Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccice2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccice5!ccice2!cjk
From: cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Chris Kreilick)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Libertarianism & freedom
Message-ID: <543@ccice2.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 8-Jan-85 20:40:56 EST
Article-I.D.: ccice2.543
Posted: Tue Jan  8 20:40:56 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Jan-85 01:25:00 EST
References: <2673@ihldt.UUCP> <2303@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Central Engineering, Rochester, NY
Lines: 32

> In article <2673@ihldt.UUCP> stewart@ihldt.UUCP (R. J. Stewart) writes:
> >Actually, this has been explained on the net, but with the high volume
> >in this newsgroup it may have been missed.  The axiom that Libertarians
> >believe in (even more basic than the non-initiation of force), is:
> >
> >     There are about as many views of "right" and "wrong" as there are
> >     people in the world.  None of these can be shown to be better, in
> >     any objective way, than any other.
> >
> >Given that this is true, libertarians then reason that it is wrong for
> >one person, or a group of persons with similar views, to force their
> >(rather arbitrary) set of values on other people.  Non-coercion follows
> >from this reasoning, it does not drive it.
> 
> Granting, just for the sake of argument (I don't think it's true) that
> the indented statement is true, does the rest follow?  Is the reasoning
> valid?  It is not.  (I can't wait 'til my next posting on this, when I'll
> be sure to have a quote that will rub it in...)
> 
> 			--the romping iconoclast,
> 			Paul V. Torek, (moving to) wucs!wucec1!pvt1047

Paul, I think I'm getting the hang of this.

Does anything you write make sense?  It does not.


P.S.
	Perhaps a new pair of rompers.

-- 
TBAKTM