second most important thing in a free country like ours.
But what does it mean when we say "don't waste your vote?" How should
we vote so it won't be wasted?
We waste money when we spend it for something we did not really want.
We waste time when we use it for an activity that doesn't do us any good.
We waste our breath when we talk to somebody without convincing him. How do
we waste our vote?
Some people say "I won't waste my vote on Jones because he has no
chance to win." Does this make sense? Is voting a matter of predicting the
winners?
In 1984, Mondale ran for president and got 37 million votes. Everyone
knew that Reagan would be reelected. Did those millions of Americans who
voted for Mondale all waste their votes? What should they have done?
In 1976, Reagan and Ford were competing for the presidential
nomination. The Republican Party chose Ford because they "knew" Reagan had
no chance to win.
Ford lost. Four years later, Reagan won. Do we really know who has no
chance to win?
In 1948, everyone "knew" that Harry Truman had no chance to win. He
was way behind in the polls. Yet Truman won. Did the people who voted
for Truman waste their votes? Did the people who voted against Truman
waste their votes?
But why should we vote for somebody just because he (or she) is going
to win? Do we get a prize if we can guess the winner ahead of time?
People who voted for Reagan got a prize: four more years of Reagan.
People who voted for Mondale got ... four more years of Reagan. People who
voted for David Bergland, the Libertarian candidate for president, got four
more years of Reagan.
No matter how we voted, we got the same thing. Even nonvoters got the
same thing. Voting is not like horse racing; guessing right doesn't change
the payoff.
Some people say "I won't waste my vote on Jones because my vote
couldn't help him win; he's too far behind." Does this make sense? Does a
vote for one candidate have more value than a vote for another candidate?
In most congressional districts, the incumbent almost always wins. In
some cases, nobody even challenges the incumbent. We waste our votes if we
vote for the incumbent; he has no chance to lose! Our vote has no effect on
the outcome of that election.
Let's imagine a more even election campaign of Smith versus Smythe
versus Jones. In a poll, the month before the vote, Smith gets 45%, Smythe
gets 40%, and Jones (the Libertarian) gets 15%.
Jones has no chance to win, right? A vote for Jones is wasted because
it can't save his campaign. Instead, we should vote for Smith or Smythe
because that could tip the balance. Right?
Wrong. How often does a candidate win by one vote? How often does one
vote tip the balance? The only case I know was Tom Tryon in Calaveras
County. He became county supervisor by one vote. Tom Tryon is a
Libertarian.
If the election goes 45-40-15 like the poll, Smith will win no matter
how we vote. He will win by thousands or millions of votes. A vote for
Jones is no more wasted than a vote for Smythe; both of them lost, or a
vote for Smith, who can win with or without us.
This is depressing. Why should we vote at all? We don't get a special
prize for picking the winner, nor can we individually determine the outcome
of an election.
Let's try a different approach. Why do we vote? What does it mean? Why
do we have elections? Most people know the difference between elections and
horse races. They don't vote just to pick the winners. They study the
issues and vote to help decide the future of our country. They say "I don't
want to waste my vote, I want it to have the most effect for the good of
society."
Elections serve two purposes. First they decide which candidates will
hold office. Second they inform those officeholders as to the wishes of
the people. Also, let's remember that we have elections every year, and we
all get to vote over and over again. A voting strategy should focus on the
long term trends. Sometimes, during a campaign, we think that the world
ends on election day. Actually, the election merely sets the foundation for
the future, including the election after it.
Let's imagine the election campaign of Smith versus Smythe versus
Jones. Smith and Smythe are close in the polls with Jones trailing behind.
Smith and Smythe each have a chance to win. Jones has "no chance to win."
(We think.)
Who should get our vote?
Let's add some details to the example. Suppose we agree with most of
Jones's positions and a few of Smythe's positions. On the other hand, we
believe Smith is wrong on all counts. Are these facts relevant to our
choice?
Smythe has the best chance to beat Smith, so we could vote for Smythe
to avoid letting Smith win. This is the "lesser of two evils" strategy. It
minimizes our chances of a very bad outcome, but it also minimizes our
chances of a very good outcome. No guts, no glory. We waste money when we
spend it for something we didn't really want. Do we waste our vote that
way?
Jones has the beliefs and principles closest to our own, so we could
vote for Jones to best reflect our opinion. This is the "vote your
conscience" or the "send a message" strategy. It means we are voting for
somebody who is unlikely to win, but we hope to build a foundation for
long term improvement in society. Which strategy should we use? Which
strategy will have the most effect for the good of society? (We could vote
for Smith and hope he changes his views, but that's a risky approach.)
The important part of elections is not just who wins, but also what he
(or she) does in office. If our choice wins, will that have the most effect
for the good of society?
If we choose Smythe, the lesser of two evils, and he wins, what will
he do? Will he emphasize the issues we agree on, or will he emphasize the
positions we don't like? Will he try to attract voters from Smith's camp by
adopting some of Smith's positions? We waste time when we use it for an
activity that doesn't do us any good. If our candidate wins, and we live to
regret it, have we wasted our vote?
No politician thinks of himself as the lesser of two evils.
Politicians tend to think of themselves as statesmen and historic figures.
They assume that their victories mean mandates and their opponents'
victories are aberrations. Yet our elections are heavily focused on
choosing officeholders and not on discovering the wishes of the people. If
voting our conscience is not fashionable, can we expect integrity from our
officeholders? If our voting strategies don't look beyond the election, can
we expect our officeholders to care about anything besides the next
election?
Let's remember that elections come every year. Do we want to vote for
the lesser of two evils every year, year after year, for our whole lives?
If Smythe wins elections every time, he has no reason to change. We waste
our breath when we talk to somebody without convincing him. Smythe can get
our vote without heeding our wishes. He just has to strive to always be the
second worst candidate.
This is not what democracy was meant to be. Is that a wasted vote?
If we choose Jones, and vote our conscience, several things happen.
First, he probably loses anyway. Smith or Smythe are elected. But the
election does more than choose a winner. It sends a message to the winner
as to the wishes of the people. He is bound to notice those people who
stood up and were counted for Jones. They didn't expect Jones to win, but
they held strong beliefs and were true to them.
A voter who is steadfast and true to his or her beliefs will
eventually win. A shortsighted voter who compromises for crumbs of the
victor's banquet will have only stale crumbs to show for a lifetime of
trying.
No Libertarian yet has been elected to national office or California
state office. Yet, in the years since the party was formed, gold ownership
became legal, military draft ended, proposition 13 passed and the tax
revolt began, Reagan cut taxes, airlines were deregulated, banks were
deregulated, railroads were deregulated, and trucking was deregulated.
We didn't do any of it. It was done by the Smiths and Smythes of the
major parties. They know what it means when someone votes Libertarian. It
means that ten more people wanted to, but thought it would waste their
votes.
Voting Libertarian does us more good than the tally tells. It
convinces the major parties to pay heed to our principles. It is not a
wasted vote. The waste is to live a life in a free society, where we can
speak and vote freely, and to have never spoken our minds.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Yudkowsky
>[The Libertarian pres. candidate wants to...]
>>3) Maximize personal freedom of expression, lifestyle, etc., by
>> getting the government "the hell out of the way".
>
>interfering with my freedom of expression and lifestyle?
>
>Dan B.
Try buying or using a recreational drug. Here in the State of
Illinois, it is illegal to even think about cocaine, but it _is_
taxed (I swear, I'm not making this up!).
Maybe you don't like drugs -- I don't -- but try committing sodomy
in whatever state that was, or try something else the gov't doesn't
like. They've got a long list...
Try manicuring someone's nails without a license. Try taking an
experimental medication. Yes, there are lots of problems.
A name? Must you judge me on a notion so nominal?
Disclaimer: Surely you jest...
--
Moshe Yudkowsky mo...@ihnet.att.com ihnp4!ihnet!moshe
AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois
(312) 979-5192 8-367-5192
Stephen Carrier
I am sympathetic to this position thought I don't entirely agree with
it.
I am tired of hearing the refrain:
A fetus is a human being! No it isn't! Yes it is! No it isn't! Yes
it is! No it isn't! Yes it is! No it isn't! Yes it is!
We _know_ what a fetus is, more or less. Whether or not an n-week fetus
is a human being is an entirely arbitrary matter, unless you care to
define `human being' and if your definition is `human zygote past the
age of x days' or `having an adult human's right-to-life' then you are
either begging an answer or begging the question.
The real question is: Does the mother (father, mother's mother, some
judge, etc.) have the legitimate power of deciding life and death for a
human fetus. (It is disingenuous to consider the fetus non-human. What
else could it be? A fish?)
At issue is what options should people be allowed in regulating the
introduction of new humans to the community of human beings. (Here
simply defined as beings whose life is legally protected.) There needs
to be some convention because lo and behold there are new humans
appearing all the time, and some line of demarcation is necessary. It
is ridiculous to push this line to pre-zygote time, although it could
be done, and in a sense this is the traditional Catholic interpretation
of `be fruitful and multiply.' What I mean is don't waste your time
doing other things when you could be raising a family. In a sense, not
raising a family is `killing potential children' that would exist if
you were raising a family. This seems absurd to me. On the other hand,
killing your children after they have reached their majority and are no
longer financially dependent on you seems wrong too. (I am being a
little bit facetious, but am trying to make a real point.)
I am only trying to clarify what the issue is in unemotional terms.
Here is a continuum of answers to the basic question:
0. You have no right to be doing anything except maximizing the number
of offspring born.
1. Be fruitful and multiply, but use some common sense. Maximize the
number of offspring that live to their majority.
2. Abstinence. Children are the natural result of sex, so accept the
child or give up sex. In other words, no contraception.
3. Contraception, but no Abortion.
4. Abortion, first tri-mester only.
5. Abortion, until such time as the fetus can live on its own. Then it
is the obligation of the medical profession to keep it alive after the
mother has evicted it from her body.
6. Infanticide.
7. Killing your toddlers. (Perhaps you don't have enough food for
toddler and the older children too. I claim that every practice on this
list is morally defensible in some circumstances, and has been
practiced with some frequency in the history of human experience.)
8. Killing your teenage son or daughter because they are ungrateful
belligerant dangerous pains in the ass. (I need to provide rationales
for these last two because they seem so obviously wrong to modern
sensibilities. I think this was a not unusual occurence in medieval
europe.)
9. Kill your adult child because you don't like his looks. (No defense
forthcoming, at least from me.)
This is a continuum, although (2) is a little moralistic, just because
sex has historically been a great motivator for reproduction, so the
advocates of (1) want to keep sex on their side. I include (0) and (9)
for absurdity's sake.
Reactions?
Abortion is the type of social question that can't be resolved by
appeal to axiomatics, (unless an answer is taken as axiomatic, in which
case there is nothing to discuss.) That is my main point. There is no
`libertarian' answer to this question. I think compromise is
necessary. I think the way it is now in the United States if fine,
because the opposition mostly is a bunch of reactionaries who are using
abortion as a stalking horse for an anti-religious-and-other-freedoms
agenda that _is_ clearly wrong on libertarian grounds. (I'm not making
friends, am I?)
Now I could cross-post this to talk.abortion, but then all those
incoherent screamers would come down on alt.individualism, and I would
never deserve to be forgiven. Also, I am more interested in the
opinions of alt.individualism readers anyways.
So: in responding, try to be calm and reasoning. I will also post this
to talk.abortion but will conceal the fact that abortion is being
discussed in alt.indy, which is brand-new and vulnerable to takeover by
monomaniacs. Flames to talk.abortion.
Stephen Carrier
ucbvax!bosco!carrier
Steve Price
> In article <21...@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> jo...@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (joel s. kollin) writes:
>
> 8. Killing your teenage son or daughter because they are ungrateful
> belligerant dangerous pains in the ass. (I need to provide rationales
> for these last two because they seem so obviously wrong to modern
> sensibilities. I think this was a not unusual occurence in medieval
> europe.)
>
> 9. Kill your adult child because you don't like his looks. (No defense
> forthcoming, at least from me.)
>
Deuteronomy 21: 18-21
"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice
of his father or the voice of his mother, and that when they have chastened
him, will not hearken unto them:
Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out
unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn
and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so
shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear and fear."
I don't mean to turn this into talk.religion, but in pursuing Libertarian
ideals, we need to be realistic about our cultural baggage. We live in a
world where for generations untold male adults assumed an absolute life
and death power over their dependents. This not only included fetuses,
but as the text shows, "children" of quite advanced age.
The Libertarian often feels that the rightness of fairly radical individual
freedom should be "obvious" to all. But the larger culture's history is one
of radical tribal and group control over individuals. In the Old Testament
world view the rebellious son's right-to-life was of less weight than his
parent's duty to enforce proper respect for the group and obedience to
authority. In fact, in the Old Testament world-view, Libertarian
individualism would probably be among the most serious conceivable assult upon
all that is of value. The penalty for that is laid out above.
Remember that when politicans and preachers call for a "return" to the
"old values".
Steve Price
pacbell!pbhyf!rsp
"Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the mainhood of everyone of its
members." -- R.W. Emerson
Mike Van Pelt
>
> >The whole controversy comes down to whether or when a fetus becomes a
> >human being. Libertarian philosophy probably has nothign to do with
> >this determination.
>
> is a human being is an entirely arbitrary matter, unless you care to
> define `human being' and if your definition is `human zygote past the
> age of x days' or `having an adult human's right-to-life' then you are
> either begging an answer or begging the question.
>
is human, but has no right to foist himself off on the mother. The same
argument applies equally to toddlers, which, by the same logic, could
be dumped off by the side of the road like excess puppies. (Of course,
people do this, too, from time to time.)
We need some line. Viability is the line that the Supreme Court has
drawn, but this is more a matter of medical technology than any intrinsic
property of the fetus. An early reasonable line would be the point at
which the fetus has brain activity and/or a heartbeat. This is especially
attractive to me because of the symmetry with how we determine death.
Later lines might involve some particular level of brain development.
But that line needs to be there. Some quite respectable people have
advocated allowing infantcide up to 2 years. At the bottom of that
slippery slope lies Auschwitz.
From a libertarian standpoint (I have a great deal of sympathy for
the libertarian viewpoint, though I'm not likely to join the
Libertarian party) the fetus hardly had any say in arriving at the position
he is in. It seems to me that, if the fetus is human, an abortion
must certainly qualify as "Initiation of force".
--
Mike Van Pelt ..uunet!ubvax!unisv!vanpelt
William Linden
>Here is a continuum of answers to the basic question:
>
>6. Infanticide.
I honestly can't see this as a ground for distinction between 5) and
6). A newborn infant can not "live on its own" without life support
provided by others. The "right of abortion" comes at least dangerously
close to saying that one has a right to kill those who are completely
dependant on one.
And note that abandonment of unwanted infants was taken for granted
by the classical cultures we consider civilized.
>I think the way it is now in the United States if fine,
doing various evial things. Careful with the ad hominem. Even
ignoring the egregrious generalization involved, is it reasonable or
even safe to reject anything which might find us agreeing with The Bad
Guys? Try substituting "The opposition to X is mainly a bunch of
crypto-Communists who are, etc."
>Now I could cross-post this to talk.abortion, but then all those
>incoherent screamers would come down on alt.individualism, and I would
>never deserve to be forgiven.
David Hawkins
>>
>The medieval child-killers had some interesting "sacred" justification:
>
>I don't mean to turn this into talk.religion, but in pursuing Libertarian
>ideals, we need to be realistic about our cultural baggage. We live in a
>world where for generations untold male adults assumed an absolute life
>and death power over their dependents. This not only included fetuses,
>but as the text shows, "children" of quite advanced age.
>
>The Libertarian often feels that the rightness of fairly radical individual
>freedom should be "obvious" to all. But the larger culture's history is one
>of radical tribal and group control over individuals.
>
replaces the right of the tribe/group to kill with the power of the
individual. Rand states that man (her term) only has a right to exist
as a reasoning being, and then gives the example by having Dagny shoot
the guard because he refused to make a rational choice. (And that
Dagny would have regretted shooting an animal, but felt no remorse
over shooting this human.) The consistent structure of Objectivism
allows the individual to be accusor, judge, and executor. If you say
that human life is only different from other animal life by its power
of reason then you get to decide whether a human is reasoning and
decide if it gets to live.
[Some argue that the guard was 'choosing' suicide (in contradiction
to Rand's description of the event) in which case Dagny was shooting
a reasoning being.]
Anyway, if you're going to argue for extreme individualism then you
need something more explicit than 'we value life' as a guideline. And
still recognize that as a group you can't decide how an individual is
going to interpret that or act it out.
--
David Hawkins {pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax}!well!dhawk
Faith is never identical with piety. -- Karl Barth
Robert Brooks
>5. Abortion, until such time as the fetus can live on its own. Then it
>is the obligation of the medical profession to keep it alive after the
>mother has evicted it from her body.
>
>6. Infanticide.
Whoa! This is supposed to be a continuum and you omitted abortion up
to and including immediately prior to birth? In fact, this is my own
position, since consciousness and volition are essential to personhood
and both begin at birth. Consciousness (conceptual thought, in this
context), is dependent upon sensory input and meaningful sensory input
does not begin until birth. Prior to birth the fetus is totally
dependent on the mother; afterward, the baby possesses some volition
(eg. cries when hungry).
Laura Creighton
worse than having only one party. Is it really true that American
voting machines allow one to vote for ``Democrats only'' or ``Republicans
only'' at the turn of a handle? How disheartening. If you can turn
politics into the battle of the ``good guys'' versus the ``bad guys''
or the ``dark empire'' versus the ``young rebels'' you oversimplify
most of the challenge out of government. But, of course, you get
elected more often that way...
--
God: I am sending this body back to the shop. I know that it is no longer
under warranty. I just want it fixed.
Laura Creighton
uunet!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura to...@toad.com
James Wilbur Lewis
>In article <77...@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> car...@maypo.UUCP (Stephen Carrier) writes:
>>Here is a continuum of answers to the basic question:
>>5. Abortion, until such time as the fetus can live on its own....
>>
>>6. Infanticide.
>I honestly can't see this as a ground for distinction between 5) and
>6). A newborn infant can not "live on its own" without life support
>provided by others. The "right of abortion" comes at least dangerously
>close to saying that one has a right to kill those who are completely
>dependant on one.
In case 5, the only person who can support the fetus is the mother,
who may not have consented to the situation. In case 6, the infant
could be put up for adoption by someone (anyone!) who *does* consent to support
the child.
How about this scheme: we allow abortion on demand during (say) the first
trimester, or alternatively before the embryo develops the usual signs of life
(brain activity, heartbeat...)
A woman who allows the pregnancy to continue past this stage of development
can be considered to have consented to support the now-human fetus, as
long as the pregnancy proceeds without complications. (She knew (or
*should* have known) she was pregnant, had the chance to abort the pregnancy
earlier, before the embryo developed into a living being, but didn't.) At
this point we would require some compelling reason (as opposed to "I changed
my mind and don't want to have it anymore", but certainly allowing "the
continuation of this pregnancy would endanger the mother's health") to allow
an abortion. For example, one might consider allowing an abortion in a case
where a massive birth defect went unnoticed until late in the pregnancy. This
is akin to euthanasia; the abortion is not for the mother's convenience but to
prevent what will probably be a short, painful, miserable life for the fetus.
The complication is that the fetus/infant is incapable of rationally deciding
to end its own life, as an adult might in a similar situation (a cancer
patient, say.....) Some libertarians have suggested the following criterion
for humans who are for some reason incapable of rational decision-making:
forbid any act against the child (or whoever) which a rational human being
would not consent to. This neatly solves the problem of allowing abortions,
but not gratuitous infanticide.
-- Jim Lewis
U.C. Berkeley
Timothy Freeman
>In fact, the LP presidential candidate, Ron Paul,
>has stated that he is personally against abortions, but that he would
>follow the letter of the LP platform in this matter.
*** Sarcasm On ***
This is great! The Libertarian Party presidential candidate is
allowing the Libertarian Party to dictate his opinions. If the
Libertarian Party by some miracle manages to take over the government,
will they still try to dictate people's opinions?
There must be enough libertarians reading this newsgroup to answer
this question: Does libertarianism preach that one should act as an
individual, or is this only a good idea when you agree with the
Libertarian Party?
*** Sarcasm Off ***
Seriously, can anyone out their give some coherent explanation of what
Libertarianism is that makes it "morally correct" for the Libertarian
Party to dictate the opinions of their presidential candidate?
Maybe something is wrong with their principles if they have to violate
them to run a candidate for president?
--
Tim Freeman
Arpanet: t...@theory.cs.cmu.edu
Uucp: ...!seismo!theory.cs.cmu.edu!tsf
Richard Segal
>Different libertarians take different stands on abortion.
All I'd like to say is that different libertarians take different stands on
every subject known to man. There are those whose stances can be seen as Left
Wing or Right Wing or Anarchist or Facist or Minarchist or whatever else you
might like to describe.
Personally, I lean towards Laissez-Faire Capitalism myself, but I know many who
disagree with me. Go to Laissez Faire Books in NYC and ask them about different
points of view. I'm sure they have many.
Hail Eris, All Hail Discordia.
Slack,
Jailbait
--
Richard Segal
Big Electric Cat Public UNIX
..!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!jailbait
James Wilbur Lewis
>
>[Ron Paul agrees to follow the LP platform on abortion, even though he
> is against it personally]
>
>Seriously, can anyone out their give some coherent explanation of what
>Libertarianism is that makes it "morally correct" for the Libertarian
>Party to dictate the opinions of their presidential candidate?
Nobody is dictating anyone else's opinion. I'm sure Ron Paul hasn't
changed his mind about abortion (how could anyone *make* him change his
mind?), but it seems reasonable that he would choose to follow the
LP on this issue to gain the support of more Libertarians.
>Maybe something is wrong with their principles if they have to violate
>them to run a candidate for president?
The defining characteristic of libertarianism is the non-coercion principle;
one should not initiate the use of force or fraud. Since I assume no one
put a gun to Ron Paul's head, or lied to him to get him to run, I can't
see how his decision to run on a platform he partially disagrees with
could be construed as a violation of the Libertarian Party's principles.
Timothy Freeman
>Nobody is dictating anyone else's opinion. I'm sure Ron Paul hasn't
>changed his mind about abortion (how could anyone *make* him change his
>mind?), but it seems reasonable that he would choose to follow the
>LP on this issue to gain the support of more Libertarians.
Okay, it seems that I was assigning a different meaning to things than
you were. What is the difference between "Ron Paul following the LP" and
"Ron Paul pretending he agrees with the LP", in terms of what actually
happens?
Robert Brooks
>replaces the right of the tribe/group to kill with the power of the
>individual. Rand states that man (her term) only has a right to exist
>as a reasoning being, and then gives the example by having Dagny shoot
>the guard because he refused to make a rational choice. (And that
>Dagny would have regretted shooting an animal, but felt no remorse
>over shooting this human.) The consistent structure of Objectivism
>allows the individual to be accusor, judge, and executor. If you say
>of reason then you get to decide whether a human is reasoning and
>decide if it gets to live.
>--
>David Hawkins {pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax}!well!dhawk
Please provide a reference for this. I don't recall reading anything
about a guard being shot in _Atlas_Shrugged_, and what you are saying
isn't at all consistent with my understanding of Objectivism.
John Wallner
>"Ron Paul pretending he agrees with the LP", in terms of what actually
>happens?
A clarification: Ron Paul, in an interview given before he won the LP's
nomination, was asked about his views on abortion. He stated that he was
against it, but the LP platform was NOT against it. He went on to
explain that in any campaign appearances, he would state both his own
opinion and the position of the LP platform.
--
John D. Wallner
Bitnet: jwallner@ucsd
Internet: jwal...@ucsd.edu
UUCP: ihnp4!ucsd!wallner
Liudvikas Bukys
a lack of understanding of the jargon.
In pol-talk, "personally opposed" means, in English,
"I don't care but I want to try to slide by the consciences of those who do."
Matthew Grgurich
>trimester, or alternatively before the embryo develops the usual signs of life
>(brain activity, heartbeat...)
>
>A woman who allows the pregnancy to continue past this stage of development
>can be considered to have consented to support the now-human fetus, as
Just a pointer here.
Why the line drawn after conception? How about A COUPLE (it takes two) who
have sex without a completely failsafe BCD can be considered to have consented
to support the human fetus...
To call a day old fetus something else and use that name in a definition
which "proves" the fetus isn't human is false rationalization. A fertilized
egg IS human. It is not something that will BECOME human.
Matt Grgurich Throw me my asbestos suit! Quick!
Jorge Gautier
>Unfortunately individualism, at least in the guide of Objectivism,
>replaces the right of the tribe/group to kill with the power of the
>individual. Rand states that man (her term) only has a right to exist
>as a reasoning being, and then gives the example by having Dagny shoot
>the guard because he refused to make a rational choice.
Would you care to give the reference for this? The above point of view
is definitely NOT projected in the Rand essays that I have read. She
has said that the only moral existence is as a reasoning being, but nowhere
I have read that it is the only rightful existence.
---
Jorge Gautier @ Wisconsin, gau...@cs.wisc.edu
"The fact that my internal arrangement differs from yours, doctor,
pleases me without end."
Robert Brooks
>Unfortunately individualism, at least in the guide of Objectivism,
>replaces the right of the tribe/group to kill with the power of the
>individual. Rand states that man (her term) only has a right to exist
>as a reasoning being, and then gives the example by having Dagny shoot
>Dagny would have regretted shooting an animal, but felt no remorse
>over shooting this human.) The consistent structure of Objectivism
>allows the individual to be accusor, judge, and executor. If you say
>that human life is only diGtrent from other animal life by its power
>of reason then you get to decide whether a human is reasoning and
>decide if it gets to live.
...
>--
>David Hawkins {pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax}!well!dhawk
Please provide a reference for this. I don't recall reading anything
about a guard being shot in _Atlas_Shrugged_, and what you are saying
isn't at all consistent with my understanding of Objectivism.
----------
Laura Creighton
>This is great! The Libertarian Party presidential candidate is
>allowing the Libertarian Party to dictate his opinions. If the
>Libertarian Party by some miracle manages to take over the government,
>will they still try to dictate people's opinions?
You are making a whole lot of assumptions here. Can we stop and
unbundle some of them? This is not a defence of Ron Paul (about whom
I have some serious misgivings) nor the Libertarian Party. The first
thing to consider is not that the Libertarian Party has dictated
Ron Paul's opinions, but rather have dictated *which* opinions they
desire him to try to make into law.
Now, whether you think that Ron Paul has made an agreeable compromise
or is a hypocrite for agreeing to support the Libertarian Party
Platform says a lot about how you feel about party politics in general.
I suspect, like me, that you are fundamentally opposed to the entire idea
of a political party. If so, you have a serious problem.
>There must be enough libertarians reading this newsgroup to answer
>this question: Does libertarianism preach that one should act as an
>individual, or is this only a good idea when you agree with the
>Libertarian Party?
Okay. Two distictions have to be made here. First of all, there are
small-l Libertarians, and big-L Libertarians. The big L is the
political party. All the big-L Libertarians I know also call
themselves little-l libertarians, except for those who call themselves
anarchists or Objectivists. A whole lot of small-l libertarians do
not call themselves Libertarians, and are *not* registered Libertarians.
Some of them are registered Democrats and Republicans.
It is akin to the difference between calling oneself a liberal versus
voting for the Liberal Party in Canadian elections. (Though in
Canada it is truly weird, where nearly all of the people I know in
Canada who also call themselves liberal, vote for the NDP (New
Democrat Party))
Sorry to harp on terminology, but it is very important if we are not
to go talking at cross-purposes and utterly missing each other. Okay.
Now that we have the terminology straight...
It makes about as much sense to talk about ``libertarianism preaching''
as ``Marxism preaches'' or ``liberalism instructs us''. libertarianism,
the philosophy, does not get up and do any preaching. Individual libertarians
do. Now, if you hang out with any Marxists, you will soon discover that
a common conversation pattern goes ``Marx said X. Lenin said Y. Trotsky
said Z. Stalin said U. Which is the true Marxism.'' After an evening
of this you discover that while this is a fun game to play, it does
absolutely nothing to determine what the one true Marxism is. Wisely,
nearly all of the Marxists have come to terms with the idea that there
are lots of types of Marxism.
The Libertarians, unfortunately, are still working it out. At one time
most of the libertarians in existance were students of Ayn Rand. This
is no longer the case -- the bulk of Rand's students call themselves
Objectivists and think that the Libertarians and most of the libertarians
are lacking in moral principles.
By now, unless you are bored to tears, you will get the point that while
I will tell you what the bulk of libertarians I know believe in, and
sometimes what I believe in, even if it contradicts what the bulk of
libertarians I know believe in, I cannot speak for all libertarians.
No doubt the ones who disagree with me will speak for themselves. :-)
Okay. Now. All libertarians I know think that one must act as an
individual. Indeed, they insist that it is impossible to not act
as an individual. It is an inescapable fact of existence. However,
while this has great epistemological significance, it says absolutely
nothing about whether one should ever agree to do something which one
thinks is morally wrong. libertarianism is silent (or at least
divided into an infinity of factions) on the issue. The Libertarian
Party, in contrast, is formed of individuals who think that you should
act to further the Libertarian Party platform.
Now, all registered Libertarians think that, as individuals, you should
do what is morally correct, and what is correct is not defined as
``what the Libertarian Party says''. Rather, they are Libertarians
because they think that what the Libertarian Party stands for is mostly
correct.
Aha! You wonder. How do they swallow the parts where they think that
the party is wrong? Well, you see, they fall into two groups. There is
the pragmatic group that says that if anything other than the Libertarian
Party is elected, I will get, say, a government formed by a party where
I agree with, perhaps at most 20% of what they propose to do. If the
Libertarian party is elected, I will get more than 60% of what I agree
with. The 40% will still rankle, but it would be such a big improvement
on the status quo that it is worth endorsing the entire Party platform.
The other group blindly ignores the platform, still calls themselves
Libertarian, and goes about telling other people that the Libertarian
Party believes X when in fact the platform says Q. There are a lot
of these folks around. Personally, I would like to stike them dumb
and unable to type for a year or so, but, seeing as that is implausible
(but, boy, what a way to deal with fraud!) we are just going to have to
endure it, and constantly point out the difference between libertarianism
and Libertarianism.
>Tim Freeman
>
>Arpanet: t...@theory.cs.cmu.edu
>Uucp: ...!seismo!theory.cs.cmu.edu!tsf
--
The universe is erxpanding, but I still can't find a parking space.
David Hawkins
>> (Hawkins):
>>Unfortunately individualism, at least in the guide of Objectivism,
>>replaces the right of the tribe/group to kill with the power of the
>>If you say
>>that human life is only different from other animal life by its power
>>of reason then you get to decide whether a human is reasoning and
>>decide if it gets to live.
>about a guard being shot in _Atlas_Shrugged_, and what you are saying
>isn't at all consistent with my understanding of Objectivism.
Rand starts defining ethics in _The Virtue of Selfishness" with:
"An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers
its life is the good, that which threatens it is evil."
So now she starts a series of substitutions without explaining them or
working through the process of why these are valid substitutions. Her
final statement: "The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics--the
standard by which one judges what is good or evil--is man's life, or:
that which is required for man's survival _qua_ man."
So the result is that man has to survive as man -- as a reasoning
being. So ethics now only applies to furthering the life of a
reasoning being.
This was the justification in Dagny's killing the guard
while rescuing John Galt--"Calmly and impersonally, she, who
would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger
and fired straight at the heart of a man who wanted to exist
without the responsibility of consciousness." _Atlas Shrugged_, p. 1066
in my paperback copy. That's the problem with Rand's system:
you get to be accuser, judge, and executioner. Rand doesn't
base this passage on force vrs. force, but on the man's not being
human because he refused to make a choice.
"The most depraved sentence you can now utter is to ask:
_Whose_ reason? The answer is _Yours_ . . . your mind is your only
judge of truth--and if others dissent from your verdict, reality is
the court of final appeal." [Atlas Shrugged, page. 1017.] I don't
see the difference between this and pure subjectivity. If reason is
decided by the individual then it's subjective--it's related to the
subject. If the individual decides to go around killing mystics with
Rand's ethical system as her/his basis then who's to disagree? It's
clearly in there as a part of the whole system of thought.
This does tie in with Rand's views on abortion: "An embyro _has no
rights._ Rights do not pertain to a _potential_, only to an _actual_
being." Ayn Rand, _The Objectivist_, October 1968, p. 6.
You could argue that Rand intended for children to have some rights,
but you'd have to find an example where she listed what they would be.
But another arguement would be that they had no rights until they
became reasoning beings. (That opens up another can of worms since
Rand claimed that you had to choose to become a reasoning/conscious
being--quite a task for an unreasoning being.) 8-)
--
David Hawkins {pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax}!well!dhawk
Carole Ashmore
> The complication is that the fetus/infant is incapable of rationally deciding
> to end its own life, as an adult might in a similar situation (a cancer
> patient, say.....) Some libertarians have suggested the following criterion
> for humans who are for some reason incapable of rational decision-making:
> forbid any act against the child (or whoever) which a rational human being
> would not consent to. This neatly solves the problem of allowing abortions,
> but not gratuitous infanticide.
>
> -- Jim Lewis
> U.C. Berkeley
Hmmm. Have you spent much time around children? As a libertarian and
a mother let me suggest that it is impossible to keep a two year old
alive by applying only measures that would be consented to by a
rational human being. Two year olds must be kept virtually imprisoned
with virtually no privacy in order to keep them alive. No matter how
kind, loving, and in favor of freedom the parents are they must either
keep their child imprisoned in a safe 'childproofed' environment or be
with her constantly, constantly removing objects from her grasp and
constantly preventing her from entering wonderful and interesting
places like busy streets. They will not allow her to eat what she
wants, to forgo painful medical procedures, to associate with people
of her own choice, etc, etc, etc.
What to do about children, particularly other people's children, is
the single most morally difficult problem facing libertarians and it
can't be solved with trivial logic.
Carole Ashmore
William Linden
>Please provide a reference for this. I don't recall reading anything
>about a guard being shot in _Atlas_Shrugged_, and what you are saying
>isn't at all consistent with my understanding of Objectivism.
This is from the last chapter. For context, Dagny and the others are
there to rescue Galt from the minions of Ferris who are torturing him
(and if that ain't initiation of force, I'm a Trot...)
"But I _can't_ decide! Why me?"
"Because it's _your_ body that's barring my way."
"But I can't decide! I'm not _supposed_ to decide!"
"I'll count to three," she said. "Then I'll shoot."
"Wait! Wait! I haven't said yes or no!" he cried, cringing tighter
against the door, as if immobility of mind and body were his best
protection.
"One__" she counted; she could see his eyes staring at her in
terror--"Two--" she could see that the gun held less terror for him
than the alternative she offered___ "Three."
Calmly and impersonally, she, who would have hesitted to fire at an
animal, pulled the trigger and fired straight at the heart of a man
who had wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness."
James Wilbur Lewis
>In article <23...@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, j...@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis) writes:
>> Some libertarians have suggested the following criterion
>> for humans who are for some reason incapable of rational decision-making:
>> forbid any act against the child (or whoever) which a rational human being
>> would not consent to.
>
>a mother let me suggest that it is impossible to keep a two year old
>alive by applying only measures that would be consented to by a
>behaviour necessary to keep him out of harm's way...]
Why are such restrictive measures necessary? For the child's own good,
right? If the child were a rational agent s/he would accept reasonable
restrictions such as the ones you mentioned, since the child is ill-equipped
to deal with an unfamiliar, hostile environment like a busy street.
I think most people would agree that it is in the child's best interests
for a parent to forbid playing in traffic, even if this involves physical
restraint, or appropriate punishment for breaking the rule. Most people
would probably *not* agree that locking a kid in a closet for a year is
an appropriate punishment. This is what I meant by forbidding treatment
which a rational agent would not consent to...perhaps I should have clarified
my use of "rational", which I take to mean "acting in one's own best
interests". A usually-rational person who suffers from intermittent psychotic
episodes might, for example, decide to commit himself to a mental hospital for
treatment, even though his freedom would be restricted in certain ways to
protect him and the people around him.
>What to do about children, particularly other people's children, is
>the single most morally difficult problem facing libertarians and it
>can't be solved with trivial logic.
> Carole Ashmore
Perhaps this is a gray area as far as morality (or perhaps a better term would
be "ideological purity") is concerned....I believe the viewpoint I'm espousing
has a lot of pragmatic advantages in its favor, and is ideologically
sound (if perhaps not optimum) with respect to libertarian sensibilities.
Robert Brooks
>Rand starts defining ethics in _The Virtue of Selfishness" with:
>"An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers
>its life is the good, that which threatens it is evil."
>
>So now she starts a series of substitutions without explaining them or
>working through the process of why these are valid substitutions. Her
>final statement: "The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics--the
>standard by which one judges what is good or evil--is man's life, or:
>that which is required for man's survival _qua_ man."
>So the result is that man has to survive as man -- as a reasoning
>being. So ethics now only applies to furthering the life of a
>reasoning being.
Care to give examples of the "substitutions" you think are invalid?
Rand's argument makes a lot of sense to me.
>This was the justification in Dagny's killing the guard
>while rescuing John Galt--"Calmly and impersonally, she, who
>would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger
>and fired straight at the heart of a man who wanted to exist
>without the responsibility of consciousness." _Atlas Shrugged_, p. 1066
>in my paperback copy. That's the problem with Rand's system:
>you get to be accuser, judge, and executioner. Rand doesn't
>base this passage on force vrs. force, but on the man's not being
>human because he refused to make a choice.
Thanks for the reference. Consider the context of the shooting.
The state has taken John Galt hostage and he is being tortured in
order to try to get him to support the corrupt system.
"In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only
against those who initiate its use.
...
The use of physical force--even its retaliatory use--cannot be left at
the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful coexistence is
impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force
to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment...
the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary
decision of another.
...
If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need
an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under
an _objective_ code of rules.
_This_ is the task of a government--of a _proper_ government--its basic
task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a
government."
-- from "The Nature of Government" in _The_Virtue_of_Selfishness_
Clearly, the situation here is not a civilized society, not a proper
government. Rather, the state has abdicated its responsibility to
protect individual rights, and has instead become the aggressor.
Individuals are justified in using retaliatory force only in the
absence of a government to do it. Dagny's lack of remorse in killing
the agent of the corrupt state is not the justification for it, but
merely her emotion in response to it.
>--
>David Hawkins {pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax}!well!dhawk
>Faith is never identical with piety. -- Karl Barth
>----------
--
Robert Brooks
David Hawkins
>
>>Rand starts defining ethics in _The Virtue of Selfishness" with:
>>"An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers
>>its life is the good, that which threatens it is evil."
>>So now she starts a series of substitutions without explaining them or
>>working through the process of why these are valid substitutions. Her
>>final statement: "The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics--the
>>standard by which one judges what is good or evil--is man's life, or:
>>that which is required for man's survival _qua_ man."
>>So the result is that man has to survive as man -- as a reasoning
>>being. So ethics now only applies to furthering the life of a
>>reasoning being.
>
>Care to give examples of the "substitutions" you think are invalid?
>Rand's argument makes a lot of sense to me.
>
invalid as far a philosophical or ethical statement because Rand
doesn't give a justification/proof for changing it. If you are
starting with axioms and working upward (as Rand claims to do) then
you can't make changes from one level to another without a reasoned
explaination.
This is especially critical here since we're dealing with what
is man's right to survival. Rand starts off saying that surviving
as a human being is enough and then changes it to 'as a reasoning
being.' It may 'look' like a valid substitution, but it lacks a
proof to back it up. If Objectivism is a system then you should be
able to take its axioms and work outwards and get the same results
that Rand did.
This is important because Rand uses a lot of definitions that are
practically identical to Marx's. Since they ended up with different
results it would be nice to trace where they separated. It's hard to
do because Rand isn't as systematic in thought and development as
Marx. (I could put up a list of definitions about the nature of
reality and the use of reason from both and you'd have a hard time
knowing which was which.) By the way, Marx believed that establishing
a libertarian state was essential.
>
> [Quotes omitted]
>Clearly, the situation here is not a civilized society, not a proper
>government. Rather, the state has abdicated its responsibility to
>protect individual rights, and has instead become the aggressor.
>Individuals are justified in using retaliatory force only in the
>absence of a government to do it. Dagny's lack of remorse in killing
>the agent of the corrupt state is not the justification for it, but
>merely her emotion in response to it.
>
That could be said at any time. At present there aren't any proper
governments, ones that protect individual rights.
Plus, Rand didn't put any emphasis on the guard as agent of the
government. The emphasis was on the guard as an unreasoning
being. She could have justified it on different grounds but didn't.
>--
>Robert Brooks
Laura Creighton
>The main substitution is 'survival _qua_ man' for just survival. It's
>invalid as far a philosophical or ethical statement because Rand
>doesn't give a justification/proof for changing it. If you are
>starting with axioms and working upward (as Rand claims to do) then
>you can't make changes from one level to another without a reasoned
>explaination.
What you should read is Douglas Den Uyl's and Douglas Rasmussen's
article called ``Nozick on the Randian Argument'' where they present
a justification for this. (Nozick wrote a paper called ``On the Randian
Argument'' where he tried to examine what he thought Rand's argument
was. He missed the ``qua man'' part. )
You can get both of these papers in a book called *Reading Nozick*
which is edited by Jeffery Paul in the Philosophy and Society series
(general Editor: Marshall Cohen) published by Rowan and Littlefield
Totowa, New Jersey. ISBN 0-8476-6279-9
However, you have to be extrememely fortunate to get them at all. The
book is out of print (despite only coming out in 1981) and Rowan and
Littlefield are not reprinting it. I think that this is terrible, since
there are a few dozen essays which are collected in various books they
have published which I think should be more widely read. I have been
trying for three months to get reprint rights from the various authors
involved. Understanding what contractual obligations they have to
Rowan and Littlefield is a thorny problem.
Until this is straightened, check your library and used bookstores.
--
The universe is expanding, but I still can't find a parking space.
The Professor
[a very good analysis and conclusion about the implicit commitment
a woman makes when she chooses not to abort a fetus and carry it]
[until...]
> Some libertarians have suggested the following criterion
> for humans who are for some reason incapable of rational decision-making:
> forbid any act against the child (or whoever) which a rational human being
> would not consent to. This neatly solves the problem of allowing abortions,
> but not gratuitous infanticide.
Yes, it very neatly solves a lot of problems. All that is required is to
have a board of qualified rational objectivist libertarians decide what things
a rational human being would and would not consent to. Once that's done, it
will be very easy for the rational objectivist libertarians to have the kind
of world they want, via their process of "rational selection." What a great
idea!
Isn't it amazing how "individualists" are so often the biggest purveyors of
the claim that they can know what are the limits of the possible spectrum
of actions for a "rational human being!" What makes them think this?
The Professor
> "An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers
> its life is the good, that which threatens it is evil."
> So now she starts a series of substitutions without explaining them or
> working through the process of why these are valid substitutions.
> being. So ethics now only applies to furthering the life of a
> reasoning being.
>
> This was the justification in Dagny's killing the guard
> while rescuing John Galt--"Calmly and impersonally, she, who
> would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger
> and fired straight at the heart of a man who wanted to exist
> without the responsibility of consciousness." _Atlas Shrugged_, p. 1066
> in my paperback copy. That's the problem with Rand's system:
> you get to be accuser, judge, and executioner. Rand doesn't
> base this passage on force vrs. force, but on the man's not being
> human because he refused to make a choice.
Yes, this is typical of the judgmental nature of many of these so-called
individualist philosophies, Rand's being prominent among them. As we can see,
the individualists are no more or less individual than you or me, they simply
adhere to a different list of beliefs that they think make them "better."
They can make the judgment that another person isn't human enough by their
standards and take any action they see fit. They decide that anyone not
following their precepts (not accepting "the responsibility of consciousness,"
whatever that is) is worthy of whatever action they choose to take against
them. This self-directed "individualism" is Nazism in sheep's clothing.
>"The most depraved sentence you can now utter is to ask:
>_Whose_ reason? The answer is _Yours_ . . . your mind is your only
>judge of truth--and if others dissent from your verdict, reality is
>the court of final appeal." [Atlas Shrugged, page. 1017.] I don't
>see the difference between this and pure subjectivity. If reason is
>decided by the individual then it's subjective--it's related to the
>subject. If the individual decides to go around killing mystics with
>Rand's ethical system as her/his basis then who's to disagree? It's
>clearly in there as a part of the whole system of thought.
Yes, yes, yes, you've got it now! This "individualism" IS the same as
subjectivism, nothing more. But recognize the similarities between Rand's
philosophy and the so called mystical philosophies. The mystic makes the same
types of judgments about the world that the Rand people do, that his/her
judgment represents the "right" thing to do. And that's the primary bullshit
of the Objectivist's beliefs. In this respect they are no different from the
religious lunatics who go around killing heathen unbelievers. The more you
look at it, the more you see that they are exactly the same! Especially when
you take into account their penchant for fatuous rationalization of their
selfish actions in the name of the libertarian or objectivist principles.
>This does tie in with Rand's views on abortion: "An embyro _has no
>rights._ Rights do not pertain to a _potential_, only to an _actual_
>being." Ayn Rand, _The Objectivist_, October 1968, p. 6.
>
>You could argue that Rand intended for children to have some rights,
>but you'd have to find an example where she listed what they would be.
>But another arguement would be that they had no rights until they
>became reasoning beings.
More of the Nazi-based philosophy of "we can judge who is fully human and who
is subhuman, who is worthy to live and die, based on our beliefs." The
ultimate in social darwinism. Who is a "potential" and who is fully actualized
in their sense, who is living up to their potential and who is "slacking off?"
This sounds a good deal like the folks in soc.women who have been saying that
it's fine to despise children as a group, but not OK to despise women as a
group, following this up with excuses of "that's different." They make
excuses about children being potential but not "productive" beings, and thus
despising them or treating them in a second class way is fine. It's obvious
that it goes across the board or it's not applicable at all, that if it's
wrong to despise an entire group of people for empty prejudicial reasons,
it's just as wrong to despise another group for the same reasons. But this
is so typical of many modern movements, that the rights they fight for are for
them only, that when the next group comes along seeking the same rights they
will fight alongside their former oppressors to continue the oppression against
the next group, since now it is in their "interests" to do so. The so-called
individualist movements are most representative of this opportunistic self-
indulgency. Not just because they use it, but because they provide a basis
for believing that living by the rule of opportunistic self-interest is OK.
Much like the rationalizations of the Michael Douglas character in the film
"Wall Street," to pick a recent example from modern entertainment media.
>(That opens up another can of worms since
>Rand claimed that you had to choose to become a reasoning/conscious
>being--quite a task for an unreasoning being.) 8-)
Yes, this is one of the funniest elements in Rand's philosophy. How does an
unreasoning being, presumably a human child prior to acquiring the knowledge
necessary to "choose" reasoning versus shirking the "responsibility of
consciousness," make this "choice?" You don't "choose" to become a "reasoning"
being, you LEARN it---or perhaps you don't learn it! The Randites are almost
exclusively a bunch of moderately to excessively successful types who look
down at others who are not successful, or who have suffered life misfortunes,
declaring that "they could have chosen to be successful the way I did," which
is obviously bunk. Whatever circumstances made these people into what they
call "reasoning/conscious beings," they did not achieve that stature by their
personal action and choice, as they claim. They achieved it because they were
"fortunate" enough to endure the circumstances, positive and negative, that
led them to be as they are. It is laughable when people who are big on this
self-actualized individualism stuff claim that they are the agents of choice
that got them to the point where they are now. Like so many of their other
proclamations about the nature of the world and the justifications for their
selfish actions, these are nothing but rationalizations.
The Professor
>>As a libertarian and
>>a mother let me suggest that it is impossible to keep a two year old
>>alive by applying only measures that would be consented to by a
>>rational human being. [because of the restrictions on the child's
>>behaviour necessary to keep him out of harm's way...]
>Why are such restrictive measures necessary? For the child's own good,
>right? If the child were a rational agent s/he would accept reasonable
>restrictions such as the ones you mentioned, since the child is ill-equipped
>to deal with an unfamiliar, hostile environment like a busy street.
This is fascinating. If persons X and Y were rational agents, they would
accept reasonable restrictions against their behavior (reasonable as defined
by... guess who?), but since they don't, they obviously aren't rational
agents, and should be subjected to these restrictions. And why are these
measures necessary? For their own good, right? Makes sense, doesn't it?
Typical "individualist" doubletalk. The individualists speak of their ability
to distinguish between the actions of a rational reasoning being and an
irrational nonreasoning being. What is the basis for their distinction?
Whether or not the being's actions conform to their standards of what a
rational being would do! Oh yes, they claim they are basing this judgment
on rationality and objectivistic ideals (don't they all!), but how do they
judge what is reasonably rational? So much for their "individualism!"
If this argument were made to THEM regarding their own refusal to obey
society's laws (laws they often flaunt their disregard for, because they claim
that it limits their freedom to be forced to obey them like everyone else does)
surely there would be a call to arms. But notice here how a libertarian comes
up with a justification that could be and would be used against other people
at the whim of those in power. The libertarians would decide what a rational
being would and wouldn't do, and anyone straying from their list of do's and
don'ts would of course be subject to special restrictions, since "obviously"
they aren't rational beings. Sound any different than the way things are now?
The Professor
>>Please provide a reference for this. I don't recall reading anything
>>about a guard being shot in _Atlas_Shrugged_, and what you are saying
>>isn't at all consistent with my understanding of Objectivism.
> "But I _can't_ decide! Why me?"
> "Because it's _your_ body that's barring my way."
> "But I can't decide! I'm not _supposed_ to decide!"
> "I'll count to three," she said. "Then I'll shoot."
> "Wait! Wait! I haven't said yes or no!" he cried, cringing tighter
> against the door, as if immobility of mind and body were his best
> protection.
> "One__" she counted; she could see his eyes staring at her in
> terror--"Two--" she could see that the gun held less terror for him
> than the alternative she offered___ "Three."
> Calmly and impersonally, she, who would have hesitted to fire at an
> animal, pulled the trigger and fired straight at the heart of a man
> who had wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness."
The amazing thing about this episode is that Dagny thinks she is willfully
making a decision here, that for this reason she is better qualified to make
judgments than the guard she brutally murders. Yet in reality we know she is
no less programmed to make the "decision" she makes, "choosing" to take the
action she takes, than the guard is programmed to behave in the way he behaves.
There are no decisions being made here by rational agents. There is just one
human being who is caught between a rock and a hard place, and another who
thinks she's better than he is, but who in reality is just as much acting on
a program as the guard she looks down upon.
The further irony is in the veiled contempt she holds for her victim. Rand
says that "she could see that the gun held less terror for him than the
alternative she offered." The implication is that this weak empty void of
a man, a man who "wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness,"
would prefer that Dagny kill him rather than force him to make a decision.
For finding the act of making a decision difficult, this man is given a
death sentence. As if THEY had no faults, as if there were no facets of daily
life that THEY find difficult or impossible.
Something "individualists" often forget is that without these other people
they look down upon their lives and the world around them would cease to
function---but to admit this would go against their individualist "ethics."
Some people are simply not movers or shakers or decision makers, some people
are simply not as into "being themselves" (sic) as the so-called individualists
are, and contrary to the tenets of the various individualist philosophies,
THIS IS NOT A CRIME. But don't tell this to the "individualists," they'll
be sure to let you know how self-sufficient, independent, and individualistic
they really are, and how no one has an "excuse" for not being that way. (As
if we needed one.) The way these people talk, you'd think they never made
use of a socially engendered interdependency, they did it all themselves!
Why "compromise" by acceding to social norms, why act reciprocally towards
others when you can simply take without reproach, why pay taxes when you don't
get anything from the government? (Well, aside from the roads, the sewers,
the education system, etc. what have the Romans ever done for us? :-> )
The next time such people look down their noses at the rest of society, they
should examine some people close to them who share the characteristics of the
folks they look down upon. Namely the characters in their precious books
like Dagny (and, dare I say it, the precious John Galt), and themselves.
Though I doubt that "discovering" that they are not unlike those they scorn
would diminish their contempt, consistency is not the hobgoblin of the
individualist's little mind.
James Wilbur Lewis
>In article <23...@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, j...@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis) writes:
>>>As a libertarian and
>>>a mother let me suggest that it is impossible to keep a two year old
>>>alive by applying only measures that would be consented to by a
>>>rational human being. [because of the restrictions on the child's
>>>behaviour necessary to keep him out of harm's way...]
>
>>Why are such restrictive measures necessary? For the child's own good,
>>right? If the child were a rational agent s/he would accept reasonable
>>restrictions such as the ones you mentioned, since the child is ill-equipped
>>to deal with an unfamiliar, hostile environment like a busy street.
>
>This is fascinating. If persons X and Y were rational agents, they would
>accept reasonable restrictions against their behavior (reasonable as defined
>by... guess who?), but since they don't, they obviously aren't rational
>agents, and should be subjected to these restrictions. And why are these
>measures necessary? For their own good, right? Makes sense, doesn't it?
Don't put words in my mouth. Your knee-jerk flame is in response to an
article that had a very narrow context, namely how libertarian ideology
should deal with children (and by extrapolation, other beings which are
_a priori_ incapable of informed choice). The "since they don't" you
inserted (and the logical structure you therefore attribute to my argument)
was nowhere to be found in any of MY postings.
I presented a possible solution, one which I find to be elegant and
pragmatic. You don't like it...fine, but do YOU have a better idea?
You think we should let two-year-olds play in the street? Lock up
parents for disciplining their kids? In your zeal for browbeating
libertarians and "the individualists" (whoever they might be...) I
think you've backed yourself into a corner, and I'm very interested to see
how you're going to get out of it. If you *do* have a better idea, I'm
all ears; the tone of your posting suggests not, though, and I'm not
going to hold my breath.
>Typical "individualist" doubletalk. The individualists speak of their ability
>to distinguish between the actions of a rational reasoning being and an
>irrational nonreasoning being. What is the basis for their distinction?
In this case, age. Are you going to take issue with my characterization
of fetuses and small children as generally incapable of rational
decision-making? Anyone who believes otherwise is being, well, irrational. :-)
I think you're also seeing a slippery slope here which doesn't exist in
the scenario I put forth. No one has declared infants, mental patients,
or just-plain-contrary individuals as "second-class citizens" or
advocated wholesale abuse of their rights....only diminishing those rights
(namely the right to act against one's own self-interest) to the extent that
exercising them flies in the face of consensual reality. If you really
have your heart set on arguing with libertarians about this, why not find
one who claims that children are property, and therefore their parents can
do anything they want with them?
>If this argument were made to THEM regarding their own refusal to obey
>society's laws (laws they often flaunt their disregard for, because they claim
>that it limits their freedom to be forced to obey them like everyone else does)
>surely there would be a call to arms.
There HAS been a call to arms, and this newsgroup is one of the battlefields.
I guess you're going to cast your lot with the statists, considering the
ill will you show toward libertarians. Well, that's probably where the
smart money is....but don't go claiming moral or ideological superiority
on OUR turf, 'cause we'll beat your ass like a gong!
James Wilbur Lewis
>Yes, it very neatly solves a lot of problems. All that is required is to
>have a board of qualified rational objectivist libertarians decide what things
>a rational human being would and would not consent to.
You mean like, uhhh, a jury? Hell no, you're right, that would NEVER
work....
The Professor
>>Libertarianism is that makes it "morally correct" for the Libertarian
>>Party to dictate the opinions of their presidential candidate?
>
>Nobody is dictating anyone else's opinion. I'm sure Ron Paul hasn't
>changed his mind about abortion (how could anyone *make* him change his
>mind?), but it seems reasonable that he would choose to follow the
>LP on this issue to gain the support of more Libertarians.
In other words, Libertarians (capitalized and not) are no more individualists
than the Objectivists (sic) or any other group claiming to be individualists.
The pride these people proclaim in calling themselves individualists is
mellowed out a little when they come face to face with the prospect of dealing
directly with the rest of the world. Paul would rather be elected than fight
for what he believes in, the hallmark of strict self-independent me-first
individualism. So he "compromises." Yet in the eyes of his idolizers this
doesn't erode his "individualism" one bit. This is "pragmatic individualism."
(In other words, this is individual pragmatism.)
>The defining characteristic of libertarianism is the non-coercion principle;
>one should not initiate the use of force or fraud. Since I assume no one
>put a gun to Ron Paul's head, or lied to him to get him to run, I can't
>see how his decision to run on a platform he partially disagrees with
>could be construed as a violation of the Libertarian Party's principles.
Yes, no one "made him" change his mind. This is part of the error of reason
in the libertarian/objectivist belief set: that coercion alone, the use of
"force" (ill defined) and "fraud" (ditto) form the basis for concluding that
an action is wrong. And if "coercion" is absent it's fine and dandy. This
reminds me of the issue of "date rape" as discussed a while ago in the soc
groups. Many people claimed that there was no such thing because no "coercion"
was involved. No one "made" the women consent. So no "crime" was involved.
Coercion by implication, by threat, by intimidation, by socialization
expectations, don't count as "real" coercion. Personally, I'm not sure I
would disagree with the claim that the person who engages in "non-coercive"
date rape is more of a social criminal than the person who engages in coercive
violent rape, because while the second person is using violent force, the
first person is abusing the vulnerabilities of the victim in a most cowardly
and shameful way. Doubtless many people see nothing wrong in doing that.
After all, she "could" have just said no and stood firm.
Now, I'm not saying that "libertarian/objectivist" = "date rapist," though I'm
sure a significant number of date rapists would attempt to justify their acts
on libertarian/objectivist grounds, with their rationalizing mentality that
they have a right to "take what's theirs" as long as there's no "coercion."
What I'm saying is that libertarians/objectivists conveniently define the word
coercion to exclude the activities they engage in and find nothing wrong with,
like cultural intimidation and abuse of those not as assertive as they are,
which they see as OK. It is ironic that the success of libertarian and
objectivist philosophies literally depends upon the existence and compliance
of those they can intimidate (without "coercion" of course). Without people
like that proverbial guard in Atlas Shrugged, libertarian/objectivists would
have only other people like themselves to contend with, and the entire world
would be destroyed within 2 weeks if all they had in the world was each other.
No one "made" him change his mind. People used circumstances to influence him
to change his mind, but they choose not to take responsibility for doing so.
Paul Vixie Esq
Just for the record, I disagree with almost every assertion made, including
those intended to be factual rather than evaluative. I will pursue the
subject further, but not if it is to be with an exchange of invective.
If you look very carefully, "Professor," you will find that many Objectivists
are capable of holding calm, reasoned discussions about their philosophical
premises and conclusions. Can you say the same?
--
Paul A Vixie Esq
paul%vi...@uunet.uu.net
{uunet,ptsfa,hoptoad}!vixie!paul
San Francisco, (415) 647-7023
Paul Vixie Esq
like a person open to discussion or reasoned argument. However (sigh),
In article <43...@chinet.UUCP> pr...@chinet.UUCP (The Professor) writes:
>Some people are simply not movers or shakers or decision makers, some people
>are simply not as into "being themselves" (sic) as the so-called individual-
>ists are, and contrary to the tenets of the various individualist philoso-
>phies, THIS IS NOT A CRIME.
A straw man, hey, wow. Um, Objectivism agrees with you here -- it is not a
crime (against others, anyway) to "not move or shake or decide." However,
when you take an innocent man prisoner and torture him, you are making a
choice, you are moving, you are shaking. There are consequences to this.
Timothy Freeman
>Yes, this is typical of the judgmental nature of many of these so-called
>individualist philosophies, Rand's being prominent among them.
>As we can see,
>the individualists are no more or less individual than you or me, they simply
>adhere to a different list of beliefs that they think make them "better."
Jumping from a statement about all individualist philosophies (which
is really only a statement about the individualist philosophies that
_you_ have encountered) to a statement about all individualists is not
of any value in a logical argument, and it is sure to offend the same
people who would want to give an interesting response to your post.
>>"The most depraved sentence you can now utter is to ask:
>>_Whose_ reason? The answer is _Yours_ . . . your mind is your only
>>judge of truth--and if others dissent from your verdict, reality is
>>the court of final appeal." [Atlas Shrugged, page. 1017.] I don't
>>see the difference between this and pure subjectivity.
The difference between this and pure subjectivity is that "reality is
the court of final appeal". This means that if you want to claim that
a statement is the result of "reason" then it must be a statement
testable in reality. Unfortunately Rand doesn't limit herself to
this, and she tries to claim that moral values are objectively true.
For instance, some people who post in the talk.religion.newage group
frequently imply that we don't all live in the same reality, so there
is no useful "court of final appeal", even for assertions that ought
to be testable. This is purely subjective and quit different from
what Rand was advocating.
I do believe that Rand's ideas about how to run a government are
useful. Note that these fall within the range of ideas that are
testable.
>... they provide a basis
>for believing that living by the rule of opportunistic self-interest is OK.
Well, you can either make vague assertions that all of us
individualists are fucked up, or you can propose useful alternatives.
Depends on exactly what you are trying to accomplish here...
--
James Wilbur Lewis
>than the Objectivists (sic) or any other group claiming to be individualists.
You're probably right. So what? Has anyone claimed otherwise?
(I'll go out on a limb here and characterize libertarianism as individualistic
to the extent that it opposes statism, and the institutionalized violation of
the Non-Coercion Principle which have historically been at the root of statist
regimes. Various factions like anarchism, minarchism, and Objectivism may
give more or less weight to this common, individualistic aspect of libertarian
belief systems.)
>This is part of the error of reason
>in the libertarian/objectivist belief set: that coercion alone, the use of
>"force" (ill defined) and "fraud" (ditto) form the basis for concluding that
>an action is wrong.
Just out of curiosity, why do you see a definitional problem with "force" or
"fraud"? (My guess is that you've been hanging around with the likes of
Tim Sevener, who enjoys ranting about how "private property is coercion".
Probably not *him*, though, since you haven't gotten around to slagging off
"Propertarians" yet...:-)
>And if "coercion" is absent it's fine and dandy.
This is a blatant misrepresentation of the non-coercion principle. It is
intended to define a class of socially unacceptable behaviours; the fact
that certain acts (like a restaurant refusing to serve blacks) do not
run afoul of the NCP certainly does NOT imply that they are "fine and dandy".
I'm sure most libertarians would agree that bigotry, sexism, and other
sociopathic phenomena are scummy and reprehensible; we find the initiation
of force to further someone's (even our own) social engineering agenda to
be even *more* reprehensible. Besides, there are usually better ways to
accomplish the same goals. Isaac Asimov wrote to the effect that "violence
is the last resort of the incompetent". I'm inclined to believe that the
threat or use of force is the FIRST resort of the incompetent.
>This
>reminds me of the issue of "date rape" as discussed a while ago in the soc
>groups. Many people claimed that there was no such thing because no "coercion"
>was involved. No one "made" the women consent. So no "crime" was involved.
>Coercion by implication, by threat, by intimidation, by socialization
>expectations, don't count as "real" coercion.
You're confusing a number of issues that came up during that discussion. Let's
examine these forms of "coercion" and see how _one_ libertarian individual (me)
feels about them:
Coercion by implication? Not sure what that means. By threat? If the
threat involves force, it certainly counts as coercion. By intimidation?
To the extent that this involves overt threats, it's coercion. A woman might
find a 6'5" bodybuilder to be somewhat physically intimidating, but we don't
need to blame *him* for that...you need to define your terms better before
making assertions about how they'd be interpreted by libertarians. Coercion
by socialization expectations? (I presume you're thinking of a girl who
would sleep with a guy because he paid for a nice dinner, or whatever...)
Who's doing the coercion here....any particular individual (like the poor
sap who buys dinner hoping to get laid...is he any less a victim of societal
expectations?), or "society"? How are you going to invoke sanctions against
the aggressor(s) in this context?
What about a person who says "if you don't have sex with me I'll go out with
someone else"? Are you among the people from that discussion who would
describe this scenario as coercion/rape? (Is that what you meant by
"coercion by implication"?) If so, I'm afraid I don't buy this as a
valid application of the NCP...it falls into the class of behaviours that
are possibly scummy but don't warrant forceful intervention by the state.
>Personally, I'm not sure I
>would disagree with the claim that the person who engages in "non-coercive"
>date rape is more of a social criminal than the person who engages in coercive
>violent rape, because while the second person is using violent force, the
>first person is abusing the vulnerabilities of the victim in a most cowardly
>and shameful way.
You must have a pretty twisted sense of priorities. I can't speak for rape
survivors, but I can be pretty sure that I'd rather have someone "abuse
my vulnerabilities" than point a gun or knife at me and force me to choose
between submission and death.
>Now, I'm not saying that "libertarian/objectivist" = "date rapist," though I'm
>sure a significant number of date rapists would attempt to justify their acts
>on libertarian/objectivist grounds, with their rationalizing mentality that
>they have a right to "take what's theirs" as long as there's no "coercion."
How many tyrants have committed atrocities in the name of religion? This
sort of rationalization doesn't make them right...nor does it make
religion *wrong*, in the sense you imply that the libertarian "justification"
reflects on libertarianism per se. And once again, in the interest of
clarity, "no coercion" implies "no rape", by any reasonable definition of
"coercion" or "rape". (Concrete counterexamples solicited...)
(Thomas A. Dowe)
I wonder at the "fear" shown by those opposed to libertarian principals.
They extract the "principal" and define the rest to fit they're own concep-
tion of the_governing_system(s)_in_place_today_(or which should be, if they
are not.) Next, they quibble over a libertarian statement of principal by
hauling-out they're "definitions" and showing you why "libertarianism" can
never work!
Well professor, it has been working since the very begining of this particular
form of representive democracy began; albeit, at less-and-less efficiency as the
tumor of government has grown. Anti-libertarians are those who want to tell
others how to take-care of their lives; they want more government since it
allows them to discriminate as "they_know_best". But...to accuse those who
espouse libertarian principals of such "prejudice" is simply...words fail me.
--
--
Tad
t...@tekgen.UUCP
MS 19-434, Tektronix, PO Box 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-7705
Rahul Dhesi
>the claim that they can know what are the limits of the possible spectrum
>of actions for a "rational human being!"
There are many flavors of "individualism", but one idea that is common
to all is that "individualism" means respecting the natural rights of
other indivuduals.
Somebody who goes along with the group, and seldom has any original
opinions, can still be an individualist, so long as he does not attempt
to force others to give up their natural rights.
Being "individualist" means having respect for the natural rights of
other individuals.
--
Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi
Russell Turpin
> There are many flavors of "individualism", but one idea that is common
> to all is that "individualism" means respecting the natural rights of
> other indivuduals.
Well, no. Max Stirner's writings are, by almost any measure, an
example of extreme invidualistic philosophy, but he did not
believe in natural rights. Many libertarians today (but certainly
not most) hold that natural rights are a myth, perhaps in part
because those who write on natural rights (Rothbard, Gewirth,
etc) never quite manage to establish them.
Russell
Girls, Girls, Girls
>>This
>>reminds me of the issue of "date rape" as discussed a while ago in the soc
>>groups. Many people claimed that there was no such thing because no "coercion"
>>was involved. No one "made" the women consent. So no "crime" was involved.
>>Coercion by implication, by threat, by intimidation, by socialization
>>expectations, don't count as "real" coercion.
>You're confusing a number of issues that came up during that discussion. Let's
>examine these forms of "coercion" and see how _one_ libertarian individual (me)
>feels about them:
>>Personally, I'm not sure I
>>would disagree with the claim that the person who engages in "non-coercive"
>>date rape is more of a social criminal than the person who engages in coercive
>>violent rape, because while the second person is using violent force, the
>>first person is abusing the vulnerabilities of the victim in a most cowardly
>>and shameful way.
>You must have a pretty twisted sense of priorities. I can't speak for rape
>survivors, but I can be pretty sure that I'd rather have someone "abuse
>my vulnerabilities" than point a gun or knife at me and force me to choose
>between submission and death.
Date Rape was a big topic of discussion in soc.women recently, and
the impression I've gotten is that what makes rape so awful is
*exactly* the "abusing of vulnerabilities". The violent aspects of
rape are certainly traumatic in and of themselves, but really
aren't what defines a rape.
Victims of both types of rape emphasize, more than anything else,
the dehumanization of rape -- of being turned into an object for
satisfying someone elses desire, without the least consideration
for their own. As one date-rape victim of my acquaintance said "A
lot of people have asked me how I could consider myself raped when
I never said 'no'. But I never said 'yes'! I was never given the
chance." (this is a paraphrase. I cannot remember the exact wording).
Men discussing what it's like to be a rape victim is pretty stupid,
though, don't you think...
(I'm assuming James is Male. I know I am. I don't know
about the professor. Apologies if I'm wrong about any of
these.)
--
Timothy Freeman
It seems we are having minor disagreements about the definition of the
name of our newsgroup...
I define "individualism" to mean the desire to make decisions as an
individual, rather than making decisions based solely upon peer
pressure, or guesses about what pressures imaginary groups of peers
would exert.
Another contending definition of "individualism" is the tendency to
treat others as individuals rather than members of groups. This sort
of follows from the first definition, since if you make decisions
taking into account things other than peer pressure, then one
naturally assumes that others may make decisions independently of
their peers, so treating them as individuals is obviously necessary.
I would consider it a waste of time to try to use a definition that
talks about "natural rights", because we can argue for an arbitrary
amount of time about exactly what "natural rights" a person has, and
there isn't any way to resolve such disagreements. Basically, I'm
asserting here that the term "natural rights" does not name any
abstraction you can form from observed reality (hints of general
semantics here...).
Russell Turpin
> ... if you make decisions
> taking into account things other than peer pressure, then one
> naturally assumes that others may make decisions independently of
> their peers, so treating them as individuals is obviously necessary.
Necessary for what purpose? While this was a small part of your
posting, you are making precisely the kind of logical leap here
that leads others to natural rights theories. I find this
slightly ironic, since you write one paragraph later:
> ... I'm asserting here that the term "natural rights" does not name any
> abstraction you can form from observed reality (hints of general
> semantics here...).
Russell
.
Laura Creighton
thought, what am I doing here. It is not nice to wake up
knowing that you have shown terrible judgement. However, it
is nothing like having your nose and cheekbone broken for refusing to
hand over your wallet, and held down while somebody wrenches your
wallet from you pocket and goes through your backpack looking for
other valuables.
(Thomas A. Dowe)
Defining individualism(?) An oxymoron; terrific example.
However, I feel comfortable, at times, with generalizations. So, let's
define individualism as--no definition. With the individual, the sum is
certainly greater, etc.
"No-definition". Thereby, and therefrom, making the "individual" the
Tao, darhma/dahhma, zen, etc., etc. (etc., etc... here is a chance for
an editor type to correct my grammar.) You know, like--"MU".
Of course, "realization" of "no-definition" would meld an individual with
*[(WHAT?)]*, and, supposedly, erase the "individual" part. So, it looks
like meditation and other religious practices would certainly be anti-indiv-
idualism; don't you think? Now politics...
--
--
Tad Dowe
Philip Nicholls
what you so noblily call "individualism" is nothing more than a selfish
elitism born of the atitude "...I'm going to get mine and screw everyone
else." The problems of the world will not be solved by retreating into
the self, with all people islands entrenched in their own greed and fear.
We have evolved as social animals and, like it or not, that is how our
fate will be determined, by how well we function is a society- not as
sheep bound to a collectivist will, but as participants in the social
work.
To withdraw in the name of individualism is to condemn yourself and
the world to the continued spiral of decay. Give us your hand, not
your back.
--
"To ask a question, you must first know most of the answer."
- Robert Sheckley
p...@well.UUCP (you figure out how to get their).
Timothy Freeman
>> ... if you make decisions
>> taking into account things other than peer pressure, then one
>> naturally assumes that others may make decisions independently of
>> their peers, so treating them as individuals is obviously necessary.
>
>Necessary for what purpose?
I was arguing for "psychological plausibility" here, to claim that
most of the people that consider themselves individualists by one of
the definitions I was proposing would be individualists according to
the other. In this post I failed to separate the mushy logic people
use to decide how to deal with others from the hard logic that I'm
really claiming is true. Oh well.
To continue my folly, I'll try again. Here's the chain of mushy
reasoning that will cause many independent-thinker type individualists
to be treat-others-as-individuals type individualists:
I'm an independent-thinker type individualist, so
I can think different thoughts from those around me, so
it is possible for people in general to do this, so
I had better be prepared for other people to do it, so
I cannot assume that others will be identical to groups they are a
part of, so
I'm a treat-others-as-individuals type individualist.
Does that make more sense to you?
Timothy Freeman
>What you so noblily call "individualism" is nothing more than a selfish
>elitism born of the atitude "...I'm going to get mine and screw everyone
>else." The problems of the world will not be solved by retreating into
>the self, with all people islands entrenched in their own greed and fear.
Here again there is the implication that selfishness is bad in some
undefined manner.
I never suggested retreating into the self. An ideally rational
selfish person will participate in group endeavors when there is some
advantage to acting as part of a group. It is possible to organize
groups so that all of the participants are benefited by participating.
The most obvious example of this is all business transactions that
happen without either party coercing the other.
The important thing here is that you should expect people to
participate in groups only if it is consistent with being selfish.
"Genes, mind, and culture" by Lumsden (1981) explains how
participating in groups happens to selfish genes (which make up
approximately selfish people).
I don't know if "screw everyone else" means "I intend to hurt everyone
else" (which is a big waste of effort, not to mention problems with
retaliation) or "Everyone else is their own responsibility to take
care of" (which I tend to agree with, except for people closely
related to me).
>To withdraw in the name of individualism is to condemn yourself and
>the world to the continued spiral of decay.
I repeat, withdrawing is your idea, not mine.
What do you believe causes the world to be in a continuing spiral of
decay now? (This is not a rhetorical question, I would really like to
know.)