Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.RUTGERS.EDU Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!seismo!columbia!topaz!josh From: josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Taxation is theft Message-ID: <3634@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Thu, 12-Sep-85 15:25:33 EDT Article-I.D.: topaz.3634 Posted: Thu Sep 12 15:25:33 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 15-Sep-85 09:34:28 EDT Reply-To: josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) Distribution: na Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 84 In article <744@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >In article <3551@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: >> He adopts his own "interpretation" of libertarianism. >Oh, and of course your interpretation is the one, true, writ in stone, >correct interpretation. Sorry, oh great arbiter of libertarianism, but >your opinion does not designate true libertarianism. If you wish to say >that something isn't libertarianism, then you will need to convince us >of that by argument, not fiat. Ok, why don't you go to all the libertarians you know (if any) and ask them whether my statement, "Taxation is theft, not a contract," or your statement, "Taxation is a contract, not theft," more closely reflects libertarian thought. >> This makes it >> fairly easy to refute; he could, for example, adopt the interpretation >> that "libertarianism really means Marxism" and go on to prove that it >> was a very bad thing. And this is just about what he does. > >Is your interpretation "libertarianism is nirvana"? That would make it >very easy to "prove" that it is a very good thing. Neither of us believes >either extreme: my major interest is how big are the warts on libertarianism. Bullshit. All you are trying to do is misrepresent libertarianism. >> No matter >> what a libertarian says, or proves, or shows, Mike replies "What you >> really meant was thus-and-so." If we say no, he misunderstood, >> he replies, >> > I understand the libertarian point of view well enough >> >to recognize that they quote their "principles" where convenient but forget >> >about them where inconvenient to their self-serving goals. > >Shameless citation out of context here. ... Since everyone reading my message had just read yours in the original, I trust no one was fooled... >> > I claim that a "social contract" is a valid libertarian-style contract.] >> >> Let me put it to you as simply as possible: If you think the relationship >> between citizen and State is the same as a the libertarian concept of a >> contract, you do not understand libertarianism at all. Attacking a straw >> man constructed of your own "interpretations" is merely time wasted. > >Do you seriously expect us all to take this on your mere authority? Where >is your argument? Actually I do expect people to believe me, when I say what I hold to be basic libertarian principles, that they are indeed basic libertarian principles. I expect people to claim that those principles might be wrong, but I never expected someone to say, as you did, "No, those aren't basic libertarian principles, libertarian principles are just the opposite." >> If you want to make valid, cogent criticisms of libertarian thought >> (and mistake me not, such criticisms are possible), you first have to >> build an exegesis of libertarianism WITH WHICH A LIBERTARIAN WOULD >> AGREE; and only then, when you have demonstrated that you are talking >> about the same thing, show the problems, the inconsistencies, and >> whatever else is wrong with it. > >Pompous twaddle. First, I need say nothing that a libertarian would agree >with to make a valid criticism of libertarian thought: I could simply go >through some example of libertarian thought and pick out a fallacy of logic >or argument. Once upon a time, Mike was called on to make a structural analysis of an airplane wing from the blueprint. "Garbage!" he said, "everyone knows that wood can't sustain loads like that." "But look here!" the engineer replied. "It says ALUMINUM right here on the blueprint." "My interpretation of engineering diagrams is that A-L-U-M-I-N-U-M spells 'wood'," Mike said. "Aw come on," the engineer complained. "At least you have to agree on what the diagram says before you can do a valid analysis of it." "Pompous twaddle!" is Mike's devastating reply. "I need say nothing that an engineer would agree with to make a valid criticism of this blueprint: I simply go through some subassembly and pick out a fallacy of materials. This strut, for example, is made of bone china." At this point, the engineer picks up the strut, made of titanium, and brains Mike with it... --JoSH