From: rbeckham@bnr.ca (Rick Beckham)
Subject: Re: Labelling laws.
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Tx.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:12:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.095343.21587@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1gnl5rINNlop@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>}In article <1992Dec15.093330.28514@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>}>In article <1gioqmINNhlr@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>}>}Your "evidence" is merely an appeal to authority at best.  What else does
>}>}name-dropping of Nobel Prizewinners constitute?
>}>
>}>Direct refutation of the claim that libertarians include nothing more than
>}>century-old cranks and arguments.
>}
>}I notice you change my claim to make it fit your argument better.  My claim
>}was that "libertarians... have nothing but old, discredited arguments made
>}more than a hundred years ago by cranks and laughed at even then."
>
>So I paraphrased.  You feel free to do this to whole posts without bothering
>to quote any part of them.  If you can show how there's any essential
>difference between your exact claim and my rendering of it, then I'll
>concede the point.  You've still been flat out refuted and you know it.
>
>}>}Second, you haven't shown that this claim is exclusively libertarian
>}>}as opposed to capitalist.  Otherwise you might just as well claim that
>}>}libertarianism is the same as capitalism.
>}>
>}>Actually, I would make this claim.  They're synonymous.
>}
>}Here lies the root of your misunderstanding.  Libertarianism is an extremely
>}specialized restriction of capitalism.
>
>"Specialized restriction"?  Please explain what you're talking about here.
>
 Aww Tim, You've just invited Mr. Huben to spout more nonsense of the kind
 that comes from diaherra of the mouth. Mike has shown repeatedly a
 lack of knowledge on the differences of coersive/consensual relations,
 majority-rule/constitutional-limited govt, and now free market capitalism/
 socialism.

>}Likewise, real capitalism has always had coercion and fraud.  For example,
>}the slave trade was a purely capitalist phenominon.  Slaves were not owned,
>}captured, or sold by governments to any significant extent.  That was done
>}by private enterprise.  Worldwide.  It is only due to the intercession of
>}governments that it has been abated.
>
>Wrong on two counts: if its not consensual, it's not capitalism, and as
>a matter of fact most of the slaves were indeed captured by "governments,"
>tribes of their fellow black Africans, then sold either to each other or
>to European traders.
>
>
>
>}>}Once again, you are merely appealing to authority and not describing a
>}>}single new uniquely libertarian claim or combination of claims.
>}>
>}>Note the introduction of a qualification on the claim: now for there to be
>}>any libertarian arguments not made by century-old cranks, the arguments
>}>must be "uniquely" libertarian.  This is nonsense, Mike, pure sophistry.
>}
>}You sound just like a Marxist proclaiming that all science is the product
>}of the proletariat.  I'm sorry, but you simply cannot claim any parts of
>}economic science you want are libertarian, just as creationists can't
>}claim parts of geology are creationist.  If they claim theory of
>}sedimentation under Biblical flood conditions: that's DISTINCTLY creationist.
>
>Tsk-tsk.  Another paraphrase.  I didn't claim that any parts of economic
>science I want are libertarian, but cited specific arguments which I claimed
>were.  That you don't accept this is your problem, not mine.
>
>}>What example?  I missed it.
>}
>}Here is the example Spooner argument I refuted.  (paraphrased) "Why should
>}I be contractually bound by the consititution?  The people who wrote it and
>}signed it are all dead".  My response was: "Do all the contracts signed by
>}a corporate officer become unenforceable when that officer dies?  Hardly.
>}The whole purpose of organizations is to allow contracts and other interaction
>}independent of particular individuals."
>
>Of course, you ignored Spooner's demonstration that the US Federal government
>is in fact such a corporation.
>
>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
>starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu
>
>"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
>oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian