| | Joseph,
You're correct that I come-off emotionally-charged when it comes to ideas. You ask:
Would you think me wise to ignore such oversights in the future? You seem to feel the same about misrepresentation, so surely you can understand my concern in regards to this discussion.
No, but my point about your method is missed by that question. Yes, I care about misrepresentation. As I said, I argued for the explicit representation of a rival's view in my first article. Two points are salient:
(1) whether the scope of volition even allows for the voluntary forfeiture of any human rights
(2) and whether socialism -- in practice -- is ever completely voluntary (as it must be, for your point to retain relevance)
The latter is dealt with in the quote below:
When one observes the nightmare of the desperate efforts made by hundreds of thousands of people struggling to escape from the socialized countries of Europe, to escape over barbed-wire fences, under machine-gun fire—one can no longer believe that socialism, in any of its forms, is motivated by benevolence and by the desire to achieve men’s welfare.
No man of authentic benevolence could evade or ignore so great a horror on so vast a scale.
Socialism is not a movement of the people. It is a movement of the intellectuals, originated, led and controlled by the intellectuals, carried by them out of their stuffy ivory towers into those bloody fields of practice where they unite with their allies and executors: the thugs. Any "public" policy that, in practice, requires "thugs" isn't voluntary.
Ed
|
|
