Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uiucdcs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!renner
From: renner@uiucdcs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Exactamoondo!
Message-ID: <29200182@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 2-Jan-85 04:34:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.29200182
Posted: Wed Jan  2 04:34:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 4-Jan-85 00:22:11 EST
References: <2148@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Lines: 26
Nf-ID: #R:umcp-cs:-214800:uiucdcs:29200182:000:1271
Nf-From: uiucdcs!renner    Jan  2 03:34:00 1985

>>  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.  
>>  			-- Richard Carnes (carnes@gargoyle)

>  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.
>				   -- Paul V. Torek (flink@umcp-cs)


Have a look at a dictionary.  You will find that "freedom" and "liberty"
are defined as the ability to choose without coercion.  The means to effect
one's will is better defined as "wealth" in this context.

It doesn't make sense to include wealth in the definition of freedom.
Who's to decide how much wealth is required?  What if I decide that I need
a new BMW each month to be free?  Is the car dealer oppressing me when he
refuses to hand me the keys?  Abraham Lincoln couldn't buy a television set
or ride a plane to Washington, and I can; was he less "free" than I?

Scott Renner
{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner