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!mhuxj!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!renner From: renner@uiucdcs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Exactamoondo! Message-ID: <29200186@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 3-Jan-85 02:41:00 EST Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.29200186 Posted: Thu Jan 3 02:41:00 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 4-Jan-85 00:31:53 EST References: <2148@umcp-cs.UUCP> Lines: 28 Nf-ID: #R:umcp-cs:-214800:uiucdcs:29200186:000:1420 Nf-From: uiucdcs!renner Jan 3 01:41:00 1985 > What I have trouble with is why, out of all the possible "basic goods" > people could want, libertarians seem to have a fixation for freedom > from force. Whenever a philosophical position claims that one thing > is an absolute good, to be followed to the exclusion of everything > else, I think that this shows there is something fundamentally wrong > with it. What is wrong with saying, "coercion only in a few cases where > the situation justifies it"? Or, "coercion only when the majority > opinion is in favor of it"? > -- Wayne (faustus@ucbcad) I have trouble with Wayne's belief in the magical properties of the majority. If I wish to skip church when the majority thinks everyone should attend, why should I be forced to comply? If I wish to speak of Marxism when the majority follows John Birch, why must I be thrown in jail? If I wish to treat my cancer with apricot pits when the majority believes this to be useless, why should I be constrained? I say that each person should choose for himself so long as his choices do not harm another. Then if you believe that others should behave in a certain way, you are free to *convince* them. Not coerce. I hold this to be an "absolute good" because in a system where every person is free, all other goods can be obtained if people agree that they want them. This is not true in other systems. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner