cliff@unmvax.UUCP (02/12/85)
>>So far, >>the Libertarian solution is the only one that has ever worked. > > Bull. The very fact that governments of a more organized form exist is > a refutation of the empirical success of Libertarianism. Righto! and the fact that people are starving to death in socialist African nations is a refutation of the empirical success of capitalism's ability to keep enough food in a country to feed its citizens. After all, if capitalism really allowed such food, the countries that are all starving to death would switch immediately to the better form of government, hence the following theorem: Any government at any time is the best government for that country at that time. > Government > policies and governments change as a result of people being unhappy > with the status quo. Yes, that is true, it does happen, however it is not true that anytime people are unhappy with the status quo that governments change, or that governments change only as a result of people being unhappy with the status quo, nor is it true that the changes that occur in governments (even when the changes are a result of people being unhappy with the status quo) are in a direction that would reverse the status that is making people unhappy. > If Libertarianism really worked as well as some > people think it would, if it had been tried, it would still exist > (barring circumstances such as conquest, genocide, etc.). As a government, libertarianism, the marketplace of societies, hasn't been tried on a sufficiently large scale to yield valid results. On the other hand the marketplace of species, evolution, has been tried for millions of years; it works. > People who groan and moan about the "good old days" of a laissez-faire > government don't seem to realize that the current governments evolved > because there was a problem and no one was willing or able to step in and > solve it except the government. People who imply that the "good old days" of [any previous] government were examples of libertarianism either don't known their history, don't know what libertarianism is about or are deliberately making false implications. > I point you to the situation involving > the labor-reform laws in England in the 1830's Sure, a monarchy makes a good substitute for a libertarian country... > and the circumstances > surrounding the Great Depression (U.S.) for some basic historical > examples of governments being forced by popular pressure to intervene. I think the depression has been mentioned quite a few times. The bottom line is that it was government interference that brought it about in the first place. > Ray Chen > princeton!tilt!chenr --Cliff
chenr@tilt.FUN (Ray Chen) (02/18/85)
Cliff, do you regularly set up straw men or this article just an attempt to make me have to quote you a lot? >> == Me [Ray Chen aka tilt!chenr] > == Cliff @ unmvax > > Bull. The very fact that governments of a more organized form exist is > > a refutation of the empirical success of Libertarianism. > > Righto! and the fact that people are starving to death in socialist African > nations is a refutation of the empirical success of capitalism's ability > to keep enough food in a country to feed its citizens. After all, if > capitalism really allowed such food, the countries that are all starving to > death would switch immediately to the better form of government, hence the > following theorem: [...] Here's an elementary lesson in logic. If P -> Q does not imply If Q -> P. Thus, the statement "If a government changes as a result of an internal action -> that the government in question was not adequately meeting the needs of some of it's people" does not imply the converse. > > If Libertarianism really worked as well as some > > people think it would, if it had been tried, it would still exist > > (barring circumstances such as conquest, genocide, etc.). > > As a government, libertarianism, the marketplace of societies, hasn't been > tried on a sufficiently large scale to yield valid results. On the other hand > the marketplace of species, evolution, has been tried for millions of years; > it works. If you think the first statement if true, then what are we arguing about? My article was a response to somebody who said that Libertarianism HAD been tried and HAD worked. I specifically stated in my article that if Libertarianism HADN'T been tried in such a way as to yield valid results, then all bets were off. What does the second statement have to do with ANYTHING? > > People who groan and moan about the "good old days" of a laissez-faire > > government don't seem to realize that the current governments evolved > > because there was a problem and no one was willing or able to step in and > > solve it except the government. > > People who imply that the "good old days" of [any previous] government were > examples of libertarianism either don't known their history, don't know what > libertarianism is about or are deliberately making false implications. This wasn't aimed at libertarianism per se, but in general at people who tend to believe that "Less government is ALWAYS better." > > I point you to the situation involving > > the labor-reform laws in England in the 1830's > > Sure, a monarchy makes a good substitute for a libertarian country... Do you know YOUR governments? Great Britain is a CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy. There's a big difference. Again, this wasn't a stab at Libertarianism in particular but rather an example of a situation where government intervention was the only practical solution to a very definite problem. The government intervention resulted in the legalization of unions, child-labor laws, and general labor-laws. The same type of thing happened later in the U.S. and resulted in labor laws and the workmen's compensation laws. Note that I didn't say that any of these were the best solutions. Only that they were practical given the political and economic circumstances at the time. What all my examples have in common besides government intervention is that the result of the intervention was a (so far) permanent government presence/control in a previously uncontrolled area of society. > > and the circumstances > > surrounding the Great Depression (U.S.) for some basic historical > > examples of governments being forced by popular pressure to intervene. > > I think the depression has been mentioned quite a few times. The bottom > line is that it was government interference that brought it about in the > first place. Umm, the GD caused a variety of government agencies to be formed, among them the SEC and the FDIC to try and prevent repetitions of the circumstances that caused and aggravated the GD. Would you mind explaining how government interference brought about the Great Depression? That one's news on me. Ray Chen princeton!tilt!chenr
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (02/20/85)
Get rid of consumer protection? How silly. Why not get rid of protection against murder and theft as well? There's no ethical difference between poking a gun in someone's ribs and taking their money, and deceiving them about the nature of their own actions for personal profit. They are equally coercive. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (02/21/85)
> > > Bull. The very fact that governments of a more organized form exist is > > > a refutation of the empirical success of Libertarianism. > > > > Righto! and the fact that people are starving to death in socialist African > > nations is a refutation of the empirical success of capitalism's ability > > to keep enough food in a country to feed its citizens. After all, if > > capitalism really allowed such food, the countries that are all starving to > > death would switch immediately to the better form of government, hence the > > following theorem: [...] > > Here's an elementary lesson in logic. If P -> Q does not imply If Q -> P. > Thus, the statement "If a government changes as a result of an internal > action -> that the government in question was not adequately meeting the > needs of some of it's people" does not imply the converse. I interpreted your use of "governments of a more organized form" to mean governments that adhere less to the principles of libertarianism than the fabled (optimally libertarian) Libertaria. Hence your statement was roughly equivalent to ~the mere existance of non-libertarian countries is a refutation of the empirical success of Libertarianism.~ I was pointing out *your* fallacy by analogy: ~the existance of non-capitalist countries is a refutation of the empirical success of capitalism.~ ... gee, now where did P and Q get reversed? Face it, the existance of more organized forms of governments is not a refutation of the empirical success of Libertarianism. > > > > If Libertarianism really worked as well as some > > > people think it would, if it had been tried, it would still exist > > > (barring circumstances such as conquest, genocide, etc.). Now I can say Bull. Your claim that if "Libertarianism really worked as well" ... "it would still exist." is simply not correct. Governments change from better to worse quite frequently. You bar circumstances such as conquest, genocide, etc., but you don't bar myopic politicians elected by ignorant (and apathetic) citizens. Look at all the clever stunts that have been pulled to provide a temporary fix that looks palatable but will cause severe damage in the future (e.g. Nixon's price controls, the deficit). By now it should be obvious that capitalist farmers tend to outproduce their non-capitalist counterparts--quite a few countries, including ones behind the iron curtain, are allowing their farmers to make a profit on some of their land because it spurs production, but not all countries do this, because governments and their consequences are rarely examined objectively. --Cliff
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (02/23/85)
> Get rid of consumer protection? How silly. Why not get rid of protection > against murder and theft as well? There's no ethical difference between > poking a gun in someone's ribs and taking their money, and deceiving them > about the nature of their own actions for personal profit. They are equally > coercive. Wrong... The point is that consumer protection can be done by private industry, whereas law enforcement can't. (Or at least I think so.) All you need to do to protect people against bad products it to test a lot of products and put out a newsletter describing your findings. If you want to do law enforcement you have to do a lot more than that. The only people who would suffer without government-enforced consumer protection would be people who are too lazy or stupid to figure out what they are buying, but that's their tough luck. Wayne
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/01/85)
>I interpreted your use of "governments of a more organized form" to mean >governments that adhere less to the principles of libertarianism than the >fabled (optimally libertarian) Libertaria. Hence your statement was roughly >equivalent to ~the mere existance of non-libertarian countries is a refutation >of the empirical success of Libertarianism.~ I was pointing out *your* fallacy >by analogy: ~the existance of non-capitalist countries is a refutation of the >empirical success of capitalism.~ ... gee, now where did P and Q get reversed? > >Face it, the existance of more organized forms of governments is not a >refutation of the empirical success of Libertarianism. Unfortunately, the reverse analogy doesn't work, because only the libertarian asserts that the (apparently) libertarian organization of states will allow the best to survive preferentially. So although the existence of non-libertarian states *should* embarrass a libertarian, the existence of non-X-ist states will embarrass no X-ist of another stripe. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/01/85)
Martin, you are being silly. Right now both cockroaches and human beings exist. Both have survived. In a time before the existence of human beings, the non-existence of human beings did not prove that intelligence was undesirable, or evolutionarily sub-optimal, or inferior to the proven method of surviving by being a cockroach. Evolution is not *purposeful* in the way that you seem to imply. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
john@bmcg.UUCP (John Wallner) (03/04/85)
> Get rid of consumer protection? How silly. Why not get rid of protection > against murder and theft as well? There's no ethical difference between > poking a gun in someone's ribs and taking their money, and deceiving them > about the nature of their own actions for personal profit. They are equally > coercive. > -=- True, fraud is as equally coercive as force. But advocating "getting rid of consumer protection" is not the save as advocating fraud. My understanding of the original authors position is that even without the EPA, fraud is still coercion, and should be punishable by law. John Wallner bmcg!john