mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (04/10/85)
Odd no. of '>' are mine; even no. are Torek's. >>>was an attempt to show how libertarians fail to examine the consequences >>>of their principles, by way of an example. > >>Okay, I was wrong, and I apologize; you were doing something even dumber: >>Assuming what Libertarians did and did not think about without conducting a >>reasonable investigation. > >I had reasonable grounds for my statement (see below). No, you didn't (see below). > However, it *was* >unfair of me to say that "libertarians fail to examine the consequences >of their principles" -- many of those consequences have been examined >quite thoroughly. But others areas haven't been. Or at least, not in >sufficient rigor. What I should have said was "there are some important >consequences of libertarian principles which (most) libertarians have >failed to note." That's true of almost any ideology. So what? >> 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." I am, of course, >open to evidence to the contrary. So what am I supposed to do? Provide you with transcripts of Libertarians discussing ideology? Get off it! > Evidence for my statement, however, >can be found in Nozick's book (ASU, p. 152): "I know of no theoretically >sophisticated treatment of these issues [about reparations]" (not an >exact quote). Nozick adds in a footnote: "But see the helpful discussion >... in *The Case for Black Reparations*" (again, not an exact quote -- >I can look up the exact quotes if you like). So Nozick -- one of the >most well-known and intelligent libertarians -- apparently thinks that >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. >>For example, American Indians have been invited (and come) to Libertarian >>Party conventions to speak. For example, there was an emotional battle >>some years ago in the SLS when members from the LPRC advocated seizing >>lands which had been plantations, and redistributing them amongst >>American Negroes. > >Well, I stand to some extent corrected. However, I challenge you to come >up with a discussion of this issue by the libertarians on the net >(besides yourself, but you were *responding* to *my* *initiation* of the >issue, which is a very different story!). In my several years on the net >I've seen no such thing. And such explanation has often been called for, >because (I'll bet) most non-libertarian netters would be surprised to >learn that libertarians support many "left"-sounding causes (like restoring >land to Amer. Indians, to blacks, etc.). No complex ideology has been as fully discussed on the net as we might like; which proves nothing about the virtues of any. >>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. > >Two can play this game: "that McKiernan accuses me of contradiction, in >spite of the obvious fact that he was in effect *challenged* to address >this issue BEFORE he said anything about it, and the other obvious fact >that 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 -- shows that he thinks his readers are stupid." 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. >Gee, aren't ad hominem attacks fun?? Not usually, but they are often relevant (see above). >>>The disruption and confusion that would result, if we tried to trace >>>the history of each possession to find its "rightful owner", constitutes >>>a reductio ad ... implausibilium of libertarianism. > >>No, it's a reductio ad implausibilium of a straw man. > >Hardly: take a look at Nozick, p. 153, on what a correct libertarian >principle of rectification would look like. Nozick's principle has >precisely this implausible consequence. Last time I looked, Nozick >was made of flesh and blood (of course, you are entitled to say that >Nozick is an atypically poor thinker for a libertarian -- ?,!). IF Nozick were truly a Libertarian, then I would say that ON THIS ISSUE he was both atypical and poor (I'm not sure that he'd be atypically poor tho, there are plenty of dumb Libertarians). > I >urge all my readers to take a look at this passage in Nozick, and >judge for themselves whether his principles have absurd consequences. > >>The idea that the burden of proof is on the accuser, rather than on the >>occupier, is in complete accord with Libertarian principle -- and, in fact, >>with Anglo-American tradition. > >"Complete accord"? Predictable, yes; consistent -- depends what you mean. >You fail to distinguish -- or forget to mention the distinction -- between >what the *legal* system ought to say, and what the *moral* actions of the >parties involved ought to be. SURE -- the legal system ought (by lib. >std's) -- in an archist libertaria, anyway -- to put the burden of proof >on the accuser. BUT -- the holder of the property perhaps ought only to >require reasonable evidence before giving up the goods. No argument. > To return to the >Indian who says "my father told me he would have given the land to me", >but can't prove this -- perhaps one should take his word for it. That would depend on the quality of his word. If I knew that he never lied and was never mistaken about such things, you'd be right. > And >now consider it from the Indian's point of view -- suppose he *knows* >his father would have given it -- it would seem that, by lib. std's, he >has a right to take it. Yes. Which is simply to say that ignorance can create conflicts. >>>>It should be recognized that not all the land of the Americas was used >>>>by Indians, and that this land was therefore legitimately up for grabs. >> >>>But in the absence of a precise definition of "use", this begs questions. > >>No, it doesn't 'beg the question' > >Yes it does: it begs the Q of whether the land was legitimately up for >grabs. To find a question that an assertion does not answer is not the same as demonstrating that the assertion begs THE question, merely that it begs A question. Back later, DKMcK