[694] in libertarians
Re: The Religious Right - Threat, Menace, or ...?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Derek Rose)
Tue Feb 14 19:50:55 1995
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 19:59:09 -0500
To: libertarians@MIT.EDU
From: Derek Rose <rosed@world.std.com>
Cc: Chris Whitten <lfb@panix.com>, Todd Seavey <Todd_Seavey@kaplan.com>
>Of course, you bought it because you wanted it. If you bought it because
>you thought it was the morally correct thing for people to do, you would
>think the world would be a better place if everyone did the correct thing,
>and you would convince enough people of this view, to pass a law mandating
>that people buy this book.
>
>In summary, you did it for selfish reasons, not altruistic. If you thought
>that altruism was morally correct, and selfishness was morally wrong,
>you'd encourage people to be altruistic, and altruists would eventually
>resent selfish people, and eventually demand the sacrifice of the
>selfish people.
But aren't you arguing for a form of "moral correctness"? Isn't saying
that people should be selfish a moral judgement about what people should
do?
How do we know that _you_ aren't about to gather up a bunch of people and
pass laws forcing people to act in certain ways, like making them stop
going to church.
>Christians typically believe (and encourage others to believe) in
>altruism as a the morally correct way to live. This is what I'm
>afraid of.
This is again a pretty broad generalization, and one that I am not sure is
true for right-wing evengelicals. Reed promotes compassion, but he doesn't
say its a moral duty. Can you give any examples of Reed, Robertson,
Falwell, etc., espousing altruism?
>> As a final point, it does not matter whether or not *you* understand
>> why someone would fight against the government taking their earnings,
>> then turn around and give some of that $$ away - the decision to do so
>> rests soley with the earner, who is not compelled to either explain
>> himself to you, or to act in a rational manner (this reminds me of the
>> endless debate against guns: "I don't understand why you need a
>> semi-auto rifle for <given purpose>"...it doesn't matter if someone
>> else understand the motives, only that the individual making the
>> decision does so of his own free will...).
>
>I guess I don't consider being guilted into altruism by religious people
>free will.
>
Ah-ha! I can even see the intellectual basis for your anti-religion laws:
guilt "deprives people of free will." Would you pass a tax on religious
sermons first, or just send the preachers to the Gulag?
----------
Derek Rose rosed@world.std.com
