mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (01/19/85)
This is a re-posting; the original vanished mysteriously.
"Lord, protect me from my friends; my enemies I can take care of myself."
Voltaire
I am appalled by what some of the alleged Libertarians on the net are
saying.
Let's get one thing clear:
Libertarianism is a POLITICAL philosophy; nothing more.
It is NOT a general theory of ethics, meta-ethics, epistemology, or ontology.
For example: IT IS NOT A THEORY OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM!!! Some Libertarians are
Relativists; some (in fact: MOST) are not. Libertarianism, PER SE, has little
to say on the matter.
It is galling to me to see people preaching Relativism and calling it
Libertarianism for two reasons:
1) I am a Libertarian; and I am not a Relativist.
2) As any half-assed philosopher realized before he reached puberty, the
logical conclusion of Relativism is Nihilism. I'll be damned if I'll
sit quietly as some one attempts to erect an edifice that I care so
much about on a foundation of rotten wood!
I have other complaints about those who we may call "vulgar Libertarians",
but I always feel like Sisyphus when writing to net.politics or net.philosophy.
Disgusted again,
Daniel Kian Mc Kiernanfaustus@ucbcad.UUCP (01/20/85)
> I am appalled by what some of the alleged Libertarians on the net are > saying. > Let's get one thing clear: > Libertarianism is a POLITICAL philosophy; nothing more. > It is NOT a general theory of ethics, meta-ethics, epistemology, or ontology. > For example: IT IS NOT A THEORY OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM!! Some Libertarians are > Relativists; some (in fact: MOST) are not. Libertarianism, PER SE, has little > to say on the matter. How can you have politics without ethics? Ethics tells you what is good, and politics tells you how to get it in society. The real debate going on between libertanians and non-libertarians does seem to be an ethical one, though - is freedom the ultimate good? > It is galling to me to see people preaching Relativism and calling it > Libertarianism for two reasons: > 1) I am a Libertarian; and I am not a Relativist. > 2) As any half-assed philosopher realized before he reached puberty, the > logical conclusion of Relativism is Nihilism. I'll be damned if I'll > sit quietly as some one attempts to erect an edifice that I care so > much about on a foundation of rotten wood! Not at all... The logical conclusion of relativism is subjectivism, but if you can't take that you become a nihilist... But this isn't net.philosophy... Luckily I am blessed with a complete ass so that I'm immune to this sort of logic... :-) > I have other complaints about those who we may call "vulgar Libertarians", > but I always feel like Sisyphus when writing to net.politics or net.philosophy Exactly... You never convince other people, but you can impress the people who are not yet committed... The trick is to figure out when you have impressed them enough that you can ignore the people you disagree with. I'm not really serious, but this sometimes isn't far from the mark... [ Side note -- when you write articles, please don't let the lines reach to the 80th column, because it is a real pain to make sure that they don't overflow when they are quoted... No fmt with > ... ] Wayne
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/22/85)
Wayne, I will agree that one cannot have a political philosophy without at least a rudamentary system of ethics. What I don't agree with is that the ethical basis for libertarianism has to be SUBJECTIVISM, under any of its forms, such as moral relativism. Where do you get that there is a binary choice between subjectivism and nihilism? Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (01/23/85)
>> Libertarianism is a POLITICAL philosophy; nothing more. >>It is NOT a general theory of ethics, meta-ethics, epistemology, or ontology. >>For example: IT IS NOT A THEORY OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM!! Some Libertarians >>are Relativists; some (in fact: MOST) are not. Libertarianism, PER SE, has >>little to say on the matter. >How can you have politics without ethics? If you're not going to respond to what I actually said, at least have the good sense not to quote me! I said Libertarianism is not a 'general theory of ethics' (note the word 'general'). The point was -- and is -- that Libertarianism, PER SE, is a political philosophy; considerations of a non- political nature are simply not treated by Libertarianism. >> 2) As any half-assed philosopher realized before he reached puberty, >> the logical conclusion of Relativism is Nihilism. >Not at all... The logical conclusion of relativism is subjectivism, but >if you can't take that you become a nihilist... Unless you adopt Nihilism, any subjective truth can be reformulated as an objective truth. > But this isn't >net.philosophy... I certainly would have preferred confining this discussion to net.philosophy, but vulgar Libertarians were posting Relativism, and calling it 'Libertarianism', in net.politics. Back to you, Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan Chief Agitator, Terran Mystery Poodles (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Galatic Mystery Poodles)