esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (04/16/85)
[I'll get back to the real issues, but first, I have to defend against this ad hominem attack] Odd no. of '>' are McKiernan's, even no. = me >> I had reasonable grounds for my statement (see below). >No, you didn't (see below). Here's the first accusation which I intend to refute. >> However, it *was* unfair of me to say that "libertarians fail to >> examine the consequences of their principles" [...] I should have >> said [...] "there are some important consequences of libertarian >> principles which (most) libertarians have failed to note." >> [and those consequences are a "reductio ad implausibilium"] This is the statement in question. The context suggested the part which I have inserted in brackets at the bottom. >>> The question of reparations is OFTEN discussed amongst Libertarians, >>> and with informed outsiders. For example, I have [...] > >> I think you are the "exception that proves the rule." > So what am I supposed to do? Provide you with transcripts of Libertarians > discussing ideology? Get off it! This is not part of what I consider the ad hominem attack (it's an understandable expression of frustration); I just wanted to clarify my comment "I think you are the 'exception that proves the rule'." That was my reaction to *this piece* of evidence showing that Libertarians do think in depth about these issues. As I read on, I encountered more evidence, which did partly convince me. (I then admitted "I stand to some extent corrected".) Unfortunately, I neglected to go back and edit my "exception" statement after finding out that I was at least half wrong. In the future, I will try to read carefully through a whole article before responding to any part of it. McKiernan has shown that there are some libertarians (e.g. him) who have considered these issues in depth, and many others (e.g. some Libertarian groups) who have at least realized that many American Indians may deserve "reparations" according to their principles. (But have they addressed the issue "sufficiently"? Well, what is "sufficient"? It depends whether I'm right on the "real issue" -- whether implausible consequences do follow from "reparations" principles. If so, then addressing the issue sufficiently means recognizing these consequences, and either accepting them or giving up libertarianism.) So, "what am I [McK] supposed to do?" He has already done most of it -- showing me that a significant number of libertarians (as represented by certain groups) have noticed the issue. He could also cite authors -- Robert Nozick is apparently out, but how about Ayn Rand(?), David Friedman, or Murray Rothbard? If any of these (or comparably well- known) authors have addressed the issue sufficiently, I will eat my words. But even if I have to eat my words, I still had good grounds for my statement at the time I made it. >> Evidence for my statement, however, can be found in Nozick's book >> (ASU, p. 152): "I [do not know of any thoroughgoing or] theoretically >> sophisticated treatment of these issues [about reparations]" ... So >> Nozick ... thinks ... the issues have not been sufficiently addressed. > 1) While Nozick is often called a Libertarian (even by himself), and while > his comments are often relevant to Libertarianism, he has routinely taken > positions incompatible with Libertarianism (such as his position on > suicide), and he cannot be considered a true Libertarian. > 2) There is a BIG difference between the claim that Libertarians have not > addressed an issue, and the claim that we have not addressed it > sufficiently. 1: That's news to me!! Do any of the other libertarians on the net -- Nat, Laura, Barry, Cliff? -- agree that Nozick is not a true libertarian? Have you read *Anarchy State & Utopia*? I am not familiar with Nozick's position on suicide, but anyway, isn't it generally conceded that libertarians disagree on a lot of things? And even if you're right -- what am *I* supposed to do, Dan? How was I supposed to know this? 2: Yes -- and my main claim is the latter! (Except that, as far as I can recall, libertarians on the net had not addressed it AT ALL! And yet, they had good cause to -- it was some of them who mentioned the point that the Indians were using the land before the Pilgrims, without even mentioning as an aside, "this also brings up the issue of reparations..."!) ------------------------------------ >>> that Torek accuses us of ignoring an issue in the same posting in which he >>> attacks my addressing of the issue, implies that he views his readers as >>> too irrational or stupid to notice the contradiction. >> [McKiernan] was in effect *challenged* to address this issue BEFORE he >> said anything about it [...] there is no contradiction between saying a >> group has failed to address an issue and admitting that they will address >> it if it is brought to their attention [...] > Sorry, Torek, but lying won't get you out of this one. You REPEATED your > assertion (that we did not address the issue) AFTER attacking the way that I > addressed it. What's my "lie"?? You were in effect challenged to address the issue by my original (~12-line) article. You replied. I then criticized your discussion of the issue, and tried to explain the point of the original one. THEN you wrote the article which included the above (>>>) accusing me of contradiction. In trying to *explain* the point of *the original article*, I said that "lib- tarians fail to examine the consequences of their principles". In order to call this a contradiction, you have to A) ignore context, which showed I was talking about the original article, and B) interpret my statement as meaning "libertarians REFUSE to examine ... (even *after challenged* to do so.)" That is obviously NOT what I meant. If this is not the statement of mine you meant, then QUOTE ME where I supposedly contradict. (I'll send you the article in question if you want.) QUOTE ME: PUT UP, OR SHUT UP. >> Gee, aren't ad hominem attacks fun?? >Not usually, but they are often relevant (see above). Huh? Even if I were as bad as you say, my POINT still might be valid -- the asininity of the arguer does not preclude the soundness of the arguments. So why are you so intent on badmouthing me? -- Paul V. Torek, honestly
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/22/85)
Hello there. 1. Nozick presents a position which could be considered libertarian. However his reasons for coming to his conclusions are his own -- and a lot of them do not wash -- which leaves a good many libertarians wishing he had not made them at all. Rand is closer to ``mainstream libertarian thought'' (a great deal of which she inspired, if nothing else). Still there are libertarians who want to disassociate themselves from the Objectivists as well. Murray Rothbard is in much the same boat - he is too much of an anarchist for many libertarians. 2. I have read *Anarchy State and Utopia*. I can discuss its virtues and flaws at great length. I am glad that it was widely read -- it got people thinking in ways that had not been common. But I think that Nozick ends up making a case for a welfare state (though Nozick, of course, doesn't think so!) This means that there is either something wrong in his principles, or in his understanding of them (I think both). It would have been really nice if Nozick had bothered to understand the Randian Argument before he tried to improve on it (though not, I think in ASaU -- I have lots of Nozick and I get them confused and htey are all packed now...) 'cause he made a royal mess of it, and it is a rather beautiful argument. 3. I have *The Libertarian Reader* which was edited by Tibor Machin. 2 articles in it refer to *New Indian Claims for Land* and one of them centres around land claims of Indians which are rather well recongnised as valid -- and what to do about restoring their land to them. Tehre are references to other papers, but I forget where they are published and what they are and I am not going to rummage through 15 boxes of books to find them...) Sorry that I can't repond more, but I am gone in 5 days... Yippee! Laura Creighton utzoo!laura