jj@alice.UUCP (04/19/85)
Dan McK comments that he would find the discussions of libertarianism more interesting/enlightening/whatever if those who were discussing it would not build straw men (ideas deliberately developed and untruthfully associated with libertarianism) and then shoot down these carefully, or occasionally not so carefully, constructed falsehoods that have been set forth for the purpose of being misleadingly dismantled. (I will include the deliberate emotional blackmail of the "women's rights" issues, even though there isn't a trace of logic in it in this discussion simply because it's a deliberate, and conciously misleading method/act of debate.) Dan McK, I feel, does not realize the one fear that many people have of libertarianism<If he does indeed realize it, he is far too politic to explain it>, namely that under a libertarian philosophy, individuals will be responsible for their own actions, triumphs, and errors(, as well as much more, but let's not cloud the issue.) Many individuals fear that they cannot survive under such circumstances, and are thus driven to use any tactic that they can conceive of or uncover to discredit or slow the spread of a system that they regard as threatening to their way of life. In fact, it is terrifying to many people to think that they must, in the end, rely on only themselves. (Children often appear to learn about "growing up" when they begin to understand the concept and feel the terror.) It is indeed unfortunate that many people who have either been mislead or who, in fact, feel this terror would fare much better under a less restrictive and more individually responsible system. Note that I attach no malicious intent to the behavior of most individuals. The question of fear, and that of malice, are entirely independant, and should remain so.(I have noticed a trend among some "Objectivists", although not on this net, to ascribe all such behavior to overt malice, a position that is destructive to all involved.) I have noticed, at least in my own discussions of libertarianism, that some individuals will proceed immedately to the question of "is this system stable" (a concern I regard as well founded, although certainly unanswered in either direction) or some other concern related to the behavior and functioning of the proposed system, and some will proceed to "well, what you mean is... " and then on to some sort of sophistry. I leave the reader to make his or her own conclusions regarding the motivation behind the varying behavior of individual debate participants. <Now there's a debate tactic!:-> 'Nuff said? -- DO TEDDY BEARS HAVE OPINIONS? ASK YOURS TODAY! "I'm amazed that men like you can be so shallow, thick and slow" (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (04/20/85)
> Dan McK comments that he would find the discussions of libertarianism > more interesting/enlightening/whatever if those who were discussing > it would not build straw men (ideas deliberately developed and > untruthfully associated with libertarianism) and then shoot down these > carefully, or occasionally not so carefully, constructed falsehoods > that have been set forth for the purpose of being misleadingly > dismantled. (I will include the deliberate emotional blackmail > of the "women's rights" issues, even though there isn't a trace > of logic in it in this discussion simply because it's a deliberate, > and conciously misleading method/act of debate.) Some of the argumentation that has taken place on the subject can indeed be so described. But there is another game that gets played as well. Libertarianism is not a universally agreed upon and well-defined ideology. People proclaiming themselves to be illuminated libertarians sometimes post some pretty silly assertions. Occasionally some poor fool will attack these with "libertarians believe X, which is bullshit, therefore libertarianism is bullshit", only to discover to their dismay that there are plenty of libertarians who *don't* believe X, and who don't believe that any real libertarian would make such an assertion. They then pillory the critic for his "straw man" argument. For example, I seem to recall that one of the examples of ludicrous straw men given by DKMcK was in fact a proposition put forward by a self-proclaimed libertarian several weeks earlier. > Dan McK, I feel, does not realize the one fear that many people have > of libertarianism<If he does indeed realize it, he is far too > politic to explain it>, namely that under a libertarian philosophy, > individuals will be responsible for their own actions, triumphs, > and errors(, as well as much more, but let's not cloud the > issue.) Many individuals fear that they cannot survive under such > circumstances, and are thus driven to use any tactic that they > can conceive of or uncover to discredit or slow the spread of a system > that they regard as threatening to their way of life. In fact, > it is terrifying to many people to think that they must, in the > end, rely on only themselves. (Children often appear to learn > about "growing up" when they begin to understand the concept and > feel the terror.) It is indeed unfortunate that many people who > have either been mislead or who, in fact, feel this terror would > fare much better under a less restrictive and more individually responsible > system. As long as we're on the subject of debating practices, jj, you should know that attacks on the motives or character of participants is considered very bad form. Even if your assertion were true (don't worry, I'm not going to ask for *evidence*), what difference would it make? Ideas have to stand on their merit. > "I'm amazed that men like you can be so shallow, thick and slow" > > (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj Baba ROM DOS
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (04/21/85)
> .... > Dan McK, I feel, does not realize the one fear that many people have > of libertarianism<If he does indeed realize it, he is far too > politic to explain it>, namely that under a libertarian philosophy, > individuals will be responsible for their own actions, triumphs, > and errors(, as well as much more, but let's not cloud the > issue.) Many individuals fear that they cannot survive under such > circumstances, and are thus driven to use any tactic that they > can conceive of or uncover to discredit or slow the spread of a system > that they regard as threatening to their way of life. In fact, > it is terrifying to many people to think that they must, in the > end, rely on only themselves. (Children often appear to learn > about "growing up" when they begin to understand the concept and > feel the terror.) It is indeed unfortunate that many people who > have either been mislead or who, in fact, feel this terror would > fare much better under a less restrictive and more individually responsible > system. > .... > (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj If I may paraphrase for JJ, what I think he's trying to say is that a lot of people--probably *most* people--DON'T WANT to be responsible for their entire lives. Once again, libertarianism washes up on the beach of human nature. Don't get me wrong--I actually *like* libertarian theory, *in the abstract*. But there is one overpowering question that nags me: is this what most people really want? And, given that most people probably DON'T want it, how do we either (1) help them ``realize what's good for them'', or (2) create a society that only a minority of its members want, or will enjoy the advantages of? Given that I don't see any answers to these questions, I prefer to pursue theories of social organization that have more of a chance of existing in the real world. For someone to convince me that libertarianism will work, they will have to convince me that there is a way to make most people rational. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/24/85)
> Don't get me wrong--I actually *like* libertarian theory, *in the abstract*. > But there is one overpowering question that nags me: is this what most > people really want? And, given that most people probably DON'T want it, > how do we either (1) help them ``realize what's good for them'', or (2) > create a society that only a minority of its members want, or will enjoy > the advantages of? I expect that what most people really want is EVERYTHING.