From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: Utilitarianism = good. Absolutely! :)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 09:32:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.064158.5498@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.094524.7106@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer) writes:
>}He doesn't want to define libertarianism as "tolerance".
>
>Yes he does, or he did for a while.  He was spouting the slogan "Libertarians
>are the tolerant people," 

Is this the same as defining libertarianism as tolerance? Nope.

Tolerance for people who act/look/think differently from
yourself means you are less likely to advocate the initiation of
force against people who are different from you. I think that
for many people tolerance is a prerequisite for accepting
libertarian memes. Certainly tolerant people are more likely to
go along with free minds and free markets than intolerant
people. 

Tolerance is also viewed very positively by most people. Since
libertarianism is compatible or better with tolerance, we should
take advantage of the goodwill people have towards tolerance and
pitch libertarianism as a philosophy which advocates tolerance.

Now, have I defined libertarianism as tolerance? Nope.

>and citing the pro-immigrant-aid demonstrations in
>Germany as the sort of people he'd like to recruit.

You wouldn't like to convince those people of free markets? I'd
like to. Anyway, I was under the impression that the
demonstrations in Germany were primarily
anti-violence-against-immigrants. Of course there were some
people asking the government to use coercion to help the
immigrants, just as some pro-choice demonstrators demand
government funding for abortion. However, I would have been
proud to march in those demonstrations. 

> Recently, he's been
>arguing for the principle of individual responsibility, similarly vague.
>Our opponents could just as easily argue that they want to hold individuals
>responsible for breaking such vice laws as ones against prostitution or
>against not hiring african-americans.

Ah, but that's where tolerance comes in! A tolerant person would
not want to make laws against people who act or think a little
differently. Even disregarding this, I think _individual_
responsibility fits nicely with the libertarian view of negative
rights. Individuals are indeed responsible for what they do with
or put in their bodies, including any adverse effects. Don't
expect the government to be your mommy.

>}I haven't ever seen anyone claim that everyone who claims to be
>}tolerant is automatically a libertarian. Hell, not everyone who
>}claimes to oppose the initiation of force is a libertarian. You
>}say that they aren't being consistent? Well, someone who claims
>}to be tolerant and isn't a libertarian is also being
>}inconsistent!
>
>So what?  Why should they care about being consistent?

So what so what? Why should you care about being consistent in
your application of the NAP?

>}>The opposition to coercion is a conclusion, not an axiom.  It can be arrived
>}>at in at least two ways: Lockean natural rights theory, and utilitarianism.
>}
>}However, some utilitarians would rather do their utility
>}calculations on a case-by-case basis rather than at some point
>}deciding that utility is maximized by the NCP and therefore all
>}cases forseen and unforseen can be resolved in a way that
>}maximizes utility by following the NCP.
>
>I know.  This is called "act utilitarianism," and is untenable.  Just about
>anyone who's taken a basic class on utilitarianism in college can tell you
>that.

I bet not many could tell me _why_ "act utilitarianism" is
untenable. Give it a try. I think it is quite defendable.

>}>The reason the LP is perceived to be weird is because of what typhoid Murray's
>}>Radical Caucus did to it after they drove out the Kochtopus.
>}
>}I'd be interested to know what changes you'd make to counteract
>}this.
>
>Frankly, I've been too busy fighting off run-to-win-ers so that we could
>actually still have a platform to consider remodeling it.

The funny thing is that the Koch people were winners, the
Rothbardians absolutists. 
--
Mike Linksvayer   mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu   "Like I trust yr friends"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian