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