From: Dick.Gray@bull.com
Date: Mon Nov 23 1998 - 11:20:50 MST
"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience@pobox.com> writes:
> What's my point? In my opinion, the majority of libertarians whose
writing on
> the subject I have read have also lost their objectivity, to the point of
> being unable to perceive that libertarianism has flaws. It's not good
enough
>to be the best system; they insist the system is perfect. They have
become a
> political cause, rather than a rational choice. One cannot have both.
I haven't read or talked to _anyone_ who thinks that libertarianism is
"perfect" - and my readings on the subject are wide and copious. This is an
unsupported straw man. Nor do most consider it a "system" (see below).
> I still think much less government would produce better results by almost
any
> moral standard. But I no longer believe in libertarianism.
I don't "believe in" libertarianism either - as if it were a religion or
some monolithic body of doctrine, or a specifiable "system". Libertarianism
is nothing more or less than an across-the-board commitment to individual
freedom, generally summed up as a desire to prohibit physical coercion.
Ideologies abound, but ideology isn't the essence; libertarians differ
(sometimes bitterly) on just about everything except the fundamental
commitment to liberty. It's a movement, not an ideology.
What moved me to engage the original poster a bit impatiently was my
weariness of the ignorant stereotypes parroted by those who rely on the
mass media for their "information", and obviously don't know any
libertarians personally: lack of compassion, insensitivity, money-grubbing,
hardheartedness, ad nauseum. How about making an honest attempt to learn
how libertarians actually think and feel?
Peace,
Dickola
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:50 MST