mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (01/20/85)
>>However for Libertarians to argue that the reign of private property >>will mean the end of all force is an error. > >Excuse me, but I don't recall hearing any libertarian advance that >position. To tell people that your opponents make points that your >opponents do not in fact make is called "building a straw man". Yes, indeed. But what you may not realize is that Sevener just LOVES to build straw-men. Back when he was a more regular contributor to net.philosophy, he used to regularly misquote his opponents, and then attempt to refute the misquotation. This pretty much ended when Cipriani threatened to start a service where he would catalogue these misquotations. Moving over to net.politics, Sevener has resumed the construction of straw-men. For example, on the subject of economic theory: He has tries to mislead his readers into thinking that the invisible-hand metaphor is some kind of religious doctrine, instead of just a metaphor; He has acted as if Libertarian economic thought is based upon the approach of the Lausanne School, when it is, in fact, based upon the approach of the Austrian School. And there are various instances (like the one that you draw our attention to) of Sevener distorting the Libertarian position on history, reparations, progress, &c. Perhaps we should again consider routinely cataloguing Timmy's little lies. Overflowing with disgust, Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan 9120 Hawthorn Pt Westerville, OH 43081-9605
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (01/21/85)
> > > However for Libertarians to argue that the reign of private property > > > will mean the end of all force is an error. > > > > Excuse me, but I don't recall hearing any libertarian advance that > > position. To tell people that your opponents make points that your > > opponents do not in fact make is called "building a straw man". > > Yes, indeed. But what you may not realize is that Sevener just LOVES to > build straw-men. I have seen some pretty silly things that libertarians have posted lately, which leads me to suspect that Tim Sevener doesn't really need to build straw men to make people look stupid. Here are some from the recent Libertaria debate: (I have forgotten who posted this, but there was not a shred of support for these claims) > ... the legal code would be so much easier to understand it would > be inconceivable that a lawyer's prowess would enter into the play. > How about Jill is constantly employed, since there is no unemployment. > Jill doesn't have to worry about inflation and has had enough money to > save up for her future years. > Her sons both opted not to join the service > since there was little incentive (think what the volunteer armed services > would be like if there were 100% employment of civilians...). Now, I wouldn't think of claiming that these are typical Libertarian arguments, but they certainly aren't "straw men" either... (Unless anybody suspects me of having lots of accounts all over the country from which I post all the stupid arguments that I want to disagree with, under assumed names...) Wayne
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (01/22/85)
Wayne is explaining that it is not necessary > to build straw men to make people look stupid. Here are some from the > recent Libertaria debate: (I have forgotten who posted this, but there > was not a shred of support for these claims) That was the point. There was no shred of support for the original Libertaria posting. (Then again I haven't seen a shred of supporting evidence to the contrary either). Before presenting my comments it might be nice to refresh the reader's memory as to what Libertaria is/was: Richard Carnes painted it as the most ugly and depressing scenario he could think of (short of growing up a skeleton in a hunger stricken socialist country). My view was one of unlimited possibility. It was to provide a little contrast with just as much verifiability. > > > ... the legal code would be so much easier to understand it would > > be inconceivable that a lawyer's prowess would enter into the play. Is it really that hard to imagine a judicial system where the smartest lawyer didn't win (unlike what happens today)? or did you not understand the meaning of prowess in that sentence? I would think that anyone would favor such a system. Even if you believe it to be impossible, isn't it more likely that a system with fewer laws and a less powerful government would have a fairer legal system than one that is clogged with victimless crime laws? > > How about Jill is constantly employed, since there is no unemployment. > > Jill doesn't have to worry about inflation and has had enough money to > > save up for her future years. Get rid of the minimum wage law and anyone that wants a job will have one. Neuter the entitlement programs and everyone will want a job. Get the feds out of the monetary supply and there will be no inflation. > > Her sons both opted not to join the service > > since there was little incentive (think what the volunteer armed services > > would be like if there were 100% employment of civilians...). Almost all of the younger recruits that I know or have known since the days of volunteer service went in to it for the security of guaranteed employment. > Now, I wouldn't think of claiming that these are typical Libertarian > arguments, but they certainly aren't "straw men" either... (Unless > anybody suspects me of having lots of accounts all over the country > from which I post all the stupid arguments that I want to disagree > with, under assumed names...) > > Wayne He's right. I'm a separate entity. --Cliff [Matthews] {purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff {csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff 4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143
mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (01/23/85)
>I have seen some pretty silly things that libertarians have posted >lately, which leads me to suspect that Tim Sevener doesn't really need >to build straw men to make people look stupid. Granted! But he does it anyway! Up to my ankles in disgust, Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan