[net.philosophy] Relativism and Libertarianism

mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (01/19/85)

This is a re-posting; the original vanished mysteriously.

Listen up, vulgar Libertarians:

     Torek is right-on-the-money when it comes to attempts to derive
Libertarianism from ethical Relativism.  If there is no absolute good, if
right and wrong are purely subjective, then the Libertarian non-aggression
principle (which is itself an ethical standard) is BY F***ING DEFINITION a
purely subjective precept.

                                        Even more disgusted,
                                        DKMcK

mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (01/23/85)

>Since trying to logically derive ethics from objective truths has been
>proven useless (see Hume),

Oh no no no, Wayne; neither Hume nor anyone else has proven such attempts
useless.  Hume indicated the magnitude of the problem.

>                           why not approach the problem from the
>standpoint of which ethical views are the least "absolute" in nature.

You can ask 'why not?', and Torek et alii can ask 'why?'; 'why not?' is a
motivator only for those seeking an existential experience.

>Probably universal toleration and libertarianism are the most
>compatible with relativism,

I fail to see how Libertarianism is more compatible with Relativism than
are, say, Individualist Anarchism or Anarcho-Socialism.

>                                  Personally, I don't care if I'm not
>absolutely consistent,

Creeping Nihilism, Wayne, creeping Nihilism.

                                        Back to you,
                                        Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan