From: onr@netcom.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Forces for Liberty
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:10:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1993Jan25.211055.24822
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

I've been getting very spotty news coverage at work lately and have
gone back to my netcom acct for news purposes.
thus the lateness of this reply.

In article <1993Jan21.200542.26900@macc.wisc.edu> anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>In article <18356@autodesk.COM> owen@autodesk.com (D.  Owen
>Rowley) writes:

>>It's this concept of forcing people in any way that sticks
>>in the craw of liberty minded folks.
>
>You imply that those who do advocate force under conditions
>they deem suitable are not liberty-minded.  I disagree.

Personal Liberty , is the right to do as one chooses.

The radical right would force me to adopt to a personal moral code as 
deliniated by their accepted doctrine.
They do not allow me the liberty of having my own personal moral code.

The radical left would force me to adopt a personal moral code as
deliniated by their accepted doctrine.
They do not allow me the liberty of having my own personal moral code.

If you would force anyone else to adopt a personal moral code against
their will, then you are not operating under the principle of Liberty.

Its that simple.

Force and fraud are criminal acts in a society based on the principle
of individual liberty. Govt. force is only appropriate to counter force.
The govt. should not be in the business of forcing moral codes on
individuals beyond the areas of countering force and fraud.

The government should protect individuals from force, and mediate remedys
when force is used against individuals. This protection and mediation should
be applied fairly and across the board regardless of motivation or
circumstances.

>>Personally I find it the height of ignorance to claim high
>>moral ground while attempting to force others to adopt a
>>specific POV, no matter what the underlying reason.
>
>Aren't you claiming the high moral ground in the preceding
>paragraph, and while you can't *force* anyone to adopt your
>point of view, you are willing, aren't you, at least by
>force of argument, to attempt to get others to adopt your
>point of view?

No I am claiming to stand on my principles, and making a statement
of judgement relative to my position. You are certainly welcome to 
make your own judgements, and stand on your own principles. Nothing I 
say here requires you to agree with me or adopt any of my ideas.

Whether I think you are an ignorant slut or not has no affect on you
as an integral being.  Its a conversation for me, what is it for you?

If you seek legislative authority to codify your personal moral POV and 
subsequently use government force to make others submit to that code, 
then in my opinion you are not acting from the principle of personal liberty.

For example
You seem to think that it is societys obligation to redsitribute personal
wealth to others of less fortunate means. How far are you willing to go to
force an individual who does not believe they have any such obligation
to comply with your POV. Are you willing to vote for legislation that
requires such obligation and forces individuals to redistribute portions of
their wealth to others not of their choosing ? Are you willing to have 
publicly funded armed forces extract the obligation at gunpoint. 
Are you willing to pull the trigger on those who refuse.


LUX ./. owen

-- 
D. Owen Rowley onr@netcom.com ( also owen@autodesk.com )
[ EU-PHORIA: A STATE OF WELL BEING ]
Euphoria is my natural state, I do what I enjoy and an abundance 
of all good fortune comes to me for it.