From: michael.bast@convergys.com
Date: Wed Dec 06 2000 - 15:39:19 MST
No, it's not a straw man argument, I'm not asserting something which isn't
already in existence. What I'm talking about
(government programs which do things groups of people want done) exists. What
I'm talking about is that libertarians want
to take that away from people, and tell them 1) You're better off without it,
and 2) It wasn't yours anyway.
I may (and largely do) agree with that, but that isn't the point. You WILL
BE taking away things people want when
you get the government to stop doing the things you don't want it to do. I never
said it was wrong to stop it, I think (mostly)
it IS stealing. What I am saying is that we're a minority in this opinion, no
matter how well we can back this up (facts, logic,
reasons), but it's not something anyone wants to admit. We pretend that by
shouting louder we're getting through, but what
we're doing is making sure we never get listened to. Ever. I know this for a
fact, from talking to people who make valid points
about welfare, from their own set of values, there's a point where your facts,
reasons, arguments, etc. mean nothing, and
you are just causing them to shut you out.
As long as that is true, you have to deal with it as it is, not as you wish
it to be. We're not going to change people's minds
by telling them they're wrong, that it's ok for some people to starve while
others are billionaires, that the money they get from the
government (and have gotten all their lives) isn't theirs.
My point, here, is that it doesn't matter how much we 'know' we're right,
there are far too few of us to win this fight, this way.
So, now what? How do we make things better? Things are already as they are,
given how marginalized libertarians (and/or
extropians) are, what good does it do to pretend it's otherwise, or act as if
plains facts (about reality) don't exist?
Also, here is my semantic alteration point - you say is it wrong to use
force to stop force. What does force mean? Does
what you mean by it match what most people mean by it? If not, do they know what
you mean when you say it? I've seen an
argument to counter the no-force initiation argument about taxes, and it's
rather simple - taxes are the price you pay for living
in a modern, industrial country. Do I agree with that? No, but again, I'm in the
minority on this. So, you say, it's force to make me
pay taxes, it's countered with 'not by any accepted definition of force'. Try
using the argument about police coming to jail you
when you don't pay taxes, and they might shoot you. I guarantee you're going to
find people who will blame you for not paying
your taxes. And, again, there are more of them than us, and probably always will
be.
There 'seems' to be an anti-government theme in our culture, but I don't
know how valid it is. I know people get angry
about specific governmental actions, but I really don't think there's a general
'Government = bad' sentiment. I have friends,
acquaintances, co-workers, etc. from a large portion of the (American) political
spectrum, and almost none of them are
against the simple existence of government. Given that, arguing that government
shouldn't be allowed to do anything will fall
on deaf ears.
>From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mlorrey@datamann.com>
>Subject: Re: Random comments on some late discussions.
>That's a straw man, the old hostage taker guilt trip. Is using force to
>stop people from using force wrong or hypocritical? That is the whole
>principle of self defense. Eliminating programs that depend upon the
>involuntary confiscation of private property to exist is not wrong.
-- NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is intended by Convergys Corporation for the use of the named individual or entity to which it is directed and may contain information that is privileged or otherwise confidential. If you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please delete it from your system without copying or forwarding it, and notify the sender of the error by reply email or by telephone (collect), so that the sender's address records can be corrected.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:14 MST