From: Bryce <bryce@digicash.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 09:38:55 -0800 (PST)
To: hallam@ai.mit.edu
Subject: [NOISE] [philosophypunks] Re: Dr. Vulis
In-Reply-To: <9611051635.AA05667@etna.ai.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <199611051738.SAA08932@digicash.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 Dr. Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@ai.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> And of course this is not an action that can be strictly justified in
> terms of absolute rights which many are fond of prating on about.
> Rights are limited, as Mills observes they are a product of law. Society
> finds it necessary to enact laws to protect rights. Dmitri's posts were
> affecting other people's right to speak. There is thus the traditional
> liberal conflict, that of having to infringe rights to protect them.


to which I, Bryce <bryce@c2.net> replied:
>
> Dear Sir:  I humbly put it to you that the above reflects a 
> misunderstanding about the libertarian conception of "absolute
> rights".  I personally do _not_ subscribe to said theory, but 
> I try to understand a thing correctly before criticizing it in 
> public.


to which he, <hallam@ai.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> Given that the only recognised philosopher to take the libertarian
> position is Nozdic and he has semi-recanted I think it perfectly
> reasonable to base the libertarian position on the views of 
> people calling themselves libertarians.


Okay.  Normally I would rather argue about viewpoints expressed
in written opinions by writers like pre-communitarian Nozick, 
Ayn Rand, David Friedman and so forth than about difficult-to-
pinpoint "views of people calling themselves libertarians", but
in this case it will make little difference to my argument,
which is that your article quoted at the beginning of this
message reflects a misunderstanding of those views.


> If you don't ascribe to "absolute rights" based in natural law
> then it sounds as if you accept that rights are derived
> from prior principles. If you accept that then you are a
> simply taking the traditional liberal position.


Hm.  This is as may be, but it is tangential to my purpose in
publically calling you on your (presumably innocent) 
misrepresentation.


<snip on Hallam-Baker on Mills on "'absolute' rights">


Sure, I agree with you that Mills doesn't start with rights as
an assumption, but rather argues for them from prior
assumptions.  When I said that Mills argues for "absolute 
('unbalanced')" rights, I meant that he argues for individual
rights with (almost) no exceptions, in constrast to your
your assertion that "the main theory it advances is of the 
*balance* between the rights of communities and the rights of 
individuals.".  I doubt very much that Mills _ever_ used the
phrase or the concept of "rights of communities" and I know
that the main theory that _On_Liberty_ advances is the (almost)
total sovereignty of individual rights.  (I see now that 
I shouldn't have called Mills' conception of rights "absolute",
because of the existence of that "almost" there...)


But this, too, is tangential to my point...


> Mill was not an anarchist, he was a classic liberal utilitarian.
> Its rather ironic that nobody on the list has recognised that I
> advance a classical utilitarian position and that if I quote Mill
> I'm quoting a principle authority.


Hm.  I was taught that Mills recanted Benthamism and became a
vigorous philosophical adversary of it before writing _On_
_Liberty_.  Are you counting _On_Liberty_-era Mills as some 
kind of "neo-Benthamite utilitarian" or is one of us mistaken 
on his self-identification?


But this, too, is tangential to my point, which I will get
around to now.


You wrote, in the article that spawned this thread:

> And of course this is not an action that can be strictly justified in
> terms of absolute rights which many are fond of prating on about.


Now I must strongly assert that this _is_ an action that can be
strictly justified in terms of absolute rights as understood
by people who call themselves libertarians.  I don't believe 
that Dr. Vulis _should_ have been banned from cypherpunks, and 
I don't believe in absolute rights as understood by people who
call themselves libertarians, but I must state that your 
assertion quoted above reflects a profound misunderstanding of
that viewpoint.


The idea of absolute rights as understood by libertarians
states that no-one is justified in exercising "the use of
force" against another person unless in self-defense against
similar "use of force" from that person.  [Note:  "the use of
force" is in quotes because it has a particular meaning in this
context which is essential to appreciating the theory.  The
meaning of "the use of force" in this theory is:  "One of: a.
performing physical violence upon the subject, b. threatening
to perform physical violence upon the subject, c. stealing the
subject's property.".]


Now if you are able to read and comprehend the above paragraph
then you must find it obvious that this theory does not forbid
John Gilmore from banning Dr. Vulis from cypherpunks.  If you
are able to read and comprehend the above paragraph and _also_
understand its deficiencies and begged questions, then more
power to you, but you must still admit that the theory, as
understood by people who call themselves libertarians, fully
permits John Gilmore to ban Dr. V.


I look forward to your reply.


Regards,

Bryce




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2

iQB1AwUBMn97m0jbHy8sKZitAQGiPgL9GJqxboWmhOoMheYpPZTgPyRB6eMbf4J6
q2EmtQPoQB8HwhFLR4AV9C9TgZ4wb2lH2gCCDjqaUi0I+0Kc5AMUBfXvmh3tU/Q6
BkztyVtRQsM/IJ0ruLItYqJmrRTAmDou
=QQJG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----