Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!pesnta!pertec!kontron!cramer From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Discrimination and AA and Racism Message-ID: <341@kontron.UUCP> Date: Mon, 8-Jul-85 15:21:39 EDT Article-I.D.: kontron.341 Posted: Mon Jul 8 15:21:39 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 12:19:41 EDT References: <292@looking.UUCP> <1340248@acf4.UUCP> <592@cybvax0.UUCP> Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA Lines: 39 > > (Cramer) > > Tell me, Mr. Carnes, if you don't believe in the non-coercion principle, > > what is the basis for your objection to rape? murder? robbery? If the > > objection is based on law, then a government that repeals those laws > > has taken away your objections. > > > > (Richard Carnes) > > Mr. Cramer now feigns total ignorance of all non-libertarian moral > > philosophy. Flame away -- why don't you tell them I support rape and > > murder -- I won't respond, since we seem to mean two completely > > different things by "intelligent discussion." > > > > (Michael M. Sykora) > > Richard, I believe it may have been Clayton's intention to demonstrate that > > the principles you espouse are inconsistent. In order to do this, it is > > necessary for him to ask for an explicit statement of your moral > > philosophy, i.e., perhaps his question was indeed a question and not > > merely a criticism. I think that this discussion could get interesting. > > Clayton's "demonstration" is based on a false dichotomy between non-coercion > as the most fundamental value and "anything goes". And his suggestion that > Carnes' ideas of morality are based merely on law is another red herring. > Both sentences are insulting attempts to put words into Rich's mouth. > > The simple answer that Clayton probably knows, is that most moral systems > include non-coercion as a value, but simply don't assign it the primacy > that libertarians want it to have. > > Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh Mr. Huybensz: You may not have seen Mr. Carnes original posting. He originally was arguing that objections to affirmative action can only be based on 1) law 2) morality. Mr. Carnes dismissed both arguments; in particular, he dismissed the argument of morality by asserting, in a round about way, that if something is legal, it must be moral. I was arguing that law doesn't make something moral; if it did, the very legal, but extremely immoral actions of Adolph Hitler (and a whole herd of Southern governments some years back) would be moral because they were legal.