Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Libertarianism & freedom
Message-ID: <2303@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 6-Jan-85 21:51:42 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2303
Posted: Sun Jan  6 21:51:42 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 8-Jan-85 07:53:54 EST
References: <2673@ihldt.UUCP>
Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul Torek)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 21
Summary: non sequitur detected

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