> > Instead, Mr. Brin didn't really argue anything in a substantive
>> manner. The little snippets that almost looked like sub-arguments
>> were so loaded with false dilemmas and straw men that I gave up any
>> idea of pointing them all out.
>
>Then you missed the point of the article.
Is missing the "point" the same as not buying into a fallacious argument?
If so, then I guess I must have missed the point.
Do you feel that Mr. Brin's argument was sound, or is your support
more of a vague approval of his general theme?
General themes and opinions are fine to have, but it's very important
to couch them as such. Mr. Brin's language resembles more of an
argument, and since he is a professional writer, isn't it fair to
assume that he knows what he's doing when he writes something for
publication? If so, then I hope you can understand why I'd want a
clearly sound argument before I'd agree with it.
As it is, his argument is overly loaded with fallacies. Am I wrong
to then not just accept his conclusions as valid?
> > He claims to be mostly a Libertarian, but he actually votes for Democrats.
>
>Yep. Because he believes that Libertarian aims can be more effectively
>achieved by improving the system - which requires working within it, and
>thus working with The Powers That Be - than the current ideal of
>destroying the system and starting over (which is presumably what the
>L candidates he voted against were promoting).
He never explicitly mentioned voting "against" Libertarians. He said
that he voted "for" Democrats. Whether that means that he wanted to
vote for possible winners in a major party or he wanted to vote
against a revolutionary LP candidate is unknowable from this piece -
I find support for both positions. They both seem equally likely so
taking one side or the other would be special pleading.
>Summary: passing and changing laws and instituations to promote
>individuality, rather than merely repealing/removing most or all
>existing laws and institutions, is an approach that the public is more
>likely to vote into office. It is also more likely to bring better
>results in practice, even if either one were equally able to gain power.
To be clear: Are you also espousing this "Libertarian goals through
the Democratic party" philosophy?
If so, could you explain a little more in detail about how promoting
the political party that believes in bigger government, higher income
taxes, a de-emphasis on personal property, less personal
responsibility, and severe gun control will obtain the benefits of
the party that believes in minimal government, no income taxes,
stronger property rights, higher individual responsibility, and
protected gun rights?
Regards,
Chris Russo
--
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought
or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet
hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance
which does harm."
-- Marcus Aurelius, MEDITATIONS, VI, 21
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:32 MDT