been an interesting experience (to say the least!). An email
discussion has started by someone who wrote to a bunch of committee
members and others with a particular concern. I don't care for
protracted mass-CC discussions, because they invariably drag in people
who want no part of the discussion, so I am not replying within the
discussion. But I couldn't resist remarking on this incredibly stupid
comment from one of the committee members, M. Carling. Carling writes:
"The pledge clearly implies that initiation of force is bad only as a
means of achieving political or social goals. In other words, the
pledge implies that initiation of force to achieve personal goals is
acceptable. How very unfortunate."
By 'pledge', he is of course referring to the LP's pledge, found here:
"I certify that I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve
political or social goals."
Now, logic even **I** can follow reveals this is ridiculous. First,
the LP is a political party - naturally our concern is with 'political
and social' rather than 'personal' goals. We'd no more want to make a
statement on the personal morality of non-aggression than we would on
personal weight-loss goals. Second - and much more fundamentally -
it's very poor logic to say that if you do not specifically rule out
X, you are *promoting* X, or even *implying that X is acceptable*. If
I say during a discussion about men that "I do not like to fight with
men," does that 'imply' that I like to fight with women? Absolutely
not! Ridiculous!
Either Carling is stupid or he sees some value in advancing such a
transparently fallacious (not to say dunderheaded) argument. What it
can be I can't even begin to speculate.
