Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihldt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!ihnp4!ihldt!stewart
From: stewart@ihldt.UUCP (R. J. Stewart)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Libertarianism & freedom
Message-ID: <2673@ihldt.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 3-Jan-85 12:11:21 EST
Article-I.D.: ihldt.2673
Posted: Thu Jan  3 12:11:21 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 4-Jan-85 00:38:55 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 25

> Again, why should we agree that [response to coercion] is the only
> proper use of force?  I think Robin Hood had an excellent idea about
> the use of force, contrary to the sheriff of Nottingham.  Libertarians
> keep repeating that the best society is one in which coercion is
> minimized, and we keep asking them why without getting a response. 
> 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.  

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.

Bob Stewart
ihldt!stewart