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.