From: michael.bast@convergys.com
Date: Thu Dec 07 2000 - 09:19:00 MST
Actually, I'm not talking about libertarian theory, I'm more discussing how we
might get things we want (cloning research, nanotech, genetic engineering) when
most of society doesn't care, is opposed, etc. (Also, part of it has to do with
how you define legitimate, actually. A lot of people consider legitimate things
which I don't, and they couldn't care less about whether I like it, as long as
they get it)
>From: Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>
>Subject: Re: Random comments on some late discussions.
>HUH? Call me a simpleton but I thought Libertarianism was about people
>doing it their way wherever that does not infringe on the rights of
>others to do the same. The above seems to assume that a lot of people's
>legitimate interests are in conflict much of the time.
Re-structuring government is forcing people to live under your system, if a
large number of them don't want it. A limited-function libertarian government is
not what most people want, or we'd have it, and were we to get it over their
opposition, we'd be forcing them to live under a system they don't agree with.
Now, the point then is, what do we do? We can tell people government is
initiating force by making us pay taxes, but they largely don't agree. Giving
them facts, reasons, etc. won't matter, since their values aren't ours, and they
aren't going to connect things as we do.
>Again, "make them do it anyway" is no part of what I thought Libertarianism was
about.
>From this and other things you've said, I can tell you're a fan of Ayn Rand,
maybe even an objectivist. (I'm trying not to make a definitive statement, on
purpose. I'm also trying to illustrate a point, rather than this being a
personal attack). I read everything of hers I could find (except We, the Living)
when I was 20. However, now, I don't like her work nearly as much, it strikes me
as too simplistic. So, I have to make myself not turn off what you're saying.
Why? Because almost every objectivist I've met comes off sounding like a
religious fundamentalist. For example, I once took a FAQ on capitalism from an
objectivist web page. I then replaced the word capitalism with the word Jesus,
and then read the parts which describe capitalism's benefits (making sure not to
read the parts which mentioned specifically economic ideas) to some friends. ALL
of them thought I was reading a religious tract.
Why bring this up? Most people will shut you out if they think you're an
ideologue, and we get nowhere. Despite libertarian theory, we live in a world
where most people don't agree with us, and we get nothing done telling them
they're not bright enough to understand how much we know. Telling them they've
stolen the food they're eating, when it came from government, is going to get
them to mark you as a nut, and you get nowhere.
>The main parties have not dared mention or name their
>fundamental principles for some time now. There is a great emptiness in
>American politics waiting to be filled.
Actually, one person DID say people were stupid. It's what got me started on
this.
>It would be arrogant to say (not that anyone here has directly) that the
>people are simply too dumb to be interested or to understand a platform
>speaking of and build firmly on sound principles.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:14 MST