No one would ever accuse you of supporting freedom, Phill. I'm sure it was an accident.

Actually I have been very active in circles like Liberty (the UK version of the ACLU). Its just that we have entirely different ideas of what liberty is. Perry believes that libery is license and I believe in the utilitarian formulation of Liberty as advanced by Mill, Russell et al.

(BTW, Jefferson's slaves were inherited and an an entailment clause in the will prevented him from freeing them during his lifetime. Not, of course, that this matters -- the idea of confusing the messenger and the message is the ad hominem fallacy.)

Nope, ad-hominen is a perfectly acceptable form of attack when calling into question a speaker's credentials. The words are used because they were Jefferson's and because he is held up as a supporter of liberty. Pointing out that the words are the cant of a hypocrite is entirely justified. Notwithstanding entailment clauses, Jefferson was under no compunction to exploit his slaves by exploiting their labour. He could have paid them competative wages and allowed them to chose to work for others. In short he could in effect have freed them. Of course then he would not have had the financial means to live as a member of the privileged classes. Genuine philosophers have made such sacrifices. Russell gave away his inheritance after completing Principia because he objected to the idea of inherited wealth. Of course if Perry was interested in genuine liberty instead of a slave owner's idea of liberty - liberty to exploit others he would see the contradiciton in his rhetoric. Phill

Well, you're in a country of _free citizens_ now, Limey, so if you don't like it, then go back to England - a whole nation of people who foam at the mouth with pride and pleasure over their status as feudal _subjects_.

O.K. lets see if we brits were to offer you yankees the Windsors, plus an assortment of flunkies, corgies and stuff are you so sure that your people would reject it? After all someone sold you a bridge so it's not that implausible. Given the way your press goes nuts over big ears and his ex wife (aka familly brood unit) it is clear that you would jump at the chance if the price was sufficiently high (i.e. is the Brits asked for enough money).

Dja ever notice that Charlie Mountbatten married a gorgeous young babe, but was irretrievably drawn to to an elderly woman of great ugliness?

No, Phil, do NOT ask me to call him Prince. I'd sooner follow the example of Lady Liberty in the Seal of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Actually Lord Mountbatten was not a prince of the UK, he was a prince of the Greek royal family and his name was not Charles. The Prince of Wales is Charles Windsor an he comes from a distinguished line of Germans. If you wish to insult our royal familly please learn how to do it _right_. You could refer to Charlie's wish to be reincarnated as a tampon used by Camilla Parker-Bowles or his famous debate with a house plant. Which brings us to the point, the choice between the babe who happens to be neurotic or the woman with a face like a horse? People in those circles start riding horses at the age of four and so they probably don't look too bad to them. Besides, the favourite position of the house of Windsor is the bucking bronco. Phill

At 4:49 PM -0700 7/22/96, hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote:

...

Well, you're in a country of _free citizens_ now, Limey, so if you don't like it, then go back to England - a whole nation of people who foam at the mouth with pride and pleasure over their status as feudal _subjects_.

O.K. lets see if we brits were to offer you yankees the Windsors, plus an assortment of flunkies, corgies and stuff are you so sure that your people would reject it? After all someone sold you a bridge so it's not that implausible.

Some of us love the occasional rabbit's foot but we don't carry the live rabbit around with us. Maybe if you offered us Charles' Rolls Royce, or the odd Crown Jewel...

Given the way your press goes nuts over big ears and his ex wife (aka familly brood unit) it is clear that you would jump at the chance if the price was sufficiently high (i.e. is the Brits asked for enough money).

...

Dja ever notice that Charlie Mountbatten married a gorgeous young babe, but was irretrievably drawn to to an elderly woman of great ugliness?

...

No, Phil, do NOT ask me to call him Prince. I'd sooner follow the example of Lady Liberty in the Seal of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

If you won't call him "Prince", how about "Rover"? (pun intended)

Actually Lord Mountbatten was not a prince of the UK, he was a prince of the Greek royal family and his name was not Charles. The Prince of Wales is Charles Windsor an he comes from a distinguished line of Germans.

And judging from recent exposes, Wallis Simpson's Duke of Windsor was trying very hard to get back to the mother country and his kindly old Uncle Adolph. How's THIS thread for off-topic? The first reader who fails to be amused is given one free pass to tell both Phill and I to take it to e-mail. David

...

Notwithstanding entailment clauses, Jefferson was under no compunction to exploit his slaves by exploiting their labour. He could have paid them competative wages and allowed them to chose to work for others. In short he could in effect have freed them. Of course then he would not have had the financial means to live as a member of the privileged classes.

Genuine philosophers have made such sacrifices. Russell gave away his inheritance after completing Principia because he objected to the idea of inherited wealth.

This is an entirely subjective and philosophical argument about whether the means justify the ends. I won't debate any of the issues here. However, consider the fact that if Jefferson didn't have as much money as he had, he might have not had as much policial impact.

No, the argument is over whether a person should live by the ideals he preaches. I have more respect fot the likes of Kant and Russell who made rather more of an effort than Jefferson. The observation that history is made by rich people and written by rich people is not a new one. Until this century there were few countries where politics were open to anyone but the very wealthy. In the USA that is still by and large the case. Rather than attempting to excuse Jefferson it would be better to accept that not everything he said was valid when he said it and to try to engage ones brain rather than using his words as slogans.

Also think about the fact that all libertarians who drive cars, are by your definition, hypocrites because they drive on tax-funded roads.

Since they are denied the "right" to live in Libertopia they have no choice but to live in the real world. That doesn't make them hypocrites. They are not directly contradicting their principles. On the other hand there are plenty of "free-market" economists who live entirely on grant money from the public purse and plenty of those "libertarians" will be accepting government assisted funding through college or would do so if it was available.

Sometimes it is necessary to violate one's principles in order to help the greater good.

Yes, but how can a Randite libertarian do so in good faith? For such people there is no greater good, it is all the self. Phill

hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu writes:

...

No one would ever accuse you of supporting freedom, Phill. I'm sure it was an accident.

Actually I have been very active in circles like Liberty (the UK version of the ACLU). Its just that we have entirely different ideas of what liberty is. Perry believes that libery is license and I believe in the utilitarian formulation of Liberty as advanced by Mill, Russell et al.

You don't believe in Mill's formulation, Phill. If you did, you couldn't possibly support 90% of the garbage you talk about. Mill was a libertarian in the modern sense -- he opposed virtually everything government did. Yes, his opposition was utilitarian, but so what? You use utilitarianism to justify the indefensible. You say I think that my idea of freedom is license. Perhaps. However, I think my notion is closer to the common conception than yours, which owes more to Orwellian redefinition than to the normal use of the term.

Of course if Perry was interested in genuine liberty instead of a slave owner's idea of liberty

Again, that is ad hominem. You say that ad hominem's are fine when one is questioning a speaker's credentials, but the point is that Jefferson's credentials are immaterial. You call him a slave owner as in order to try to taint his ideas. However, ideas cannot be tainted. If Adolf Hitler felt that high speed autobahns were a good idea, that doesn't make highways a bad idea simply because of the person who conceived of them. Jefferson could have been a mass murderer for all I care. His words may be evaluated fully independently of his actions. They are not interdependent. Perry

Nope, that wasn't me who said that. I don't normally quote the words of slave owners on the subject of liberty.

How do you feel about womanslaughterers and drunkards? I can send you a list of your senior US Senator's quotations.