From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Date: 11 Nov 92 10:36:40 GMT
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences

In article <1538@tecsun1.tec.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
}
}	Some of you all may recall a posting I did a few weeks back which 
}identified most non-liberal political ideologies (i.e. Marxism, National 
}Socialism, feminism) with the ancient Gnostics. One of the characteristics
}of Gnosticism is that it definitively prohibits questions from being asked
}(which challenge its basic assumptions). Furthermore, this feature of
}Gnostic thinking enables a particular ideology to be logically consistent,
}but yet incapable of answering those questions it prohibits. Objectivism
}clearly meets these criteria for "Gnostic" thinking. As does libertarianism,
}to whit:

Oh, nonsense.  And by that, I don't mean that you should be barred from
making your claim, but that it fails on its face.  You've made a non-sequitur.
It doesn't follow from any principle of libertarianism that people are to be
prohibited from questioning the fundamentals.  You appear to have made the
common error of attributing the characteristic of statist or totalitarian
ideologies to non-statist or totalitarian ideology.

}	I would submit that laws to enforce certain types of "altruistic"
}behavior exist in order to cause people to take actions which they would not
}otherwise engage in. The most obvious example which comes to mind is the 
}German "assistance" law on the Autobahn, which legally requires a driver
}to offer assistance to a stopped vehicle. Anyone who has the least bit of
}experience with Autobahn driving etiquette understands that altruism does
}not arise spontaneously in that culture.

This is beside the point.  The point is, if it won't be done unless required
by law, why should the law so require?  You've failed to address the
challenge for justification at all.  All you've done is described how it is
required in one case.  So what?

}>I think a minimum social order can be constructed that allows citizens to
}>voluntarily support their particular moral obligations without denying anyone
}>of their generally agreed upon rights.  And I must assert that one's right
}>shouldn't create a demand for affirmative effort upon another individual,
}>merely a requirement for individuals to abstain from injurious behavior.
}
}	I'm not sure that even died-in-the-wool libertarians would go
}along with this kind of distinction. Clearly, SOME kind of affirmative 
}effort is frequently necessary in order *to abstain from injurious behavior.*
}If I am on the Autobahn, and fail to yield to that madman who is overtaking
}me at a speed of 150 kph, it matters little whether I am standing on my
}*rights* or not. In the Dodge 'Em Car game of life, it is often not enough
}to say you're sorry.

Your hypothetical is again off the point.  In this case, it's the "speeder"
who's threatening injury.  They needn't commit a positive act to refrain
from doing so, they merely need negate the positive act that constitutes
the threat.


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." - Voltaire
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4900 alt.politics.libertarian:1853