prof@chinet.UUCP (The Professor) (03/30/88)
In article <23347@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: [a very good analysis and conclusion about the implicit commitment a woman makes when she chooses not to abort a fetus and carry it] [until...] > Some libertarians have suggested the following criterion > for humans who are for some reason incapable of rational decision-making: > forbid any act against the child (or whoever) which a rational human being > would not consent to. This neatly solves the problem of allowing abortions, > but not gratuitous infanticide. Yes, it very neatly solves a lot of problems. All that is required is to have a board of qualified rational objectivist libertarians decide what things a rational human being would and would not consent to. Once that's done, it will be very easy for the rational objectivist libertarians to have the kind of world they want, via their process of "rational selection." What a great idea! Isn't it amazing how "individualists" are so often the biggest purveyors of the claim that they can know what are the limits of the possible spectrum of actions for a "rational human being!" What makes them think this?
jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis) (03/30/88)
In article <4259@chinet.UUCP> prof@chinet.UUCP (The Professor) writes: >[regarding the criterion of rationality I brought up] >Yes, it very neatly solves a lot of problems. All that is required is to >have a board of qualified rational objectivist libertarians decide what things >a rational human being would and would not consent to. You mean like, uhhh, a jury? Hell no, you're right, that would NEVER work.... -- Jim Lewis U.C. Berkeley
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (04/01/88)
In article <4259@chinet.UUCP> prof@chinet.UUCP (The Professor) writes: >Isn't it amazing how "individualists" are so often the biggest purveyors of >the claim that they can know what are the limits of the possible spectrum >of actions for a "rational human being!" There are many flavors of "individualism", but one idea that is common to all is that "individualism" means respecting the natural rights of other indivuduals. Somebody who goes along with the group, and seldom has any original opinions, can still be an individualist, so long as he does not attempt to force others to give up their natural rights. Being "individualist" means having respect for the natural rights of other individuals. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi
turpin@ut-sally.UUCP (Russell Turpin) (04/01/88)
In article <2523@bsu-cs.UUCP>, dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: > There are many flavors of "individualism", but one idea that is common > to all is that "individualism" means respecting the natural rights of > other indivuduals. Well, no. Max Stirner's writings are, by almost any measure, an example of extreme invidualistic philosophy, but he did not believe in natural rights. Many libertarians today (but certainly not most) hold that natural rights are a myth, perhaps in part because those who write on natural rights (Rothbard, Gewirth, etc) never quite manage to establish them. Russell