From: michael.bast@convergys.com
Date: Mon Dec 11 2000 - 15:05:44 MST
As someone else (Hal, I think) pointed out, they could say the same about you.
One of the libertarian's favorite slogans is "taxation is theft", but the
counter is "property is theft". Who's right? Depends on your values, actually.
If you think property rights are the basis of civilization, you'd say the
former. If you think private property is the basis for hierarchical enslavement
of the masses, you'd say the latter. By what standard is anything judged? My
standards aren't accepted by everyone.
>Simple. They want to not only make their own mind up but having decided
>that X is good they would like to force my compliance at gunpoint. I
>have no intention of forcing them to do anything at all. If we have no
>logic in common then I guess little more than self-defense of one's
>person and space or avoidance of one another would be left.
Smart-ass. But, that's meant in a good way, actually.
>Ah, I forgot, there I go again, using logic.
I'd say yes, it does mean someone must sacrifice themselves for this guy.
However, you use the word enslave. You are re-defining a common word, and
attempting to substitute that altered definition into the conversation as though
it were the original, common meaning. The word slavery (in common usage) does
NOT denote being required to do some sort of service for others. This is one of
the weakest parts of any libertarian arguments, the failure to make an argument
using commonly accepted definitions. Of course people think slavery is bad. But
they also don't think requiring people to 'give back' is slavery. And this is
where we lose people who could potentially help us. (Before you ask, I
personally would say he is asking for something to which he has no right, though
I don't know that I'd consciously call it slavery.)
>Someone to take care of them? Doesn't that translate to this guy saying he has
the right to enslave others for his benefit? If >so then why should any decent
people take such a statement seriously? In fact increased freedom has done
more to >increase the well-being of all elements of society than any amount of
chaining the more able to the needs of the less able.
I think the problem is cross purposes. You're arguing against what (I think) you
think I'm saying, that government is ok, etc. What I'm doing, though, is saying
there are people who don't agree with you, and they do wield power. I once saw a
priest make a very strong chain of logic showing that Christ was God. My point?
If you buy the basic proposition that God exists, all else falls into place.
Logic by itself is NOT enough, you have to agree on basic points of reality.
And, largely libertarians are in a minority on what's right and wrong. We use
words in ways that others don't (slavery, plunder, etc. ) and then expect them
to agree with us. They may, for a while, but then they realize we were doing
something they didn't know, and they not only no longer agree, they think we're
deceptive, stupid etc. We lose ground. We need to be able to deal with things as
they are, and move forward.
>You seem to have studiously missed the point. I made a statement about what I
think is the best that can be achieved and >that historically seems best. You
claim that I have prejudiced the conversation but you have not shown this. I am
telling you >what I think and why. If you disagree then show me why instead of
forbidding me effectively to have an opinion or apply any >criteria at all
simply because some (or even most) disagree with me.
If I seem like I'm yelling, I apologize, that's not what I meant (even to imply
it). Can you show that something is really an absolute? To my satisfaction? To
the satisfaction of someone who utterly disagrees with you? For example, is
death an absolute? Not to a Christian, but to me (an atheist) it is. What is an
absolute, how do you know, etc. You act as though these question have been
answered, completely and definitively. I don't think they have. Neither do
others, and yet others do, but their answers aren't the same as yours.
>If you want to dissolve yourself in non-absolutism then have at it. But stop
yelling at me for not joining you.
Look around you. This is already happening (drug laws, police killings of
citizens, etc.) What happens, that is how much does the populace care? Not much,
usually. I live in a city where the police have killed young black men, refused
to answer questions about what happened, and the people in they city get mad at
the newspapers for reporting it. (I'm not making this up, I can find the letters
to the editor.) People aren't always rational, or they don't always fit your
definition of rational. Still, you get dead, they go on plundering. If we can
get enough people to accept that this is wrong, it stops. If not, your defensive
force is meaningless. (I am not arguing against defensive force, just trying to
make it unnecessary)
>Let them value whatever they want. But if they come to deny me my values with
force then they deserve little but >self-defensive force in return.
I don't think that's the issue actually. I have little problem saying what I
think to be true. I just want a practical way of achieving what we want, mostly.
>That people get pissed off when you disagree with them and attempt to make a
case for what you think is a flaw of theirs, >not of yours. How will you get
anywhere by not trying to say what you believe and why the best you can?
If I didn't think ideas had power, would I be discussing this? No, all power is
not in the mob, but this is a democracy. People ought to be involved in the
decisions which affect their lives, and we've got to meet them where they are,
not demand they meet us on our terms. If we continue to do that, they're not
going to show up at all.
>If I read you correctly you think all power is in the mob and almost none in
ideas and principles. Yet that which brought us to >this point grew out of
ideas and principles being applied to the problems of government. Do you see
change as >impossible? What is it that you do propose doing?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:19 MST