From: hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 11:15:13 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
In-Reply-To: <199607221822.OAA12499@jekyll.piermont.com>
Message-ID: <9607221842.AA00771@Etna.ai.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>No one would ever accuse you of supporting freedom, Phill. I'm sure it
>was an accident.

Actually I have been very active in circles like Liberty (the UK version
of the ACLU). Its just that we have entirely different ideas of what liberty 
is. Perry believes that libery is license and I believe in the utilitarian
formulation of Liberty as advanced by Mill, Russell et al.

>(BTW, Jefferson's slaves were inherited and an an entailment clause in
>the will prevented him from freeing them during his lifetime. Not, of
>course, that this matters -- the idea of confusing the messenger and
>the message is the ad hominem fallacy.)

Nope, ad-hominen is a perfectly acceptable form of attack when calling
into question a speaker's credentials. The words are used because they
were Jefferson's and because he is held up as a supporter of liberty.
Pointing out that the words are the cant of a hypocrite is entirely
justified.

Notwithstanding entailment clauses, Jefferson was under no compunction to
exploit his slaves by exploiting their labour. He could have paid them 
competative wages and allowed them to chose to work for others. In short
he could in effect have freed them. Of course then he would not have had 
the financial means to live as a member of the privileged classes. 

Genuine philosophers have made such sacrifices. Russell gave away his 
inheritance after completing Principia because he objected to the idea
of inherited wealth. 


Of course if Perry was interested in genuine liberty instead of a slave
owner's idea of liberty - liberty to exploit others he would see the 
contradiciton in his rhetoric.


		Phill