Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 06:47:07 -0700
From: foleyj@ultrasw.com (Jim Foley)
Subject: [lpaz-Pima] Morality & Matching Funds
To: lpaz-Pima@yahoogroups.com
Reply-To: lpaz-Pima@yahoogroups.com


Jonathan Hoffman->

Whoa! There is nothing new here. Remember, we all agree that the matching
funds program is bad. The real issue is my participation. My participation
is where I "enter into evil", in order to be a serious candidate, which
presumes that a serious candidacy is good. Perhaps that's thereal issue -
moral superiority, or electoral participation. Anyway, according to Ledeen,
Machiavelli saw the necessity of "entering into evil" by leaders to serve
the greater good. I forget the examples in the book; but the famous decision
of Churchill not to warn the British town of an impending Nazi bombardment,
lest he reveal to the Nazis that he had broken their code, would certainly
be a good example. Speaking of Nazis, if Neville Chamberlain had had Hitler
assinated in 1935, instead of acheiving "Peace in our time", would the six
million lives saved be reason enough to "enter into evil"? Perhaps that's
the real issue - moral superiority, or six million lives.......hmmmmmmmm. It
goes without saying that one must not dally, but leave evil immediately upon
solving the problem.

I disagree that "entering into evil" is what the Republicrats do. Their
problem is that they do not discern good from evil.

<-Jonathan Hoffman

Jim Foley->

Jonathan raises important issues, and thus performs a greater service than 
running for City Council, given that (a) as a Libertarian, Jonathan stands 
no chance whatsoever of winning the election, and (b) stands only a minimal 
chance of even qualifying for the reviled public matching funds.

The realization that Libertarians will not win elections as Libertarians to 
general policy offices, not even in the United States, land of the free and 
home of the brave, is not defeatism, but merely sanity.  Libertarians need 
consider carefully why this is so, lest they descend into persistent 
Quixotism.  Few Libertarians will travel faster than the speed of light or 
craft sticks with only one end, either.  Finitude is no reason for gloom, 
but is a potent spur to reconsider feasible options.

If, as it appears, Jonathan's likelihood of gathering sufficient $10 
contributions to qualify for city election matching funds is low (already 
sent mine), then there is little for him, or his campaign, or Libertarians 
in general, to lose by renouncing them.  There is no practical political 
loss, when these funds are not going to be gained anyway, and the 
renunciation itself makes a point.  Let Libertarians be Libertarians.

As I said, Jonathan is no more likely than Shrek to win a Tucson City 
Council seat.  But this does not mean that his pursuit of that goal is not 
worthwhile, primarily as a forum for propounding Libertarian positions.  To 
the extent that mass media permit anyone, even Demublicans, to do this 
effectively, Jonathan is doing a fine job.  But he will not be heard very 
often or very loudly; everyone who counts knows he will not win, and can be 
disregarded with impunity.

Nonetheless, it is worthwhile to at least attempt to expose people to 
Libertarian ideas.  This is probably all that Libertarians can 
realistically do at this point in American political history.  Few will be 
reached, but each is important.

Do any of you out there really think Jonathan can win?  If so, please 
describe the scenario, leaving either Deus or Galt ex Machina out of it.  I 
think it would be much more useful for Libertarians to understand, or at 
least ponder, why they cannot win elections.

On the morality front, Churchill's decision was based ultimately on 
practicality.  Whatever he, the English people, or anyone else thinks is 
good, more of it has to be preferable to less.  Less evil is similarly 
preferable to more evil, no matter one's definition of evil.  1,000 lives 
lost is preferable to 100,000 lives lost.  (Of course, no lives lost would 
be even more preferable, but may not be a practical option in all cases, 
especially in war.  One must also consider probabilities.)  To insist that 
each and every individual life is of incalculable value, even weighed 
against other lives, and thus cannot be entered into such 'moral' 
calculations, is to be, in practical terms, the ones we all live with on 
this earth, a monster.

<-Jim Foley




####################### On another, related topic #####################

David Green->

A few of us have expressed opinions about the morality of Libertarians 
accepting matching funds. Most of us have been silent. I wonder if more of 
us would be willing to express opinions about morality if the issues were 
of greater import.

We all agree that "war is horrible." Do we feel morally obligated to let 
war issues modify our behavior? For example:

1. Do we refuse to invest in the financial instruments of companies 
producing lethal weapons?

2. Do we refuse employment with such companies?

3. Males between the ages of 18 and 26 are required to register with the 
Selective Service System. Despite the very severe punishment threatened by 
the government (fines up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment up to 5 years), 
have any of us refused to register?

4. When war comes, (and it surely will), are we prepared to refuse 
conscription, despite the near certainty of imprisonment, and the 
persecution of our families?

Are people who follow such policies morally superior to the rest of us? I'd 
like to hear what all of you think. (And such a discussion would give us a 
rest from the burning question of the acceptance of matching funds.)

<-David Green

Jim Foley->

To the extent that 'morality' means anything other than Do My Will, and 
even to that extent, it is a purely personal matter.  Public morality, of 
ANY sort, constitutes not only collectivism, but a completely different 
category of entity, since only individuals, and not collectives, possess 
'moral' agency, the ability to make decisions from a consistent stance 
which supports responsibility.  Collectives are thus not in any way 
'morally' responsible for their actions, nor can their actions be laid 
'morally' at the feet of their individual constituents.

Another way of looking at it:  In Tucson, government action is only in part 
directed by an elected City Council, most of it being taken established 
agencies over which elected representatives can exercise only limited 
practical authority.  In what way then are you, as a citizen of Tucson, 
'morally' responsible for the actions of the Tucson Police Department?  I 
submit: none at all.

Even the elected City Council is so abstracted from the individual 'moral' 
preferences and judgments of citizens that its actions can not convincingly 
be laid at their feet.  Candidacies are compromises.  Votes are aggregated 
in mechanistic fashion to determine winners.  Representatives are then 
expected to act in the interests of the 'community as a whole', of which 
there can be no such thing.

As David observes, war is horrible, at least to some people.  Would they be 
fought if at least some people did not judge other things even more 
horrible?  Wars are initiated by collectives, and thus have no 'moral' 
value in themselves.  To individuals, such conflicts appear as visitations 
from the gods; their only choice is whether, and how, to 
participate.  These individual choices may conceivably have some 'moral' 
valence.

David's 'moral' questions must be considered very carefully, and that care 
must be extended to distinction between the actions and choices of 
individuals, who bear at least credible 'moral' agency (there are 
legitimate arguments even against that), and those of collectives, which do 
not.  One might think of collectives, such as governments, as automata, 
Frankenstein monsters; individuals may set them in motion via sparsely 
comprehended means, but cannot effectively control their actions, and are 
thus not responsible for them.  Who is responsible?  No one.  Is this not 
precisely why Libertarians advocate limitation of government?

<-Jim Foley

Jim Foley <foleyj@ultrasw.com>

"Doh!  Facts are meaningless!  You can use facts to prove anything that's 
even remotely true!" - Homer Simpson, a Real American Hero


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpaz-pima-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/