From: hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 09:35:04 +0800
To: "Mark M." <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.94.960722175337.127B-100000@gak>
Message-ID: <9607222254.AA01221@Etna.ai.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>> 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. 

>This is an entirely subjective and philosophical argument about whether the
>means justify the ends.  I won't debate any of the issues here.  However,
>consider the fact that if Jefferson didn't have as much money as he had, he
>might have not had as much policial impact.

No, the argument is over whether a person should live by the ideals he
preaches. I have more respect fot the likes of Kant and Russell who made
rather more of an effort than Jefferson.

The observation that history is made by rich people and written by rich 
people is not a new one. Until this century there were few countries
where politics were open to anyone but the very wealthy. In the USA
that is still by and large the case.

Rather than attempting to excuse Jefferson it would be better to
accept that not everything he said was valid when he said it and
to try to engage ones brain rather than using his words as slogans.


>Also think about the fact that all libertarians who drive cars, are by your
>definition, hypocrites because they drive on tax-funded roads.

Since they are denied the "right" to live in Libertopia they have
no choice but to live in the real world. That doesn't make them
hypocrites. They are not directly contradicting their principles.

On the other hand there are plenty of "free-market" economists
who live entirely on grant money from the public purse and plenty
of those "libertarians" will be accepting government assisted
funding through college or would do so if it was available.


>Sometimes it is necessary to violate one's principles in order to help the
>greater good.

Yes, but how can a Randite libertarian do so in good faith? For such
people there is no greater good, it is all the self.


		Phill