Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!cca!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: What is "capitalism"? (Explorati
Message-ID: <28200016@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 21-Jun-85 00:33:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200016
Posted: Fri Jun 21 00:33:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Jun-85 08:25:48 EDT
References: <234@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Lines: 61
Nf-ID: #R:umcp-cs:-23400:inmet:28200016:000:2517
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Jun 21 00:33:00 1985


>/**** inmet:net.politics.t / umcp-cs!mangoe /  4:01 pm  Jun 17, 1985 ****/
>
>>>Maybe we should call this abstract argument "I suspect that I know what's
>>>best for me" the argument from ignorance, and add it to the list of bad
>>>arguments that Rich Carnes is compiling.
>
>>Perhaps I can only suspect what's best for me.  But who can consistently
>>know better, and how?
>
>That's a straw man.  The current framework of government doesn't claim any
>such consistency.

Excuse me, but challenging you to find a person who can know your wants
better than you do consistently seems to me to be a perfectly valid
question to ask of those who claim that governments should have the power
to force their decisions on you for your own good.  For any choice
you face with respect to your own interests, another person may

	A) Feel you are qualified to make the choice better than he is.

	B) Feel that he knows better than you what the choice you should
	make is (and be right).

	C) Feel that he knows better than you what the choice you should
	make is (and be WRONG).

Sykora is asking (by implication) if you're willing to impose type C
decisions on people by force, (of course, they'd get the benefit of the
type B decisions too).  Making only type B decisions is not a
possibility, or if it is, TELL US HOW -- PUT UP OR SHUT UP.  Making type
A decisions, or making, but not enforcing type B or C decisions, is what
libertarianism is all about.

>This whole discussion leads me to the conclusion that libertarian theories
>are based upon a conception of man which entirely too optimistic.  I keep
>hearing about "enlightened self-interest".  As far as I can tell,
>"enlightened" reduces to "playing by the rules".  

Tsk!  This whole "mathematics" business consists of people "playing
by the rules".  Surely it couldn't work....  This whole "market" business
consists of people "playing by the rules" -- surely even a few con-men
would destroy the whole thing....

>But this begs the
>question: what if my self-interest calls for breaking the rules, or
>circumventing them?  
>I don't see any checks against this force, which is
>inevitably going to be present.

Weren't you the fellow who couldn't see why Consumer's Union and 
Underwriter's Lab could exist?  Live and learn....

How libertarian societies would enforce their "rules" has been 
discussed quite a bit here.  Can someone who keeps articles 
send a few of my old ones on this topic to Charley?

>
>Charley Wingate   umcp-cs!mangoe
>/* ---------- */
>