prof@chinet.UUCP (The Professor) (03/30/88)
In article <23422@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: >>As a libertarian and >>a mother let me suggest that it is impossible to keep a two year old >>alive by applying only measures that would be consented to by a >>rational human being. [because of the restrictions on the child's >>behaviour necessary to keep him out of harm's way...] >Why are such restrictive measures necessary? For the child's own good, >right? If the child were a rational agent s/he would accept reasonable >restrictions such as the ones you mentioned, since the child is ill-equipped >to deal with an unfamiliar, hostile environment like a busy street. This is fascinating. If persons X and Y were rational agents, they would accept reasonable restrictions against their behavior (reasonable as defined by... guess who?), but since they don't, they obviously aren't rational agents, and should be subjected to these restrictions. And why are these measures necessary? For their own good, right? Makes sense, doesn't it? Typical "individualist" doubletalk. The individualists speak of their ability to distinguish between the actions of a rational reasoning being and an irrational nonreasoning being. What is the basis for their distinction? Whether or not the being's actions conform to their standards of what a rational being would do! Oh yes, they claim they are basing this judgment on rationality and objectivistic ideals (don't they all!), but how do they judge what is reasonably rational? So much for their "individualism!" If this argument were made to THEM regarding their own refusal to obey society's laws (laws they often flaunt their disregard for, because they claim that it limits their freedom to be forced to obey them like everyone else does) surely there would be a call to arms. But notice here how a libertarian comes up with a justification that could be and would be used against other people at the whim of those in power. The libertarians would decide what a rational being would and wouldn't do, and anyone straying from their list of do's and don'ts would of course be subject to special restrictions, since "obviously" they aren't rational beings. Sound any different than the way things are now?
jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis) (03/30/88)
In article <4267@chinet.UUCP> prof@chinet.UUCP (The Professor) writes: >In article <23422@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: >>>[Carole Ashmore:] >>>As a libertarian and >>>a mother let me suggest that it is impossible to keep a two year old >>>alive by applying only measures that would be consented to by a >>>rational human being. [because of the restrictions on the child's >>>behaviour necessary to keep him out of harm's way...] > >>Why are such restrictive measures necessary? For the child's own good, >>right? If the child were a rational agent s/he would accept reasonable >>restrictions such as the ones you mentioned, since the child is ill-equipped >>to deal with an unfamiliar, hostile environment like a busy street. > >This is fascinating. If persons X and Y were rational agents, they would >accept reasonable restrictions against their behavior (reasonable as defined >by... guess who?), but since they don't, they obviously aren't rational ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >agents, and should be subjected to these restrictions. And why are these >measures necessary? For their own good, right? Makes sense, doesn't it? Don't put words in my mouth. Your knee-jerk flame is in response to an article that had a very narrow context, namely how libertarian ideology should deal with children (and by extrapolation, other beings which are _a priori_ incapable of informed choice). The "since they don't" you inserted (and the logical structure you therefore attribute to my argument) was nowhere to be found in any of MY postings. I presented a possible solution, one which I find to be elegant and pragmatic. You don't like it...fine, but do YOU have a better idea? You think we should let two-year-olds play in the street? Lock up parents for disciplining their kids? In your zeal for browbeating libertarians and "the individualists" (whoever they might be...) I think you've backed yourself into a corner, and I'm very interested to see how you're going to get out of it. If you *do* have a better idea, I'm all ears; the tone of your posting suggests not, though, and I'm not going to hold my breath. >Typical "individualist" doubletalk. The individualists speak of their ability >to distinguish between the actions of a rational reasoning being and an >irrational nonreasoning being. What is the basis for their distinction? In this case, age. Are you going to take issue with my characterization of fetuses and small children as generally incapable of rational decision-making? Anyone who believes otherwise is being, well, irrational. :-) I think you're also seeing a slippery slope here which doesn't exist in the scenario I put forth. No one has declared infants, mental patients, or just-plain-contrary individuals as "second-class citizens" or advocated wholesale abuse of their rights....only diminishing those rights (namely the right to act against one's own self-interest) to the extent that exercising them flies in the face of consensual reality. If you really have your heart set on arguing with libertarians about this, why not find one who claims that children are property, and therefore their parents can do anything they want with them? >If this argument were made to THEM regarding their own refusal to obey >society's laws (laws they often flaunt their disregard for, because they claim >that it limits their freedom to be forced to obey them like everyone else does) >surely there would be a call to arms. There HAS been a call to arms, and this newsgroup is one of the battlefields. I guess you're going to cast your lot with the statists, considering the ill will you show toward libertarians. Well, that's probably where the smart money is....but don't go claiming moral or ideological superiority on OUR turf, 'cause we'll beat your ass like a gong! -- Jim Lewis U.C. Berkeley
tad@tekgen.TEK.COM ((Thomas A. Dowe)) (03/31/88)
I wonder at the "fear" shown by those opposed to libertarian principals. They extract the "principal" and define the rest to fit they're own concep- tion of the_governing_system(s)_in_place_today_(or which should be, if they are not.) Next, they quibble over a libertarian statement of principal by hauling-out they're "definitions" and showing you why "libertarianism" can never work! Well professor, it has been working since the very begining of this particular form of representive democracy began; albeit, at less-and-less efficiency as the tumor of government has grown. Anti-libertarians are those who want to tell others how to take-care of their lives; they want more government since it allows them to discriminate as "they_know_best". But...to accuse those who espouse libertarian principals of such "prejudice" is simply...words fail me. -- -- Tad tad@tekgen.UUCP MS 19-434, Tektronix, PO Box 500, Beaverton OR 97077 (503)-627-7705