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