Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihuxl!elron From: elron@ihuxl.UUCP (Gary F. York) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Exactamoondo! Message-ID: <1468@ihuxl.UUCP> Date: Sun, 30-Dec-84 20:50:38 EST Article-I.D.: ihuxl.1468 Posted: Sun Dec 30 20:50:38 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 31-Dec-84 03:02:39 EST References: <2148@umcp-cs.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 85 Although I get impatient with those who fill up the first screen with quotes from previous articles, I think I must do much the same in fairness to the respective authors. Fortunately, the article I'm "excerpting" is brief. Author 1: Paul V. Torek, umcp-cs!flink > responding to Author 2: Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes >> >From: Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes >> Libertarians also seem to think that freedom is merely the absence of >> coercion. But it seems to me that freedom must include the means or power >> to effect one's will. A totally paralyzed person hasn't much freedom, >> even though he isn't coerced. A poor man is less free than a rich man >> to do what he wants because he lacks means. >As "The Fonz" would say: EXACTAMOONDO! Freedom *from* coercion, without >freedom *to* do anything, is worthless. What libertarians want, and >what rational people want, are as different as night and day. > --The insufferable iconoclast, > Paul V. Torek, umcp-cs!flink Let me take this piece by piece. (Insufferable indeed!) From: Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes >> Libertarians also seem to think that freedom is merely the absence of >> coercion. ... Correct! My dictionary thinks so too. >> .... But it seems to me that freedom must include the means or power >> to effect one's will. ... I think the word you are looking for, Richard, unless of course you INTEND to equivocate, is ability, not freedom. From the Oxford American Dictionary (1980): Ability ... 1. the quality that makes an action or process possible, the capacity or power to do something. 2. cleverness, talent. Substituting ability (in the first sense defined) for freedom and able for free, the following statements: >> .... A totally paralyzed person hasn't much freedom, >> even though he isn't coerced. A poor man is less free than a rich man >> to do what he wants because he lacks means. become: .... A totally paralyzed person hasn't much ability, even though he isn't coerced. A poor man is less able than a rich man to do what he wants because he lacks means. which is true but tautological. From: Paul V. Torek, umcp-cs!flink, responding to Richard's statement above. > ... Freedom *from* coercion, without freedom *to* do anything, is worthless. Surely not! The only restriction libertarians place on all the "freedom to"s is that they be accomplished without coercion. You may not achieve your own "freedom to" at the expense of another's "freedom from". I can conceive of innumerable things worth doing which do not at all involve coercing others. Can't you? > .... What libertarians want, and > what rational people want, are as different as night and day. Now really, Paul, what do you believe libertarians want? Libertarians, as libertarians, want this and only this: A world where there is broad agreement that the only proper use of force is in responding to those who initiate its use. If this be night, what then is day? Gary F. York, ihuxl!elron (312) 979-0981 ix 1b455 Bell Labs Naperville, Il.