Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site unmvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!unmvax!cliff
From: cliff@unmvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Libertarianism & freedom
Message-ID: <570@unmvax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 6-Jan-85 18:34:51 EST
Article-I.D.: unmvax.570
Posted: Sun Jan  6 18:34:51 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 9-Jan-85 05:49:56 EST
References: <2148@umcp-cs.UUCP> <> <266@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Lines: 91

> Cliff Matthews also posted an article quoting his dictionary on the
> definition of freedom.  Here we have an interesting sample of the alleged
> libertarian thought process.  Not only do libertarians seem to derive their
> political theory from dictionaries, they don't seem to read past the first
> definition given.  The Oxford English Dictionary, generally regarded as the
> most authoritative and complete English dictionary, contains the following
> definition, among others, of freedom:  
> 
> 	"The quality of being free from the control of fate or necessity,
> 	the power of self-determination attributed to the will."
> --the sense I was referring to.

Let me refresh a few memories... here is a reproduction of the part of my
article that mentioned the definition of freedom:

You> True freedom also implies knowledge.  In our society most
You> people's political opinions are formed to a great extent through a process
You> of indoctrination.  Their beliefs, habits, and preferences are shaped by
You> outside influences.  The fact that people are not threatened by physical
You> force does not make them free.

Me> Yow!  Remember all the spelling flames of years past?  My next few statements
Me> may evoke some more spontaneous combustion.  Your diction is horrible.  You
Me> are deliberately misusing words.  Again I quote Webster's:
Me> 
Me> "freedom n.
Me>  1. the state or quality of being free; especially,
Me>     (a) exemption or liberation from the control of some other person or
Me>         some arbitrary power; liberty; independence;"

You said that not being threatened by physical force does not make people free.
By Webster's, you are wrong.  Why did I pick the first entry in the dictionary?
because that is the one that fit.  THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT THREATENED BY
PHYSICAL FORCE MAKES THEM FREE BY THE FIRST DEFINITION LISTED IN WEBSTER'S.  I
don't have an OED at home, but I am sure you will find a similar definition.
If you had said that it didn't make them free by all definitions of the word
then I wouldn't have quoted Webster's--1, in fact I would have agree with you.
But that is not what you said.  Examine this hypothetical dialogue:

R:  The color of a clear sky is not blue.
C:  Gee, that's funny, the first entry in Webster's (C also lacks quick access
    to an OED) says it is.  "1. any color between green and violet in the
    spectrum; the color of the clear sky or deep sea."
R:  C is a cretin.  Notice how he picks an inferior dictonary and then only
    looks at the first entry.  Of course I meant "9. a sailor".

So, is R correct?  Is the color of a clear sky not blue?  Is C really the
inept fool that R makes him out to be because C picks a definition that shows
R is incorrect?

> Cliff Matthews had another comment on my discussion of freedom:
> > Rather than assuming I know what you mean by "true freedom implies
> > knowledge," I will let you explain it to me and the net.
> 
> I have no need to explain this to libertarians, who make this assumption
> when they argue that a government may legitimately prevent fraud in the
> marketplace.  Fraud means disinformation; a person who has been defrauded is
> one whose freedom has been abridged precisely because he was deprived of
> knowledge of the true state of affairs when he made the transaction.  Or do
> libertarians have some other reason to oppose fraud?  In any case,
> libertarians do not extend this principle beyond the marketplace.  I am not
> the first person to claim that knowledge is power; I wish to extend power by
> extending knowledge.  

Thanks for not explicitly insulting me (or my thought processes) this time.
Libertarians' opposition to fraud stems from their belief in property rights
and the free market.  It is hard to do business when fraud is allowed.  A
contract (oral or written) means nothing and either end of the transaction
can alter the deal in anyway wanted.  Note that it is fraud whether or not the
person on the other end recognizes it as such.  Is knowledge useful?  You
betcha.  Does "true freedom" imply knowledge?  Hard to say... it was hard
enough discussing the meaning of freedom... Does true freedom imply "total
knowledge?"  I supppose it would, so maybe both concepts "true freedom" and
"total knowledge" can be discussed on net.religion.zen or net.rec.drugs.acid...

> Why is a libertarian society better than one in
> which the power of self-determination, individual autonomy, and freedom from
> control by external forces (fate, necessity) is maximized?  Convince me--I'm
> listening.  
> 
> Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes

I believe it would be hard to generate convincing argument through this media
for such a substantial shift of belief.  Perhaps small events/laws can be
discussed in depth.  How about the legalization of prostitution?  From there
we can step up to legalization of drugs, etc.

	--Cliff [Matthews]
	{purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff
	{csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff
	4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque  NM  87108 - (505) 265-9143