flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V Torek) (08/28/85)
fagin@ucbvax.ARPA (Barry Steven Fagin) writes: >(Insert (:-) wherever necessary) > >Okay, Mr. Torek: enough's enough. I've been watching you post your >centrist drivel for the past few months, and I've had it. As a >self-proclaimed iconoclast, you have taken pleasure in punching >holes in libertarian arguments wherever you can find them (although >to your credit you admit it when you cannot). Well I've >got news for you: there is *no* philosophical doctrine that is >without flaw. Methinks some flaws are worse than others. Libertarianism applied to pollution would result in a tyranny of the risk-averse (if applied consistently, with no fudging like your idea that the risk-averse would pay extra for it (which we discussed in mail, electronic & otherwise)). I still think it implies (taken as a morality which individuals must follow) that it's not OK to piss. >Libertarianism seems to me infinitely better than any of the >alternatives, so I support it. If you mean libertarianism as a plan for a government, I might on blue moons come dangerously close to agreeing. But as a philosophical/ ethical position, it's at best groundless. >However, as a committed wimp, (excuse me, centrist), you get to >survey the intellectual frontier, picking and choosing the ideas you >like. So let me put this to you: which of the following doctrines, >in your opinion, should we draw the most of our ideas from if we're >going to solve as many problems of the world as possible? > > 1) conservativism > 2) liberalism > 3) libertarianism > 4) populism > 5) other (*NOT* centrism, please. Centrism has no ideas of > its own) I suppose I'm closest to liberals out of the above; tho I do often agree with libertarian conclusions on government policies (e.g.: oil and gas price controls. Comparable worth. Social Security...). A political viewpoint can be analyzed as a set of assumptions about "values" and another set of assumptions about "facts". It is the "values" area that I disagree most severely with libertarianism on. Non-interference is called for most of the time (due to the *consequences*), but I just don't see putting such an overriding emphasis on it. --Paul V Torek, umcp-cs!flink
bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) (08/30/85)
Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ Keywords: In article <1412@umcp-cs.UUCP> flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V Torek) writes: >fagin@ucbvax.ARPA (Barry Steven Fagin) writes: > >> 1) conservativism >> 2) liberalism >> 3) libertarianism >> 4) populism >> 5) other (*NOT* centrism, please. Centrism has no ideas of >> its own) > >I suppose I'm closest to liberals out of the above; tho I do often agree >with libertarian conclusions on government policies (e.g.: oil and gas >price controls. Comparable worth. Social Security...). > >A political viewpoint can be analyzed as a set of assumptions about "values" >and another set of assumptions about "facts". It is the "values" area that >I disagree most severely with libertarianism on. Non-interference is >called for most of the time (due to the *consequences*), but I just don't >see putting such an overriding emphasis on it. > I tend to agree with this. I was going to reply to the original posting, but since it was directed at Mr Torek, I thought he ought to have first shot. It seems to me that and 'ism' that is left out above is pragmatism. Surely it must be possible to construct a political system which intervenes when it is profitable to do so, and leaves well enough alone otherwise. To this end, I am going to begin work on the constitution of Pragmataria. If anybody wants to contribute their ideas by mail, I will try to work them in. Should be ready with a first draft in a couple of weeks. At least it should provide lots of net traffic. >--Paul V Torek, umcp-cs!flink Bob Weiler.