Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarian Bias
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:36:32 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <183414@pyramid.pyramid.com>, pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
> 
>     demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> |>  pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
> |> >
> |> > 
> |> > Libertarians clearly have a bias and a morality.  Let them be honest about
> |> > it and say so.
> |> 
> |> 	Bias towards less government, of course.  Just as some have a bias
> |> towards more government or higher taxes.
> |> 
> 
> This is easier for you to see apparently but 'bias' and 'morality' are
> indistinguishable in behavior.  

	I don't think so.  I have a bias towards Mint Chip ice cream, and
there's nothing moral about it :).

> |> 	A "morality"?  Everyone has a different one, to some degree.  But
> |> almost all agree that one person's morality should not be made to influence
>                                                ^^^^^^
> |> another's.  If you want to base your economic system on morality, I'd be
> |> against it on principle.  Not the ends which you are trying to
> achieve, but the
> |> means by which you propose to do it.
> |>                         
> |> Brett                                                   
> 
> I would re-write this as a statement of your personal morals in which
> its 'important to you' that:
> 
>         one person's morality should not be made to influence another's,
> &(2)    you are opposed to economic system's based on morality,
> &       you deem the means relevant to achieving an end.
> 
> In my opinion, your prior paragraph is simply chock full of morality.
> Hardly value neutral -- it contains lots of personal judgements.
> I seek not to judge them, I share your values, but I do want to point them
> out for what they are.

	In the sense that choosing not to choose is still making a choice, yes. 
The difference is that I do not use morality as *proof* or to *convince* that
my choice/view is correct.
	My views can be termed "moral" but they're not being argued from a moral
basis.

> I'm tempted to re-phrase (2) above and say that you think "morality-based 
> economic systems are 'wrong.'"  You can see the contradiction.  I do this, 

	Not so much "wrong" as illogical.  When your arguments eventually fall
back on faith, you've used subjective matter to come to a decision.  So if you
(in the plural sense) are going to use subjective things to come to a decision,
why can't everyone?  And thus why can't everyone decide for themselves what to
do?  And if so, the only way to protect everyone's right to choose is to make
sure that your choice does not force anyone else to give up their right(s).

> not to put words in your mouth, but to show that covert anti-morality is
> a morality and can't be disguised (from me at least) by the seeming
> 'value-neutral' language of libertarianism.  Notice that I
> underlined your use of the word "should."  Saying you're against it "on
> principal" is not a very effective distraction.

	Absence of morality is indeed "a morality", but like I said above, in
the abstract.  It is not a moral system in and of itself.  It does not judge
based on its own yardstick of "rightness".

> There is a difference between being "non-attached" to morality and being
> attached to non-morality.  In my opinion, being non-attached to morality is
> a true moral neutrality in which one can simply assume ANY moral view without
> inner resistance.  Notice how it could give rise to a total compassion since
> you might be able to empathize, sincerely, with literally everone -- therefore,
> it actually could be neutral.  Being attached to non-morality is, in my
> opinion, only a pretense of moral neutrality. It might be uncomfortable
> to be with
> those seeking to export their morality.

	I can accept the moral positions of others.  What I would object to is
any imposition of this position on someone who doesn't agree.

> Those well versed in Jungian psychology might begin to recognize 'morality' 
> as a libertarian "shadow."

	Psych isn't my field :).

	But there was an example in a psych class that I had back in college,
about a native tribe in the Pacific NW where murder was not a crime.  In fact,
it was part of their way of life.
	For example, if two people went out hunting, and one died for some
reason, that person's family could (and usually did) go and kill someone from
the other person's family.  It was completely accepted by the people as a
natural thing to do.

	I can intellectually accept this society's decision, but would not
approve of our society adopting it.  Killing someone does not rectify the
situation.  In their society, the family member apparently agrees to be killed
(you can think of it as a duel with very weird rules), so the rights are
forfeited.  But to me, it's simply not logical.  A bit of cutting off the nose
to spite the face, if you will.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45714 ca.politics:7845 ba.politics:5367