esk@wucs.UUCP (09/27/84)
[] > From: ea!mwm Sep 17 02:13:00 1984 >From me, Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 > The question is, what goal should the [social] meta-rules be set up > to achieve? I maintain that they should give as much freedom to individuals > as possible. Other people think other goals are appropriate, which is a > good thing. Using threats of physical force to make others agree with them > is *not* a good thing, just the usual thing. I maintain that they should promote people's welfare as much as possible. I also have my doubts about the way you state your goal for the meta-rules. What kinds of freedom do you really support? The freedom to amass large quantities of wealth, backed by the claim that since one's ancestors and/or trading partners gave it to one, one therfore "owns" it? But where did THOSE people get it from (or from whom did they take it?) And let there be no doubt that LIBERTARIANS ARE QUITE WILLING TO USE PHYSICAL FORCE to protect "their" "property" (translation: to protect the status quo)! > I don't want to be "forced by governmental or any other kind of authority" > to participate in [cooperative societal] efforts. However, if I > don't participate, I don't expect (or necessarily want) the benefits of > said efforts. My objection isn't to the existence of the effort, or to my > getting the benefits if I choose to participate, my objection is to being > *forced* to participate, whether I want the benefits or not. A generous-sounding offer. Problem is, he INEVITABLY receives the benefits of such public goods as: scientific research, education (of other people), air pollution control, national defense ... I could go on for pages. Now if we don't force anyone to contribute, many people are going to say to themselves "hey, I can get a free ride by letting other people contribute; whereas I'd receive only a puny fraction of the benefits that would be created by my contribution ... ". Even though you may not be one such person, we can't make an exception just for you; and we can't make an exception for "all honest people" because we don't know who they all are. What we have here is "the problem of public goods", a concept from economics -- a subject that libertarians could use to study. --The return of the Aspiring Iconoclast Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 P.S. Please send any mail to this address, NOT the address of the sender (a friend who's helping me out).
stuart@genrad.UUCP (stuart) (10/08/84)
>quantities of wealth, backed by the claim that since one's ancestors and/or >trading partners gave it to one, one therfore "owns" it? But where did >THOSE people get it from (or from whom did they take it?) And let there be >no doubt that LIBERTARIANS ARE QUITE WILLING TO USE PHYSICAL FORCE to >protect "their" "property" (translation: to protect the status quo)! > What I find quite revealing here is the "where did THOSE people get it from (or from whom did they take it?)." This view that wealth is a static entity simply found lying around in nature is quite the opposite of what really happened( happens). Wealth is, for the most part, created by people. My computer terminal was not just found in the dark side of the forest waiting to be exploited. People put it together from items that other people put together from items ... . Of course, the raw materials were just lying around, but even then, alot of effort probably went into obtaining and refining them. It is that EFFORT which the author of the above passage thinks so very, very little of. The ameliorating circumstances which might count in that authors favor, are that such misconceptions are so widespread that its easy for someone to fall into the trap.
rwh@aesat.UUCP (Russell Herman) (11/23/84)
>Society is an aggregate of individuals, bound together by trade, >by the basic need for social intercourse, by shared goals and interests. > J. Bashinski > ...ucbvax!bashinsk%ucbcory Aha! Now I know why I have trouble talking to Libertarians. The society I (want to) belong to is bound together by the mutual concern for its own welfare and that of the individuals composing it. -- ______ Russ Herman / \ {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!aesat!rwh @( ? ? )@ ( || ) The opinions above are strictly personal, and ( \__/ ) do not reflect those of my employer (or even \____/ possibly myself an hour from now.)
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/24/84)
> Don't confuse "society" (which is a function of human interaction) with > "government" which is an attempt to dominate society. People may owe > much to society, but little or nothing to government. In particular, > the government tends to claim credit for anything that happens in > a society, even though the society managed it IN SPITE of the government. A good analogy would be: the government is to society as the skeleton is to the body. It provides security and order, and makes it easier for social interactions to occur. Speculation about what would happen if there were no government is very dangerous, because there is simply no precedent for such a thing. At the very least the government provides security from foreign agression, which could never be provided in an anarchistic society. Wayne
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/25/84)
> There is a difference between society, on the one hand, and > government, on the other. Society exists whenever there is human > interaction. Government, on the other hand, is an attempt by some > group of individuals to control what interaction may occur. > Government seeks to change the patterns that form society; if it > succeeds, it will alter the form of society as a whole. No, rather government is an attempt by a majority of individuals, acting as a group, to form some system to regulate social interactions in some ways. > For all that, government, like all human activities, is an activity > of individuals (even though they may act in concert). It is an attempt > by a group of people to shape society as they would have it shaped, to > bend the pattern to their will- and to dictate to other individuals the > ways in which they may interact, no matter how much they might wish to > do otherwise. > > Many people, apparently including Mr. Rosen, say that government > is the voice and representative of society as a whole, and that it > may exercise prerogatives that that whole possesses. They believe that > one owes the benefits one has accrued in interacting with others to > create society to that creation itself, and that government, as its > representative, is entitled to collect on that debt. Not necessarily. Government is not formed because some people think that it should collect on people's debt to society. Its function is purely pragmatic -- society could not exist without government. > Mr. Rosen himself says "Democracy provides for majority rule...". > If a government rules in the name of a group of individuals (the > "majority"), then how can it claim also to rule in the name of society > as a whole? Is it even likely that society, taken as a whole, has > goals or desires from which to derive the decrees of government? Yes, these goals are the natural ones of self-preservation and self- improvement. What is good for society is a difficult question which I made some statements about in a posting a while ago... > Indeed, not only can government not truthfully claim to rule on > behalf of society as a whole; it cannot even truthfully claim to > represent "all the people". People have conflicting beliefs and desires. > For any decision made by a government, many of the governed can be > found who disagree; if no such could be found, there would be no need > for a government decree. These people are forced to accept the decision > and to act accordingly. This necessary coercive element in the operation > of government should alone lead anyone interested in individual liberties > to wish to severely restrict government involvement in human life. You are right, but anybody who is interested in both individual liberties and collective goods (like education) will take a long look at what he is considering eliminating from government. > Mr. Rosen says that "Democracy... sets up rules governing how the > benefits a society is supposed to provide get distributed...". But > clearly the benefits of interacting with others are self-distributing; > they accrue to those who interact beneficially. In fact, these benefits > are no in essence provided by society at all; the interacting parties > provide them to each other. By doing so, they CREATE society. All the > government can hope to do is to decide who is to interact with whom > and how (with or without the consent of the interacting parties), or > to confiscate and possibly redistribute any material gain from the > interaction. Society without government is a probably better than no society at all (no interaction between people). But when government is working properly, it makes it much easier for individuals to interact in productive ways. Some of this rests on the assumption that government intervention in economics is sometimes good, which I don't want to argue about any more, but such things as public education and the judicial system are clearly cases of productive government regulation. > If anyone on the net wishes to name a useful service, not involving > interference with people's rights to self-determination, now provided > by government, I'll be glad to propose a private alternative, either > of my own or from the libertarian literature. National defense, education, and police are a few that come to mind. I can think of a lot more that are less obvious, like regulation of consumer goods, control of the economy, amd so forth, that I'm not so sure about and many of the people on the net would be very quick to attack, so I won't propose them. Another interesting point about libertarianism that I have noticed is that it seems to be very anachronistic. In the 19th century, when lassez-faire was the prevailing system, libertarianism would have been right at home. But in the 20th century, every trend seems to be away from this sort of philosophy. Communism is its absolute antithesis, and it dominates half of the world, and the rest of the world is either dictatorships or welfare states of varying degrees (I think that as welfare states go, the US is about the most libertarian nation in the world). And yet, libertarianism still exists and seems to be growing in the US. Is its day really past, in the modern world of communist dictatatorships and welfare states, or will we experience a swing back to small government? Wayne
stewart@ihldt.UUCP (R. J. Stewart) (11/27/84)
>> Don't confuse "society" (which is a function of human interaction) with >> "government" which is an attempt to dominate society. > A good analogy would be: the government is to society as the skeleton > is to the body. It provides security and order, and makes it easier for > social interactions to occur. ... At the very least the government > provides security from foreign agression, which could never be > provided in an anarchistic society. > > Wayne The second quote is apparently meant to be an argument against libertarianism, but could just as easily have been said by a libertarian. Remember, LIBERTARIANISM IS NOT ANARCHY. Libertarians support a strong national defense and an effective police force. To extend the analogy, the role of the skeleton is well-defined and limited. You would be in trouble if your skeleton started to attempt to take over the functions of your heart and brain. In the same way, the duty of the government is to protect people from aggression by other people, not to redistribute their incomes and restrict their business transactions. Bob Stewart ihldt!stewart
nrh@inmet.UUCP (11/28/84)
>***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 9:31 pm Nov 24, 1984 >> Don't confuse "society" (which is a function of human interaction) with >> "government" which is an attempt to dominate society. People may owe >> much to society, but little or nothing to government. In particular, >> the government tends to claim credit for anything that happens in >> a society, even though the society managed it IN SPITE of the government. > >A good analogy would be: the government is to society as the skeleton >is to the body. Gack. More like: the government is to society as the CORSET is to the body. >It provides security and order, and makes it easier for >social interactions to occur. It provides apparent comeliness (welfare, AFDC), while avoiding the ugly necessities (dieting, exercise, refusal to meddle with the money supply, admitting that even people who do not want to give to charity have a right to their earnings) of real comeliness. It forces those of unusual composition into a mold favored by a current fashion, often disrupting the functioning of the inner organs to satisfy the vagaries of vanity. And think! Where would the corset-makers be without a continual usage of corsets? >Speculation about what would happen if >there were no government is very dangerous, because there is simply >no precedent for such a thing. Speculation about life without corsets is very dangerous, because (aside from medieval Ireland and Iceland) there is no precedent for such a thing. People are born wearing corsets, just as humanity was born with gavel in hand. >At the very least the government provides >security from foreign agression, which could never be provided in an >anarchistic society. Thus the continual invasions of medieval Iceland by other powers, and the fact that it took a centrally-organized invasion force (the British) a mere couple of centuries to subdue the Irish. Wayne: PLEASE do a little reference work before you post anything more about libertarian thought. I suggest you try: "For a New Liberty", by Murray Rothbard, who talks a bit about historical Ireland.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (11/28/84)
>***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 3:14 am Nov 25, 1984 >> For all that, government, like all human activities, is an activity >> of individuals (even though they may act in concert). It is an attempt >> by a group of people to shape society as they would have it shaped, to >> bend the pattern to their will- and to dictate to other individuals the >> ways in which they may interact, no matter how much they might wish to >> do otherwise. >> >> Many people, apparently including Mr. Rosen, say that government >> is the voice and representative of society as a whole, and that it >> may exercise prerogatives that that whole possesses. They believe that >> one owes the benefits one has accrued in interacting with others to >> create society to that creation itself, and that government, as its >> representative, is entitled to collect on that debt. > >Not necessarily. Government is not formed because some people think that >it should collect on people's debt to society. Its function is purely >pragmatic -- society could not exist without government. Just as women's bodies could not exist without corsets.... > >> Mr. Rosen says that "Democracy... sets up rules governing how the >> benefits a society is supposed to provide get distributed...". But >> clearly the benefits of interacting with others are self-distributing; >> they accrue to those who interact beneficially. In fact, these benefits >> are no in essence provided by society at all; the interacting parties >> provide them to each other. By doing so, they CREATE society. All the >> government can hope to do is to decide who is to interact with whom >> and how (with or without the consent of the interacting parties), or >> to confiscate and possibly redistribute any material gain from the >> interaction. > >Society without government is a probably better than no society at all >(no interaction between people). But when government is working >properly, it makes it much easier for individuals to interact in >productive ways. A perpetual motion machine, when it is working well, provides all the power you need. Does this mean that it is worthwhile to spend time building a perpetual motion machine? This notion that any dynamic whatsoever can be built into a government (David Friedman's phrase) is far sillier than anything libertarians have come up with. In particular, when you create a government, the people you've put in charge of it do not magically become exempt from greed, envy, and the urge to power. The organization of the government (the bureaucracy) does not magicly become sprightly, well-integrated, and cooperative. These things obey the laws of human nature just as all other such creations do. You cannot build a perpetual motion machine because of the laws of physics. I'm not quite so skeptical about a "good" government, but probably only because there is no well-founded theory of inter-human dynamics. What I am trying to suggest here is that it may not be possible to build a government that is, or can remain, "good", and that the notion that one need only take an existing government and "fix" it to get a good government is like the notion that one can take a bicycle generator and "fix" it so that it becomes a perpetual motion machine. >Some of this rests on the assumption that government >intervention in economics is sometimes good, which I don't want to >argue about any more, I've been waiting for that list of monopolies! You remember, the ones that don't need government support? If you don't want to argue about it, don't make it a basis of your argument. >but such things as public education and the >judicial system are clearly cases of productive government regulation. There's no argument about it! Government can certainly come up with public goods. The problem is that the government must create public "bads" (taxation, limited liability for itself, denial of certain liberties) to create them. Are the goods worth the cost? The people who DON'T think so still have to pay, or they go to jail. Isn't it worth looking REAL HARD at those things government wants to do before saying "I'm willing to threaten people who disagree with this with jail, unless they pay for it."? >> If anyone on the net wishes to name a useful service, not involving >> interference with people's rights to self-determination, now provided >> by government, I'll be glad to propose a private alternative, either >> of my own or from the libertarian literature. > >National defense, education, and police are a few that come to mind. I suggest you read "Machinery of Freedom", which describes a well worked-out libertarian police and court system.
marks@Cascade.ARPA (11/29/84)
> From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP > If you break tax laws then you get your bank account frozen. ... without due process of law. "If you break tax laws..." is a judgement that the IRS reserves unto itself. The IRS has the power to hold property without court order, without due process. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" ============================================================================ > Better yet, the govt should start selling stock in the post office You'd better think of another way. Nobody would buy it! :-) ============================================================================ >> The mentality behind >> it -- that property derives its legitimacy from one's compact with the >> state -- was their target. > From where does it derive its legitimacy then? Remember, there are NO rights > in a state of nature, as you can see by looking at animal conceptions of > rights. "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are endowed by their creator certain unalienable rights ..." The Declaration of Independence It is certainly NOT the function of government to "legitimize" (i.e. grant, control, revoke at will) the rights of the people. Rights exist without government, but it is likely that they will be violated. That's why we have government: to PROTECT our rights. ============================================================================ > ... anybody who is interested in both individual liberties > and collective goods (like education) will take a long look at what > he is considering eliminating from government. Why is education a collective good? The centralized control of distribution of knowledge is a gigantic step away from freedom. Government control of education is a step towards totalitarianism. Remember Newspeak and all that? This view of education isn't only philosophical; it's practical, too. Has the quality of public education in this country risen in recent years? NO! Has its cost (per student, even after inflation (which is the government's fault, by the way)) gone up? YES! I shall refrain from reiterating how a private system could education EVERYONE better than a public system. ---------- Stuart Marks, Computer Systems Lab, Stanford University {ucbvax,decvax}!decwrl!glacier!marks, marks@su-cascade.ARPA "The government is a great fiction whereby everybody tries to live at the expense of everybody else." -- Frederic Bastiat
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/30/84)
> >***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 9:31 pm Nov 24, 1984 > >> Don't confuse "society" (which is a function of human interaction) with > >> "government" which is an attempt to dominate society. People may owe > >> much to society, but little or nothing to government. In particular, > >> the government tends to claim credit for anything that happens in > >> a society, even though the society managed it IN SPITE of the government. > > > >A good analogy would be: the government is to society as the skeleton > >is to the body. > > Gack. More like: the government is to society as the CORSET is to > the body. > > >It provides security and order, and makes it easier for > >social interactions to occur. > > It provides apparent comeliness > (welfare, AFDC), while avoiding the ugly necessities > (dieting, exercise, refusal to meddle with the money supply, > admitting that even people who do not want to give to charity > have a right to their earnings) of real > comeliness. It forces those of unusual composition into a mold favored > by a current fashion, often disrupting the functioning of the inner > organs to satisfy the vagaries of vanity. And think! Where would > the corset-makers be without a continual usage of corsets? I like my analogy better. I don't think that government really constricts people's lives and disrupts their functioning. If the worst thing you can say about government is that it takes 25% of your income, I'd say you don't have much of a case. You can say what you want, travel pretty much where you want, and so forth. You can probably think of a few counterexamples, but compared to all the good things government does... > >Speculation about what would happen if > >there were no government is very dangerous, because there is simply > >no precedent for such a thing. > > Speculation about life without corsets is very dangerous, because > (aside from medieval Ireland and Iceland) there is no precedent > for such a thing. People are born wearing corsets, just as humanity > was born with gavel in hand. Can you give some specifics of life in Medieval Iceland and Ireland? Conditions then were nothing like they are now, so you have to be careful of what conclusions you draw. Feudalism isn't exactly libertarianism... > >At the very least the government provides > >security from foreign agression, which could never be provided in an > >anarchistic society. > > Thus the continual invasions of medieval Iceland by other powers, and > the fact that it took a centrally-organized invasion force (the British) > a mere couple of centuries to subdue the Irish. Iceland and Ireland are islands, and islands aren't the easiest places to invade. Besides, why would you want to sail hundreds of miles to invade a place called Iceland?? > Wayne: PLEASE do a little reference work before you post anything > more about libertarian thought. I suggest you try: "For a New Liberty", > by Murray Rothbard, who talks a bit about historical Ireland. I think that discussions on the net should not come down to "You read this list of books, and I will read yours and we can compare notes". I have replied to your postings, not to the entire body of libertarian thought. I must admit that there are points you have brought up that I am not qualified to deal with properly, but I'm not a political scientist. I've tried to use common sense arguments against specifically what you have posted, so don't blame me because I don't know all the details of the history of Medieval Ireland. If you like you can try to condense the points you want to make out of this book as a suitable topic for discussion... For my part I'd suggest that you read "The Welfare State" by Lester Ward... Wayne
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/30/84)
> >Not necessarily. Government is not formed because some people think that > >it should collect on people's debt to society. Its function is purely > >pragmatic -- society could not exist without government. > > Just as women's bodies could not exist without corsets.... No, it isn't like that. > >Society without government is a probably better than no society at all > >(no interaction between people). But when government is working > >properly, it makes it much easier for individuals to interact in > >productive ways. > > A perpetual motion machine, when it is working well, provides all the > power you need. Does this mean that it is worthwhile to spend time > building a perpetual motion machine? There is a difference -- there are good reasons why perpetual motion machines can't work well. I suppose you have given lots of reasons why (in your opinion) government can't work well, but don't take it for granted that everybody agrees with you. > This notion that any dynamic whatsoever can be built into a government > (David Friedman's phrase) is far sillier than anything libertarians have > come up with. In particular, when you create a government, the people > you've put in charge of it do not magically become exempt from greed, > envy, and the urge to power. The organization of the government (the > bureaucracy) does not magicly become sprightly, well-integrated, and > cooperative. These things obey the laws of human nature just as all > other such creations do. You cannot build a perpetual motion machine > because of the laws of physics. The "laws of human nature" have nothing to do with the laws of physics. Just because people are liable to abuse power doesn't mean that nobody should have it. > What I am trying to suggest here is that it may not be possible to > build a government that is, or can remain, "good", and that the > notion that one need only take an existing government and "fix" it > to get a good government is like the notion that one can take > a bicycle generator and "fix" it so that it becomes a perpetual > motion machine. It isn't like that. Maybe it isn't possible to get a government that works perfectly, but in my opinion it is very easy to get a governent that works better than none at all. > I've been waiting for that list of monopolies! You'll be waiting for a long time... I'm not an economic historian, and there is disagreement about this among economists anyway. I never wanted to make this point crucial to my whole argument. If you want to argue this you should do it in net.economics. > >but such things as public education and the > >judicial system are clearly cases of productive government regulation. > > There's no argument about it! Government can certainly come up > with public goods. The problem is that the government must > create public "bads" (taxation, limited liability for itself, denial > of certain liberties) to create them. Are the goods worth the cost? Yes. I think this entire discussion is getting much too abstract and full of "I'm right" vs "No you aren't". Maybe we could pick some concrete topics of interest to libertarians and discuss them in more detail... (And if you think any books are worth quoting, please feel free to do so, but don't assume that people have the time to read them all themselves.) Wayne
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (12/01/84)
> >> The mentality behind > >> it -- that property derives its legitimacy from one's compact with the > >> state -- was their target. > > From where does it derive its legitimacy then? Remember, there are NO rights > > in a state of nature, as you can see by looking at animal conceptions of > > rights. > > "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are endowed by > their creator certain unalienable rights ..." > > The Declaration of Independence Maybe the writers of the Declaration of Independence held them to be self-evident, but I don't. In the 18th century most philosophy, including political philisophy, was more inclined than now towards naturalism, in the sense that it assumed that all sorts of things like morals and rights existed in the world. I think that this notion dioesn't make sense -- we DEFINE morals and rights ourselves, and only in a society where there is agreement about them can they have any validity. > > ... anybody who is interested in both individual liberties > > and collective goods (like education) will take a long look at what > > he is considering eliminating from government. > > Why is education a collective good? The centralized control of distribution > of knowledge is a gigantic step away from freedom. Government control of > education is a step towards totalitarianism. Remember Newspeak and all that? I'm not talking about government control, I'm talking about the government providing free education to people who wouldn't get it otherwise. The sort of mind control you are talking about doesn't go on in public schools, and the sort of indoctrination that does occur (pledging allegance to the flag, etc) is definitely preferable to having a lot of poor, uneducated, illiterate people around. Better from the standpoint of "the good of society", that is, and certainly better from the educated individual's standpoint. > This view of education isn't only philosophical; it's practical, too. Has > the quality of public education in this country risen in recent years? NO! > Has its cost (per student, even after inflation (which is the government's > fault, by the way)) gone up? YES! I shall refrain from reiterating how a > private system could education EVERYONE better than a public system. Not exactly everyone, just those who could pay for it. You have to take a careful look at what you are advocating -- if public education were done away with, illiteracy would certainly increase dramatically, and centuries of progress in social welfare would be lost. Wayne
bdp@ptsfa.UUCP (Barbara Petersen) (12/08/84)
[Actually from J. Bashinski] > From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP > Subject: Re: Re: Libertarianism > > > Government, on the other hand, is an attempt by some > > group of individuals to control what interaction may occur. > No, rather government is an attempt by a majority of individuals, acting > as a group, to form some system to regulate social interactions in some > ways. How does what you say differ from what I say? The majority (if indeed a government is set up by a majority) remains a group of individuals, and regulation of social interactions "in some ways" is still control of what interactions may occur. > > Many people, apparently including Mr. Rosen, say that government > > is the voice and representative of society as a whole, and that it > > may exercise prerogatives that that whole possesses. They believe that > > one owes the benefits one has accrued in interacting with others to > > create society to that creation itself, and that government, as its > > representative, is entitled to collect on that debt. > > Not necessarily. Government is not formed because some people think that > it should collect on people's debt to society. Its function is purely > pragmatic -- society could not exist without government. It's true that governments are formed for pragmatic reasons, however misguided those reasons may be. Does thst mean that the formation of a government is RIGHT? The most pragmatic thing for me to do at this moment may be to cut your head off. Should I do so? There are people who want to legitimize their government by saying that it has the right to collect on debts owed society. What I argue is that it DOES NOT have that right, and furthermore that no debts can be owed society in any case. Moral legitimacy for government cannot come from this source. > > Is it even likely that society, taken as a whole, has > > goals or desires from which to derive the decrees of government? > > Yes, these goals are the natural ones of self-preservation and self- > improvement. What is good for society is a difficult question which > I made some statements about in a posting a while ago... I think you're confusing the goals of society with the goals of the individuals who make it up. It may be that all or almost all of those individuals have self-preservation and self-improvement as their goals. It may even be that these individuals want to preserve and improve society. But it seems unlikely that society as a whole has thought processes equal to the task of understanding the concepts of self-preservation or self-improvement, much less of desiring them. In any case, libertarians do not advocate the destruction of society, and I believe that a libertarian society would be an improvement over what we have now. Since we have no way of learning the desires of society in the aggregate (assuming it has any), we can't be sure of doing what it wants, no matter what we do. Even if we knew that society had desires and what those desires were, there would be no reason for us to follow them. We do not incur a debt to society by creating it, even if that creation makes our own lives easier. We CANNOT incur a debt to it in any other way, since we do not interact directly with it. > > This necessary coercive element in the operation > > of government should alone lead anyone interested in individual liberties > > to wish to severely restrict government involvement in human life. > > You are right, but anybody who is interested in both individual liberties > and collective goods (like education) will take a long look at what > he is considering eliminating from government. I'm a bit confused by the phrase "collective goods". I can't see defining a collective good as something that's good for society as a whole. I've already discussed the problems with considering the desires of society. Those same problems apply to its "good". Who is to decide what's good for society, if we can't ask society itself? If we know what's good for society, why should we care? While we have plenty of debts due each other, we owe society nothing. The only alternative I can see to defining a "collective good" as something that is good for society as a whole is defining it as something that is good for all individuals. Education definitely doesn't pass this test. Is education good for someone whose religion values ignorance as a virtue? For someone who just plain doesn't believe what's being taught? I can't think of a single example of something that would be good for EVERYBODY, at least not if each person were permitted to decide for him/herself what's good for her/him. > > Mr. Rosen says that "Democracy... sets up rules governing how the > > benefits a society is supposed to provide get distributed...". But > > clearly the benefits of interacting with others are self-distributing; > > they accrue to those who interact beneficially. In fact, these benefits > > are no in essence provided by society at all; the interacting parties > > provide them to each other. By doing so, they CREATE society. All the > > government can hope to do is to decide who is to interact with whom > > and how (with or without the consent of the interacting parties), or > > to confiscate and possibly redistribute any material gain from the > > interaction. > > Society without government is a probably better than no society at all > (no interaction between people). But when government is working > properly, it makes it much easier for individuals to interact in > productive ways. Some of this rests on the assumption that government > intervention in economics is sometimes good, which I don't want to > argue about any more, but such things as public education and the > judicial system are clearly cases of productive government regulation. Now I AM confused. A couple of paragraphs ago you said that society couldn't exist without government. Now you say that a society without government is probably better than none at all. Isn't this a contradiction? I don't concede that government makes it easier for individuals to interact in productive ways. Prove it. > > If anyone on the net wishes to name a useful service, not involving > > interference with people's rights to self-determination, now provided > > by government, I'll be glad to propose a private alternative, either > > of my own or from the libertarian literature. > > National defense, education, and police are a few that come to mind. > I can think of a lot more that are less obvious, like regulation of > consumer goods, control of the economy, amd so forth, that I'm not > so sure about and many of the people on the net would be very quick > to attack, so I won't propose them. National defense: I can think of at least three private solutions to the problem of national defense. The first is to ignore it entirely. A nation without armed forces would present no threat to other nations. It would therefore be a less tempting target for attack. If the citizens of that nation were known to be well-armed as individuals, an attack would still threaten heavy losses for the attacking force. Since traditional techniques of military conquest involve taking over the government apparatus already in place, a libertarian nation would be difficult to take and still more difficult to hold. The second possible solution would be an all-volunteer army supported by voluntary contributions. Such an organization could even maintain a minimal strategic nuclear capability, if such were desired. In the event of an attack by another nation, this already-existing force could provide organization for a strong resistance. A third idea (due to David Friedman) would be to have one or more profit-making "defense companies", which would rely on citizen's honor to induce them to pay what the services were worth to them. Such companies might well be recognized by other nations as the "governments" of the areas they defended, and could therefore augment their income by charging for the issuance of passports. It is interesting to note that in a libertarian WORLD, the question of NATIONAL defense would not arise. World peace would have been achieved without the unnecessary repression of world government. Education: The private alternative to publically supported education already exists; it's called the private school. Under a libertarian system, all schools would be private schools. Parents would be free to send their children to the school of their choice. The children of the poor would go to schools operated by private charities, or would be taught by their parents. The public school system in this country serves only one purpose that would not be served by a wholly private education system- the inculcation in children of the views the government feels they should hold as adults. Even private schools are required to teach courses (primarily history and government courses) with substantial political content... from state-approved textbooks. Police: Police services could easily be provided by companies similar to the existing private security firms. People would purchase as much police protection as they felt they needed. I really don't see the need to say anything more about police protection. I know that there's a lot of debate going on about the desirability of this system. People seem to be afraid of trusting private companies with the means to use as much force as they might need to use to keep order. Myself, I have a lot more trouble trusting GOVERNMENT with that much force; at least under the private system I can hire another company to protect me from one that runs amok. > Another interesting point about libertarianism that I have noticed is > that it seems to be very anachronistic. In the 19th century, when > lassez-faire was the prevailing system, libertarianism would have > been right at home. But in the 20th century, every trend seems to be > away from this sort of philosophy. Communism is its absolute antithesis, > and it dominates half of the world, and the rest of the world is either > dictatorships or welfare states of varying degrees (I think that as > welfare states go, the US is about the most libertarian nation in the > world). And yet, libertarianism still exists and seems to be growing > in the US. Is its day really past, in the modern world of communist > dictatatorships and welfare states, or will we experience a swing back > to small government? > > Wayne > > ---------- I don't know whether libertarianism is an anachronism or not. On even days, I think it's got a good chance; on odd days, I think the entire world is sinking into a repressive mire. We're not arguing about whether libertarianism is in tune with the times, but about whether it's RIGHT. J. Bashinski ...!ucbvax!bashinsk%ucbcory Please respond to this account, rather than to the posting account.
marks@Cascade.ARPA (12/09/84)
Sorry for the delay; I've been busy this week. -SM >> = me > = faustus@ucbcad >> >> "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are endowed by >> their creator certain unalienable rights ..." >> >> The Declaration of Independence > >Maybe the writers of the Declaration of Independence held them to >be self-evident, but I don't. In the 18th century most philosophy, >including political philisophy, was more inclined than now towards >naturalism, in the sense that it assumed that all sorts of things >like morals and rights existed in the world. I think that this notion >doesn't make sense -- we DEFINE morals and rights ourselves, and only >in a society where there is agreement about them can they have any >validity. We could argue endlessly about rights and the state of nature, but that discussion would lead us off the track. The point is that the entity that legitimizes our rights is NOT the GOVERNMENT. You say "We define morals and rights ourselves" but who are "we" and "ourselves"? Certainly not the government. We define our rights and create the government to protect those rights, not the other way around. The original quote states that Libertarians object to the notion that rights are derived from "a compact with the state." Perhaps rights are derived from a compact with society, but not the state. >I'm not talking about government control, I'm talking about the government >providing free education to people who wouldn't get it otherwise. Sorry, government funding == government control. Those providing the funding always have the power to withhold that funding. A voucher system is a first step in getting government out of the education business. However, the government might allow the vouchers to be redeemed only at "approved" schools, and therein lies the rub. Who sets the criteria for approval? The government! > The >sort of mind control you are talking about doesn't go on in public schools, >and the sort of indoctrination that does occur (pledging allegance to the >flag, etc) is definitely preferable to having a lot of poor, uneducated, >illiterate people around. Better from the standpoint of "the good of >society", that is, and certainly better from the educated individual's >standpoint. How do you know what degree of "indoctrination" is tolerable? How do you know it won't increase beyond a tolerable level, assuming it's tolerable now? A significant amount of indoctrination goes on already. "The Monroe Doctrine was good because it asserted the U.S.'s power over the Western Hemisphere at the expense of the European countries' power...." "FDR instituted the Social Security system as a pension plan to help the poor...." "The Vietnam Conflict was necessary because...." "The Federal Reserve Board is an independent commission formed to...." Do you think that the government will approve a textbook that was written by a Communist? Sure, an "enlightened" politician (if such an animal exists) will, but a politician who's out to get votes won't. The indoctrination is subtle, but it's there. I don't want indoctrination, but I don't want illiteracy either. Private schools will solve both problems (see below). >> This view of education isn't only philosophical; it's practical, too. Has >> the quality of public education in this country risen in recent years? NO! >> Has its cost (per student, even after inflation (which is the government's >> fault, by the way)) gone up? YES! I shall refrain from reiterating how a >> private system could educate EVERYONE better than a public system. >Not exactly everyone, just those who could pay for it. You have to take >a careful look at what you are advocating -- if public education were >done away with, illiteracy would certainly increase dramatically, and >centuries of progress in social welfare would be lost. Public education hasn't done as much for the poor as you think. Why can't Johnny read? Because he went to a public school! Educational quality at private schools is consistently better than at public schools, and the cost per student is lower. Public education serves to keep the poor UNEDUCATED. You have to take a careful look at what you are advocating -- if public education were done away with, the poor could go to private schools and get a good education for a change, and centuries of social stagnation would be lost. The point is: if you want the poor to be educated, public schools AREN'T the way to do it. But where do the poor get enough money for expensive private schools? First, increased competition among private schools would drive the cost down. Second, private schools are beyond the reach of many people because people are taxed heavily in order to fund public schools. Elimination of these taxes would make private education affordable for many more. (Yes, the poor pay taxes, too.) Finally, for the extremely poor, we could have direct government aid, perhaps in the form of a negative income tax (with a tuition credit) or a voucher system. Unfortunately, this last factor still leaves the poor under control of the government. Nevertheless, such a system could educate EVERYONE better than the current system of public education. ---------- Stuart Marks, Computer Systems Lab, Stanford University {ucbvax,decvax}!decwrl!glacier!marks, marks@su-cascade.ARPA "The government is a great fiction whereby everybody tries to live at the expense of everybody else." -- Frederic Bastiat
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (12/10/84)
> I'm a bit confused by the phrase "collective goods". I can't see > defining a collective good as something that's good for society as a > whole. I've already discussed the problems with considering the desires > of society. Those same problems apply to its "good". Who is to decide > what's good for society, if we can't ask society itself? If we know > what's good for society, why should we care? While we have plenty of > debts due each other, we owe society nothing. What is good for society as a whole is what is good for most of the members. I guess that this isn't always a useful definition, but I am not trying to claim that society has any sort of existence apart from its members. You could say that society is a set of epiphenomena of social interactions, properties that cannot be said to belong to any of the members but belong to the whole. It is pretty easy, in theory, to decide what is good for society -- whatever leads to the greatest good, in the long run, for the most individuals. > The only alternative I can see to defining a "collective good" as > something that is good for society as a whole is defining it as something > that is good for all individuals. Education definitely doesn't pass this > test. Is education good for someone whose religion values ignorance as > a virtue? For someone who just plain doesn't believe what's being taught? People who value ignorance as a virtue are, fortunately, a minority. If you don't believe what's being taught, that's no reason to say that you shouldn't be taught anything. I think that having other people educated tends to benefit everybody, not only the people being educated. For one thing, it makes them less jealous of those who can afford good educations... > I can't think of a single example of something that would be good for > EVERYBODY, at least not if each person were permitted to decide for > him/herself what's good for her/him. Well, neither can I, but just because people don't always know what's good for them doesn't mean that they are right. > > Society without government is a probably better than no society at all > > (no interaction between people). But when government is working > > properly, it makes it much easier for individuals to interact in > > productive ways. Some of this rests on the assumption that government > > intervention in economics is sometimes good, which I don't want to > > argue about any more, but such things as public education and the > > judicial system are clearly cases of productive government regulation. > > Now I AM confused. A couple of paragraphs ago you said that society > couldn't exist without government. Now you say that a society without > government is probably better than none at all. Isn't this a contradiction? Ok, I'll admit that I was being a bit liberal with the word 'society'. I should have said that any reasonable level of society (what we consider society today) wouldn't be possible without government. > National defense: > > I can think of at least three private solutions to the problem of > national defense. The first is to ignore it entirely. A nation without > armed forces would present no threat to other nations. It would therefore > be a less tempting target for attack. If the citizens of that nation > were known to be well-armed as individuals, an attack would still threaten > heavy losses for the attacking force. Since traditional techniques of > military conquest involve taking over the government apparatus already > in place, a libertarian nation would be difficult to take and still more > difficult to hold. A nation with a large military is a temping target for attack? I don't understand that one. A threat, maybe, but I think that a rich economy is a much better motivation to try to take over a country than a big army. > The second possible solution would be an all-volunteer army > supported by voluntary contributions. Such an organization could even > maintain a minimal strategic nuclear capability, if such were desired. > In the event of an attack by another nation, this already-existing > force could provide organization for a strong resistance. > > A third idea (due to David Friedman) would be to have one or more > profit-making "defense companies", which would rely on citizen's honor > to induce them to pay what the services were worth to them. Such companies > might well be recognized by other nations as the "governments" of the > areas they defended, and could therefore augment their income by charging > for the issuance of passports. Rely on the citizen's honor? Not that reliable a basis... I have made arguments against private "defense companies" in other postings, so I won't repeat them again, but I think they should be pretty obvious. > It is interesting to note that in a libertarian WORLD, the question > of NATIONAL defense would not arise. World peace would have been achieved > without the unnecessary repression of world government. And in the land of Oz nobody ever dies. Wouldn't that be wonderful? > Education: > > The private alternative to publically supported education already > exists; it's called the private school. Under a libertarian system, all > schools would be private schools. Parents would be free to send their > children to the school of their choice. The children of the poor would go > to schools operated by private charities, or would be taught by their > parents. Parents would also be free no completely neglect their children's educations, which I think would be more common. Do you think that a poor unmaried mother would have the time and motivation (not to mention education) to teach her children herself? You have to consider the rights of the children to an education also, not only the rights of the parents to do whatever they want with their children. > > Another interesting point about libertarianism that I have noticed is > > that it seems to be very anachronistic. In the 19th century, when > > lassez-faire was the prevailing system, libertarianism would have > > been right at home. But in the 20th century, every trend seems to be > > away from this sort of philosophy. Communism is its absolute antithesis, > > and it dominates half of the world, and the rest of the world is either > > dictatorships or welfare states of varying degrees (I think that as > > welfare states go, the US is about the most libertarian nation in the > > world). And yet, libertarianism still exists and seems to be growing > > in the US. Is its day really past, in the modern world of communist > > dictatatorships and welfare states, or will we experience a swing back > > to small government? > > I don't know whether libertarianism is an anachronism or not. On > even days, I think it's got a good chance; on odd days, I think the entire > world is sinking into a repressive mire. We're not arguing about whether > libertarianism is in tune with the times, but about whether it's RIGHT. I thought I was making points about both. I think that most of the people who have been defending libertarianism are really defending anarchism, including Mr. Bashinsk. As I understand it, libertarians (real Libertarians, that is) don't believe in a society with no government at all, but rather one with a minimal government. If people want to argue that all government is evil, they should identify themselves as anarchists, not libertarians. Wayne
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/11/84)
> I really don't see the need to say anything more about police > protection. I know that there's a lot of debate going on about the > desirability of this system. People seem to be afraid of trusting > private companies with the means to use as much force as they might > need to use to keep order. Myself, I have a lot more trouble trusting > GOVERNMENT with that much force; at least under the private system I > can hire another company to protect me from one that runs amok. Isn't that known as an arms race? At what level of nuclear armaments do your two (or more) companies stop? In most countries of the Western world the Government police doesn't need or use as much force as in the USA, because the "opposition" is not as well armed. I prefer to keep the force level low, rather than return to feudal times, when the strongest baron (read "purveyor of protection") controlled the most villeins (read "purchasers of protection"). -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
shad@teldata.UUCP (12/13/84)
> ... If >people want to argue that all government is evil, they should identify >themselves as anarchists, not libertarians. > > Wayne I am rminded of a quote out of America's past but don't remember the author (Adams, Franklin, or Jefferson?): "Governments at best are necessary evils and at worst intolerable ones." Warren
87064023@sdcc3.UUCP ({|lit) (12/21/84)
> > I'm a bit confused by the phrase "collective goods". I can't see > > defining a collective good as something that's good for society as a > > whole... > > What is good for society as a whole is what is good for most of the members. I think you should be careful about this. Killing welfare recepients (instead of feeding them) could be construed as being good for most of "society's" members. And again, who determines what is "good" for whom? Government? > People who value ignorance as a virtue are, fortunately, a minority. If > you don't believe what's being taught, that's no reason to say that you > shouldn't be taught anything. Should these people be forced to be educated? Should I be forced to provide their education (thru taxes, etc.)? The idea that the initial use of force should be utilized to solve problems is exactly what libertarians are arguing against. Force should only be used to respond to attempts to infringe on an individuals rights to life, liberty, and property. > > > I can't think of a single example of something that would be good for > > EVERYBODY, at least not if each person were permitted to decide for > > him/herself what's good for her/him. > > Well, neither can I, but just because people don't always know what's good > for them doesn't mean that they are right. > Say what?!! Government should decide what is best for me? Because I *CAN'T* ?! The final judge of what is good for an individual IS THAT INDIVIDUAL. I especially resent this argument that my liberty is being infringed upon "for my own good". > > Under a libertarian system, all > > schools would be private schools. Parents would be free to send their > > children to the school of their choice. The children of the poor would go > > to schools operated by private charities, or would be taught by their > > parents. > > Parents would also be free no completely neglect their children's > educations, which I think would be more common. Do you think that a > poor unmaried mother would have the time and motivation (not to > mention education) to teach her children herself? You have to consider > the rights of the children to an education also, not only the rights > of the parents to do whatever they want with their children. > Yes, parents would be free to neglect their children's education, just like it is now. Your solution to this problem is to use force to coerce children into schools. The solution proposed by libertarians is to realize that individuals do and should have the ultimate responsibility to act in their own interest, and if this includes not going to school (or not sending your children to school) then it is nobody else's business. As for the rights of children to an education, you might note that libertarians believe that human rights also extend to children, and we make no distinction between "people" and "children". Hence, the ultimate responsibility for a person's educations rests with that person, not with his or her parents. > > I think that most of the people who have been defending libertarianism > are really defending anarchism, including Mr. Bashinsk. As I understand > it, libertarians (real Libertarians, that is) don't believe in a society > with no government at all, but rather one with a minimal government. If > people want to argue that all government is evil, they should identify > themselves as anarchists, not libertarians. > > Wayne Libertarianism is not anarchism. We Libertarians stress that government is formed to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizenry, and that governments are properly judged on the extent to which they do so. As such, government is a necessary institution. (Legitimate functions of government include a police force, a national defense, and a judicial system. These are all necessary to protect lives, liberty, and property.) When a government starts to INFRINGE on individual rights instead of PROTECTING them, then that government becomes evil. Since governments rule only by consent of the governed, any individual or group of individuals has the right to rescind the consent to be governed. John Wallner
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (12/22/84)
> > As for the rights of children to an education, you might note that > libertarians believe that human rights also extend to children, and > we make no distinction between "people" and "children". Hence, the > ultimate responsibility for a person's educations rests with that > person, not with his or her parents. > Absolutely. I'm sick and tired of seeing children treated as if they were second-class citizens. Some interesting facts: 1) The US Constitution *forbids* children to hold high elective office. State and local law is similarly discriminatory. They cannot vote. There is not a single judge sitting in a US Federal or state court below the age of puberty. 2) The US Armed Forces *refuse* to accept volunteers below the age of 16, and then only with parental permission, despite the obvious enthusiasm of ten year old boys for warfare. 3) "Dumb Kid" laws exist in every state of the union that intrude on the most personal aspects of children's lives, effectively *denying* them the right to have sex with whomever and whatever they choose. Abolishing these discriminatory practices will be an important step into the Libertarian future! Baba
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (12/22/84)
> > > I'm a bit confused by the phrase "collective goods". I can't see > > > defining a collective good as something that's good for society as a > > > whole... > > > > What is good for society as a whole is what is good for most of the members. > > I think you should be careful about this. Killing welfare > recepients (instead of feeding them) could be construed as being > good for most of "society's" members. And again, who determines > what is "good" for whom? Government? Killing welfare recipients can be considered good for most people only in the most limited and short-sighted analyses. Probably the only way to decide what is good for most people is to see what most people think is good for most people, or at least what most people want. (Of course, in fields like international politics, this wouldn't work very well.) > > People who value ignorance as a virtue are, fortunately, a minority. If > > you don't believe what's being taught, that's no reason to say that you > > shouldn't be taught anything. > > Should these people be forced to be educated? Should I be forced to > provide their education (thru taxes, etc.)? The idea that the > initial use of force should be utilized to solve problems is exactly > what libertarians are arguing against. Force should only be used to > respond to attempts to infringe on an individuals rights to life, > liberty, and property. The origonal question was abot whether the children of people who value ignorance as a virtue should be taught. Since children are not, and cannot be expected to be, responsible for themselves (see below), it is justifiable to force them to do what is good for them. > > > I can't think of a single example of something that would be good for > > > EVERYBODY, at least not if each person were permitted to decide for > > > him/herself what's good for her/him. > > > > Well, neither can I, but just because people don't always know what's good > > for them doesn't mean that they are right. > > Say what?!! Government should decide what is best for me? Because > I *CAN'T* ?! The final judge of what is good for an individual IS > THAT INDIVIDUAL. I especially resent this argument that my liberty > is being infringed upon "for my own good". No, not YOU, I'm talking about other people. :-) > > > Under a libertarian system, all > > > schools would be private schools. Parents would be free to send their > > > children to the school of their choice. The children of the poor would go > > > to schools operated by private charities, or would be taught by their > > > parents. > > > > Parents would also be free no completely neglect their children's > > educations, which I think would be more common. Do you think that a > > poor unmaried mother would have the time and motivation (not to > > mention education) to teach her children herself? You have to consider > > the rights of the children to an education also, not only the rights > > of the parents to do whatever they want with their children. > > Yes, parents would be free to neglect their children's education, > just like it is now. Your solution to this problem is to use force > to coerce children into schools. The solution proposed by > libertarians is to realize that individuals do and should have the > ultimate responsibility to act in their own interest, and if this > includes not going to school (or not sending your children to > school) then it is nobody else's business. > > As for the rights of children to an education, you might note that > libertarians believe that human rights also extend to children, and > we make no distinction between "people" and "children". Hence, the > ultimate responsibility for a person's educations rests with that > person, not with his or her parents. The fact is that children are not capable of understanding their responsibilities and excercising their rights. If a child ran away from home and his parents tried to stop him, would you say that they are violating his basic rights? This is a major fallacy of libertarianism -- that every individual, no matter who he is or what he is like, has a basic right to do whatever he wants to do. If that individual is incapable of understanding what he is doing, I think that you can't give him this responsibility. Under your system, if you were consistent, the best thing that a parent could do with his child is to abandon it soon after birth, because he has no right to force it to stay with him when he does not know for sure that it wants to. In the case of such people, small children and insane people, for instance, who is to be responsible for them if they cannot be responsible for themselves? I think that the system we have now works reasonably well -- the parents of a child are responsible for him until he reaches a certain age, but if they do not do a good enough job the government becomes responsible for him. Wayne
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/24/84)
>Yes, parents would be free to neglect their children's education, >just like it is now. Your solution to this problem is to use force >to coerce children into schools. The solution proposed by >libertarians is to realize that individuals do and should have the >ultimate responsibility to act in their own interest, and if this >includes not going to school (or not sending your children to >school) then it is nobody else's business. Ah...The paradoxes of libertarianism. It is in MY best interest that your kids get a good education. I "do and should have the responsibility to act in [my] best interest," and therefore I have the right to coerce your children into school, No? I suspect you would answer, "no", but that wouldn't resolve the paradox, would it? -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt