danw@oliven.UUCP (danw) (12/08/84)
[] >This is worth elaborating on, for here we have a CLASSICAL libertarian >FALLACY. Libertarians see political philosophy as a ONE-DIMENSIONAL >spectrum: someone is either for "less" government or "more". To state >the obvious (obvious to everyone but libertarians that is), this totally >ignores the fact that there are DIFFERENT KINDS of government activity. Government is an economic cancer, granted there are DIFFERENT KINDS of cancers. ALL of them are lethal to one degree or another. danw
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (12/11/84)
> [] > > > >This is worth elaborating on, for here we have a CLASSICAL libertarian > >FALLACY. Libertarians see political philosophy as a ONE-DIMENSIONAL > >spectrum: someone is either for "less" government or "more". To state > >the obvious (obvious to everyone but libertarians that is), this totally > >ignores the fact that there are DIFFERENT KINDS of government activity. > > Government is an economic cancer, granted there are DIFFERENT > KINDS of cancers. ALL of them are lethal to one degree or another. > > > danw I find this analogy curious: cancer is essentially a ``libertarian'' phenomenon, as it occurs when cells decide to multiply without regulation and against the purpose defined for them by the body (i.e. ``government''). Of course, I am equating a libertarian with an anarchist, as Dan seems to do. Perhaps there is a middle ground between totalitarianism and anarchy? I find that not only do libertarian-anarchists seem to hold a one- dimensional view of government, but they tend to have the black-or- white, either/or outlook as well. This ``true-believer'' attitude can make their spoutings pretty hard to swallow. I think libertarian-anarchists should label themselves as such; not all civil libertarians are anarchists, as Dan seems to be. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall Note: I am a *librarian-anarchist*; my books are scattered all over my office...