Re: Max clarifies the FAQ

Tim Bates (
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 20:21:43 +1100

Damien Broderick said

>I'm lost. I'd have thought it obvious that the only moral response
>compatible with Tim's declared position would be for him to resign
>immediately from his state-funded professorship. It is just such issues
>(among others) that prevent me from adopting a gung-ho libertarian posture.

If that's all that's stopping you, then we'll soon have you turned around ;-)

Seriously, tell me if you think I am simply fooling myself or if i am in bed with the enemy.

If it was immoral for me to work in the university, then I should resign. However, it would follow that those who did not resign would be immoral and subject to sanction.

Now, I in no way feel that i could/should go around killing professors, UnaBomber style. That is wrong. Hence I doubt that what i am doing is morally wrong.

My position is as follows.

I publicly advocate against compulsion and state control, I openly state my desire for privatised voucher-based education at all levels. I am constantly trying to convince people to fund a private University in Sydney. I support any student or colleague expressing unpopular individualistic views.

However, as long as the government unfairly competes in this market, no private provider can successfully compete. Even Melbourne private (a "free" arm of a major Australian state Uni) is heavily leveraging its government subsidy.

If i resign, that achieves nothing except for one less thinking person hacking from the inside. Convince me otherwise and I will resign.

Now, if I were teaching such things as "the majority is right" and that "people are units of the greater whole" or espousing Freudian theory or whatever, in order to keep my job, then I would say you are right and i would be a hypocrite. But I do not, so until such time as i this changes, staying on seems like the action most compatible with extropy.

Another example: the fact that you are currently paying taxes (as are we all), doesn't mean that you think they are right, simply that we cannot do otherwise without punishing people who have committed no crime.

Maybe I am wrong? What do others think?

Long live larry flynt,