Chris Russo wrote:
> > > 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?
No. It is fully possible to understand an article, and rationally
disagree with it. This is much different than misunderstanding the
article, and disagreeing with an interpretation of the article that is
not, in fact, valid. (Indeed, this latter is one form of a cause of
much anger in the world.)
> Do you feel that Mr. Brin's argument was sound, or is your support
> more of a vague approval of his general theme?
I believe his argument was sound given his premeses. I also see some
merit in the idea of corrupting, as it were, the current government to
more libertarian ideas (as he puts it, "evolution" rather than
"revolution") instead of devoting all resources to making government
irrelevant.
> 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?
The conclusions you objected to were not the conclusions of the article.
> > > 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.
Technically, under most of the American political system (which, to my
knowledge, is what Mr. Brin votes in), a vote for one candidate for a
position (where only one person may fill that position) is a vote
against all others. (I personally would not mind seeing that change,
but that is the reality for now.)
> >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?
No, *he* is. (And it's not through the Democratic party per se; it is
through existing government - including both Republicrat parties.) I'm
just trying to clarify his argument. While I can see merit in this
idea, I have not given it nearly as much thought as he has, so I am
probably not nearly as comfortable with it as he is.
> 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?
I believe his reply to this would be to change the parties' beliefs.
For instance, getting libertarian (or even Libertarian) candidates to
challenge current Democrat or Republican candidates for their own
parties' nominations, rather than running as independent candidates or
working to take down the system entirely. Now, how to do this
successfully without becoming corrupted by or beholden to Republicrat
interests is another issue, but he seemed to believe that this would be
the easier path...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:32 MDT