hfavr@mtuxo.UUCP (a.reed) (02/13/86)
>>[Adam Reed (ihnp4!npois!adam)] >[Jan Wasilewsky (decvax!inmet!janw)] [Adam Reed again:] >>Schwartz argues that Libertarianism is a political movement whose >>members have no common philosophical ground from which to derive a >>consistent set of political goals. >Agreed. The operative word is *common*. >>The nominal objective of eliminating >>coercion is not enough, since different groups of Libertarians hold >>philosophical positions leading to widely different, and mutually >>inconsistent, definitions of coercion. >Premise granted, conclusion does not follow. If Schwartz had a syllogistic proof, there would be no reason to devote 5/6ths of the article to documentation. The argument is hypothetico-deductive: hypothesis, mechanism, evidence. >Precisely identical objectives are unnecessary for an alliance to be >beneficial to all the allies. It is enough that objectives overlap. Schwartz documents the fact that the primary objectives of the various factions within the Libertarian movement do not overlap. >>But a political movement without clearly - that is, philosophi- >>cally - defined goals is likely to degenerate in a direction con- >>sonant with the culturally dominant ideas of its time. >Not at all clear. Imagine an idealized picture: an alliance of >*several* movements, each *with* a clearly, philosophically de- >fined goal - all different. Why should each strand degenerate ? >And if not, why should the alliance (if it serves some purpose)? The objection assumes enough integrity in the component movements to identify with some precision what goals each expects the alliance to help achieve, and to dissociate itself from the alliance if/when the alliance becomes counterproductive to these goals. Schwartz's documentation shows that this assumption does not apply to any group within the Libertarian political movement. >Degenerate is loaded language. *degenerate* vi .... 5: to evolve or develop into a less autonomous or less functionally active form (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G & C Merriam Co., 1981). I am using the word precisely. >You sound like a saint who doesn't >want to have anything to do with this evil world. I do not regard the world today as evil, merely suboptimal. This is why I would rather change the world than accomodate to it. >A political movement is not for saving souls in isolation: it is >a part of the culture of its time - a *different* part if it's >any use; but it can gain from dialogue with other parts. True, but I distinguish between dialogue and compromise. >>The documentation in the first 5/6ths of the article is >>there to demonstrate that this process has already started and, >>whatever my differences with Schwartz's evaluation of specific >>trends within the Libertarian movement, I think that he has >>demonstrated the applicability of his thesis beyond a reasonable >>doubt. >You keep using capital L. What about libertarian trends in >society at large ? They seem to be on the increase. This is because I would rather not give the Libertarian (with a capital L) movement credit for trends it had no part in. Adam Reed (ihnp4!npois!adam)