Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/23/84; site ucbcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!faustus
From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: libertarianism VS economic reality
Message-ID: <3@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Dec-84 20:04:03 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.3
Posted: Tue Dec  4 20:04:03 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Dec-84 02:11:14 EST
References: <2150@randvax.UUCP> <2628@ihldt.UUCP>
Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 30

> > It often seems like those
> > arguing the ``pure'' libertarian position are committing the falacy
> > of asserting as an axiom the supreme moral goodness of personal freedom,
> > then using this axiom to ``prove'' the relative badness of all other
> > points of view.
> > ...
> > Here, as in many places, deciding ``who's right'' or ``who's wrong''
> > depends upon ``whose rules'' are used...
>
> Without realizing it, you've hit the (libertarian) nail on the head. 
> This is precisely what libertarians are trying to say, not just about
> political arguments but about all parts of life.  No viewpoint is
> universally right or wrong; each person should be able to run their own
> affairs.

But what if running my affairs involves running your affairs too? You're
out of luck then...

> Now that's true freedom.  The libertarian form of government is designed
> to let this become reality.

I'll agree, that's freedom, but to take the argument one stage further,
I have the freedom to disagree with you that absolute freedom is the
most important thing. The point of the article you quote is that people
who have different axiom systems aren't ever going to argue each other
to the other side, so we should just accept that there are different
possible axioms. But just because people are all going to think differently
you can't claim that they should all be allowed to act just as they feel.

	Wayne