[ExI] Making Rationalizations is Superior to the Alternative

[Lee Corbin]

BillK wrote:

Er, first I must apologize to Bill for misreading his
comments when I suggested that he pay more attention
to my word "if" that set off some of my claims, e.g.,
"if I were a Frenchman". When he replied "but you are
not a Frenchman...", I should have merely replied
"so what?".  Sorry.

>>  On 4/14/09, Lee Corbin wrote:
>>  I admitted the tradeoffs: violate a principle now in
>>  exchange for reducing the risk of losing that principle
>>  and far, far more in the future.
> 
> I think we need some *real* libertarians to chime in here, as you
> don't seem to talking proper 'libertarianese'.  ;)

Hmm. Guess so. At best I think of myself as "half-libertarian",
they so often being oblivious to the dependence of their
doctrines on a certain level of cultural development, and
their being oblivious (in so many cases) to existential
entire threats to the hard-won traditions that made their
doctrines at all feasible.

> Do Libertarian principles really allow initiation of force now, based
> on a speculation that damage might occur many many years in the
> future? Surely not. Much else might happen between now and that future
> date.

I would agree that "No, those principles do not", and am
(literally) advocating unprincipled conduct.  :-)

E.g., it goes against principle (as well as law) to break
into your neighbor's house and take things, but if his
house is on fire, that's different.

>>  You suppose that I want to *scrap* rather than *improve*
>>  our western societies? Odd.
> 
> Libertarians want to *improve* government by removing as much of it as
> possible. I call that scrapping the present systems of government.

Oh, okay. Honest word usage difference.

>>  Anyway, you are right to
>>  emphasize that Muslims *might* wreck our very slowly
>>  evolved and much prized western traditions. They might
>>  also not. They might assimilate, after all. There may
>>  be a singularity or other big tech breakthrough first.
>>  It's all about weighing risks, just as in everything
>>  else.
> 
> If you (as a libertarian) want to initiate force and expel Muslims
> because there is an 'guesstimated' possibility that they might change
> the system of government many years in the future, then in my opinion
> exactly the same logic should be applied to libertarians.

Well, I won't dismiss it or rule it out completely.
If Libertarians are posing enough of a threat (e.g.
spreading anti-conscription propaganda when the
country is being invaded by a Hitler), then they
have to go.

Thanks for the non-insulting most honorable argumentation, sahib.

Lee

> Of course this shouldn't be done, because what you are suggesting is
> not libertarian.