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