orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (06/25/85)
> I'd recommend this book to everyone, but RAH espouses things so far out of > fashion that the left compares him to the Nazis. Just imagine, thinking that > personal responsibility and meeting your commitments are good ideas. Not to > mention attacking the church, slavery, and espousing freedom in general > <mike > As I recall it was revolutionaries like Thomas Jefferson and the founders of this country via Revolution who first advocated freedom of religion and promotion of free ideas. It is right-wing Moral Majority followers who are advocating a return to religion stuffed down people's throats and book-burning. As I recall it was those "bleeding heart" "leftist" abolitionists who advocated the abolition of slavery. The right-wing was content to hold onto its private slave property. As I recall it was the right-wing Joseph McCarthy who ruined the careers of thousands because their political beliefs differed from his. As we have just seen "Libert"arians like Mike Sykora have no qualms about abolishing freedom of speech in favor of private property. Who really espouses "freedom"? tim sevener whuxl!orb
mwm@ucbvax.ARPA (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) (06/25/85)
In article <666@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >> I'd recommend this book to everyone, but RAH espouses things so far out of >> fashion that the left compares him to the Nazis. Just imagine, thinking that >> personal responsibility and meeting your commitments are good ideas. Not to >> mention attacking the church, slavery, and espousing freedom in general >> <mike > >Who really espouses "freedom"? > tim sevener whuxl!orb You're right, tim - it was the indeed the "left" who did all those things. Then again, if you read RAH, you'll find that he does indeed take the stands I claim he takes. So why does the left (or some members of it) denigrate him? Maybe it's the "personal responsibility" and other such libertarian notions that bother them. <mike -- After 5 years, a quote worthy of Netnews (and it works as disclaimer!): "Truth is variable."
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (06/26/85)
> Then again, if you read RAH, you'll find that he does indeed take the stands > I claim he takes. So why does the left (or some members of it) denigrate > him? Maybe it's the "personal responsibility" and other such libertarian > notions that bother them. > > <mike One of the few things I can think of that is sillier than taking Ayn Rand seriously as a political philosopher is to confer the same status upon Bob Heinlein. I found the "Notebooks of Lazarus Long" in Time Enough for Love to be occasionally witty, incredibly pretentious, and consistently shallow. Oddly, I didn't even bother to analyse it in terms of left-right. I just felt sad that the old master had slipped so far. I'm told that his writing *did* improve a little after the brain tumor was removed (between Time Enough for Love and Number of the Beast), but I haven't found time to check for myself. Baba
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/27/85)
> > I'd recommend this book to everyone, but RAH espouses things so far out of > > fashion that the left compares him to the Nazis. Just imagine, thinking that > > personal responsibility and meeting your commitments are good ideas. Not to > > mention attacking the church, slavery, and espousing freedom in general > > <mike > > > > As I recall it was revolutionaries like Thomas Jefferson and the founders > of this country via Revolution who first advocated freedom of religion and > promotion of free ideas. > It is right-wing Moral Majority followers who are advocating a return to > religion stuffed down people's throats and book-burning. > 1. If you read what the founders of the country had to say about freedom, you would see that while not radical libertarians, they were much closer to the libertarian ideal than modern leftists, primarily because the founders of this country supported individual freedom, not egalitarianism. The most egalitarian of the bunch was doubtless Thomas Paine, who moved away from a support of unlimited democracy at least partly because of the abuses of wage and price controls in Revolutionary Philadelphia. (See _Thomas_ _Paine_ _And_ _Revolutionary_ _America_ for a little background.) 2. The enthusiasm for book-burning isn't confined to fundamentalists --- a lot of feminist groups have been pushing for laws which restrict pornography. Their arguments are identical in nature to those of the fundamentalists --- they feel that pornography damages the society as a whole. 3. The fundamentalists are *not* traditional conservatives --- for all the flaws in the conservative position, conservatives in this country have traditionally felt uncomfortable with the Big Government approach of the fundamentalists. (That's not to say the conservatives, like the left, haven't used Big Government occasionally when it served their purposes.) Significantly, the fundamentalists have their greatest strength in the part of the country that has voted Democrat for a *long* time --- and don't forget that the Democrats have only in very recent history ceased to be the party of George Wallace and Lester Maddox. > As I recall it was those "bleeding heart" "leftist" abolitionists who > advocated the abolition of slavery. The right-wing was content to > hold onto its private slave property. > The abolitionist movement consisted of radical libertarians; their first attempt at politics was the Liberty Party, and I suspect most modern libertarians could feel comfortable voting for the positions that the Liberty Party took. The abolitionists later formed the Radical wing of the Republican Party, withdrawing in 1872 because the corruption that swept post-Civil War America had thoroughly corrupted the Republican Party as well. Remember, too, that slaveowners argued for slavery based on the right of the people to make whatever laws seemed appropriate; the abolitionists argued that democracy was not valid if it denied individual liberties. The slaveowners argued that the people were paramount, and could pass any laws they wanted, even though these laws: a. prohibited slaveowners from freeing slaves without permission of the state legislature (showing that the Southern governments didn't believe in the right of property if "the common good" required differently); b. prohibited anyone, even slaveowners, from teaching slaves to read, again, with the same result as a); c. prohibited free blacks from making contracts (before the war), denying their right to engage in economic activity. Of course, after the war, the Southern democracies proceeded to pass laws "for the public good" that continued to restrict the rights of free blacks to make contracts, own firearms, or be unemployed. > As I recall it was the right-wing Joseph McCarthy who ruined the careers > of thousands because their political beliefs differed from his. > As I recall, Robert Kennedy approved illegal wiretaps on Martin Luther King, and had the FBI roust steel company executives out of bed at 5:00 AM to question them about steel prices. Abuse of power seems to be built in to slimy politicians of all ideologies. (Remember LBJ?) > As we have just seen "Libert"arians like Mike Sykora have no qualms about > abolishing freedom of speech in favor of private property. > This is a blatantly false statement. Sykora, myself, and others argue that freedom of speech does not abolish the right of private property; the First Amendment guarantees that "Congress shall pass no law"; the Fourteenth Amendment extends the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states and their subsidiary governments. Private property owners are no more subject to the First Amendment guarantee of free speech than they are subject to the restriction on "respecting an establishment of religion". Or would you argue that private property can't be used for religious or anti-religious services. > Who really espouses "freedom"? > > tim sevener whuxl!orb It sure isn't someone who wants the government involved in every decision that individuals want.
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/28/85)
>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 5:41 pm Jun 24, 1985 */ >As we have just seen "Libert"arians like Mike Sykora have no qualms about >abolishing freedom of speech in favor of private property. Actually, I never said this. . . . but since you brought it up, my position is that "Freedom of Speech" means that the government has no right to stop you from saying anything so long as you are not violating anyone else's rights. You have the right to say what you want, but it is ludicrous to suppose that I have to supply you with the media. > tim sevener whuxl!orb Mike Sykora
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (07/02/85)
> > Actually, I never said this. . . . but since you brought it up, my position > is that "Freedom of Speech" means that the government has no right to stop > you from saying anything so long as you are not violating anyone else's rights. > You have the right to say what you want, but it is ludicrous to suppose that I > have to supply you with the media. > > Mike Sykora In other words, you can have a soapbox to debate political issues in the narrow space of your own home but to provide public parks to allow anyone to speak or to provide access to TV and radio for all public views is wrong? Instead one should allow public debate to be decided by the democracy of money? Is public debate and the right to circulate opinions and views served when two candidates from major parties for Senator of California are not placed on Los Angeles TV stations to debate because the TV stations could make more money with commercial programming? Do workers have the right to discuss unions at their place of work? Or does "free speech" stop at the edge of private property? tim sevener whuxl!orb
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/03/85)
>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 8:45 am Jul 2, 1985 */ >In other words, you can have a soapbox to debate political issues in >the narrow space of your own home but to provide public parks to allow >anyone to speak or to provide access to TV and radio for all public views >is wrong? You seem to have excluded the possibility that a property owner sympathetic to the cause might offer property for these purposes as well as the possibility that the group could puchase or rent property for these purposes. I see no reason for such exclusion. >Instead one should allow public debate to be decided by the democracy of money? If people wish to discuss what they perceive to be "the issues" or anything else before voting, no one will stop them. >Is public debate and the right to circulate opinions and views served >when two candidates from major parties for Senator of California are >not placed on Los Angeles TV stations to debate because the TV stations >could make more money with commercial programming? What right to circulate opinions and views? What does such a right entail? Did it ever occur to you that the reasons the broadcasting of such debates doesn't yield as great a profit as other programming is because the public prefers watching other things? Should we force them to watch these debates because you and others deem them important. Could such actions be defended in the name of "freedom of speech?" Hardly. They could in fact be attacked on the grounds that they violate this freedom. (Note that I haven't said anything about how boring political debates are. :-) >Do workers have the right to discuss unions at their place of work? That depends on the terms of the contract they voluntarily entered into with their employer. Note that this is the same principle that would govern all contracts in a libertarian society. Thus, in such a society organized labor has no special priveliges. > tim sevener whuxl!orb Mike Sykora