NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/politics/libertar/3944

Text File | 1993-01-26 | 3.2 KB | 71 lines

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!mlinksva
From: [e-mail] (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: _Liberty_ poll (was National Committee endorses facelift for LP)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
    of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
    control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 11:19:22 GMT
Lines: 56

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Friedman) writes:
>2. A number of people have discussed whether there is objective evidence
>about how libertarians feel about the pledge. Liberty Magazine, some years
>back, published the results of an extensive poll of libertarians. While I
>do not think they asked people how the pledge affected their willingness to
>join the LP, they did ask questions related to whether people really
>believed in an absolute non-aggression principle.

I've looked it up: July 1988 v1n6 pp. 37-53

There is no question that explicitly asks about belief in an absolute
non-agression principle. Several writers provide a few
paragraphs of analysis; I have typed in the one that seems most
relevant.

    Rights Issues Unresolved, by Ethan O. Waters

        To me, the most salient finding of the Poll is that
    libertarian moral thinking is not very rigorous. How
    else can one understand the fact that 11% believe a
    parent should be allowed to starve his kid to death, but
    39% believe a parent should be allowed to kill his kid
    by malnutrition? Or explain why only 2% would face death
    by dropping from the 49th story of a building rather
    than violate property rights, but fully 22% would face
    freezing to death in a situation identical in other
    respects?
        Although nearly all libertarians (89%) agree with
    the non-aggression axiom, a great many are willing to
    dispense with it when convenient: 47% will risk killing
    an innocent hostage to save a greater number of people
    in an emergency, and another 25% will kill the hostage
    outright if necessary; 89% will trespass to prevent a
    parent from starving his child for the fun of it; 98%
    would rather trespass than die in the flagpole question,
    including 14% who woudl restrict trespassing to his
    flagpole and 84% who would go so far as to enter
    another's residence; 78% would force their way into an
    occupide building rather than face freezing to death;
    73% would interfere with a neighbor's right to keep and
    bear arms if those arms were powerful enough.
        It is apparent that many of those willing to
    dispense with the non-aggression axiom have no clear or
    consistent criterion for deciding when to dispense with
    it.

One can obtain this back issue from Liberty for $4.00 plus $1.00
s/h or just the poll complete with data for $4.00

    Liberty
    PO Box 1167
    Port Townsend, WA 98368

Or subscribe. Highly recommended!
--
Mike Linksvayer   [e-mail]   "It serves you right"