From: jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Re: Stability of Libertaria (was Free market stuff)
Date: 26 Sep 92 22:21:00 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Re: Stability of Libertaria (was Free market stuff)
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.
Keywords: 

In article <10260027@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:
>In alt.individualism, jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:

>Rights are an invention of society.  Rights do not exist in isolation.
>They are a political technology.  We, as a society, are free to choose.
>
>What is astonishing is that you seem to think your very basic
>statement of libertarian philosophy is news to anyone.

It seemed to be news to the person to whom I was replying. I sure
don't think it is news to everyone. So much for the astonishment.

>> 
>> >It depends ENTIRELY on what you mean by 'workable'.  We have, so
>> >far, done ok with it.
>> >
>> >In the real world A is, most assuredly, never equal to A.
>> >
>> >"
>> >doug
>> 
>> What do you mean by that? Are you an irrationalist or something?
>> Identity exists.
>
>No, I am not an irrationalist, and in fact, your asking the
>question in this manner and following it up with the identity
>exists statement indicates that you are an acolyte of rand, and
>hence you consider anyone who differs with your metaphysical
>axioms and political thinking is an enemy of reason.
>Rand is a very respectable thinker, and she has influenced me
>a great deal, but some of her rhetoric is downright nauseating.
>
>doug

I have been quite influenced by Rand, it is true, but by deciding
without asking me what my beliefs are, you commit the same mistake
that the Objectivists commit--acceptance without verification.

So many times in the Objectivist rhetoric I find them generalizing 
about things which they cannot possibly know. And here is where
I differ from the Objectivists--I do not believe that rationality is
an absolute. I think von Mises, in "Human Action," has a more realistic
view of rationality-it is a quality of degree, i.e., short-sighted
versus long-sighted, as opposed to rational versus irrational. When *I*
use these terms, this is what I mean. Rationality is limited by 
non-omniscience and the fallibility of human beings. However, I do
agree that how rational a person is depends on his choice--to choose
how far and how much thought you put into an action, idea or philosophy.

Rand also loses me as far as her objective definitions of happiness, art,
focus, and her belief in a total lack of emotivism except during sex. I 
tend to think it is generally healthy to be emotional in some cases, but
I think there is a time and place for it, rather than making important
decisions based on emotion. In other words, know when to be emotional
and when not to be.

On the other hand, I do agree with the Objectivist epistomology. The three
axioms which need no proof and are self-evident are: existence, consciousness,
and identity. As I have said before, ignorance does not imply non-identity.
I know that there will always be facts out of reach of humanity, but that
does not preclude their existence. Actually, I came to this conclusion 
before I ever read any of Rand's material.

Once again, please show me a case where A something other than A, in 
the context of A.

As much as I can, I try to be an acolyte of Jim Hranicky.

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism