esk@wucs.UUCP (11/25/84)
[] From: inmet!nrh (- Nat Howard) >>***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 3:33 pm Nov 7, 1984 >> I will say that I believe that the guiding principle of politics should >> be the good of society, and not the good of the individual. > >I suspect that the "good of society" will always be measured by those >who control society. I don't mind the ideal, but the way it's likely >to work in practice chills my blood. ... It's not enough to say, that in >MY version of society acting for the good of society, there would be >controls -- Hitler, you may recall, was democratically elected. I don't recall; why don't you describe it for us. I suspect your state- ment is highly dubious. There is more to democracy than just elections (the USSR has elections) -- as you no doubt refuse to acknowledge. In any case, to repeat the old saw: you're right, democracy is absolutely the worst system of government -- except for all the others. AND, as Wayne has been trying to get you to realize, the question arises of how stable YOUR version of government is against overthrow or internal tyranny. (I can just imagine how a nation will defend itself when taxes are abolished! What a JOKE!) >> But does an absolutely free market work as well as one with some >> government interference? (The answer is no...) >They are not saying here that the free market DOES work better than one >with some government interference. They are merely saying that the >free market is the only type compatible with, well, freedom. Well, what kind of freedom? Libertarians seem to have a not-too-popular definition. What makes your definition better than others? As for backing for Wayne's answer, I suggest you read "Four Types of Market Failure" in Griffin and Steele, *Energy Economics*. >> Preventing suicides is generally a socially useful function >> of police forces, and doesn't cause much trouble for people other >> than the suicide, so it should be continued. Besides, if the >> person REALLY wants to commit suicide, he will sooner or later. > ... Yes sir! ... The good of society dictates that you should > have to try REAL HARD, and maybe SEVERAL TIMES. Not just the good of society but -- to leave a really bad taste in your mouth -- for the good of the individual concerned. >***** inmet:net.politics / talcott!gjk / 10:30 pm Nov 13, 1984 >> Suppose I own some piece of land, and while I'm on it my >> neighbour buys all the surrounding land and tells me that >> I am not allowed to pass over it. He certainly isn't initi- >> ating force, nor does he impose an active duty upon me. Ne- >> vertheless he can starve me to death in this way. > ... >2. NOT forseeing this possibility, you sneak out over his land one dark >night. ... Yes, by sneaking out over his land you've broken the law. ... But isn't that solution *wrong* in your view? Looks like you're stuck! Thanks, gjk, for pointing out this problem. Of course, as nrh points out, such situations would probably rarely happen because they're for- seeable. Nevertheless, the problem of "imperfect competition" (there I go again, trying to talk economics with libertarians) still arises. Even though (odds are -- is it worth risking it?) nobody could surround you entirely, they still might own the only really practical route from your land. They could then charge semi-monopoly prices, and as anyone who understands economics knows, that lowers efficiency. --The aspiring iconoclast, Paul V. Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's.
mwm@ea.UUCP (12/01/84)
/***** ea:net.politics / wucs!esk / 12:29 am Nov 26, 1984 */ > (I > can just imagine how a nation will defend itself when taxes are abolished! > What a JOKE!) Paul, I have not trouble at all imagining how a nation can defend itself without taxes. After all, the good old US of A not only defended itself, but made a good attempt at genocide on the Indians before there were income taxes. Before that, we also took quite a bit of territory from Mexico (remember the alamo? :-). Then there was the war of 1812, when we whipped one of the most powerful nations on earth. All before we decided that we just *had* to tax peoples income. "Oh, but we still had tariffs, etc." I can hear you say. Fine, just how did we finance the revolutionary war? After all, the taxes that the US had been paying up till then went to the *other side*. Could it be, just possibly, that that war was financed with private donations? [Yeah, I know, the French helped.] > Not just the good of society but -- to leave a really bad taste in your > mouth -- for the good of the individual concerned. Yup, you left a really bad taste in my mouth. Where do you get off deciding what is and isn't good for me? <mike
nrh@inmet.UUCP (12/07/84)
>***** inmet:net.politics / wucs!esk / 9:50 pm Nov 27, 1984 >[] >From: inmet!nrh (- Nat Howard) >>>***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 3:33 pm Nov 7, 1984 >>> I will say that I believe that the guiding principle of politics should >>> be the good of society, and not the good of the individual. >> >>I suspect that the "good of society" will always be measured by those >>who control society. I don't mind the ideal, but the way it's likely >>to work in practice chills my blood. ... It's not enough to say, that in >>MY version of society acting for the good of society, there would be >>controls -- Hitler, you may recall, was democratically elected. > >I don't recall; why don't you describe it for us. I suspect your state- >ment is highly dubious. Sure: there were five elections held in 1932 in Germany. In July, 1932 the Nazis got 40% of the vote, making them the strongest single party, and able to block the formation of a government by any other party. Hitler was offered a cabinet post by then president Hindenberg, but refused to accept any post that did not give the Nazis control of the government. On June 30th, 1933, Hindenberg appointed Hitler Prime Minister. >There is more to democracy than just elections >(the USSR has elections) -- as you no doubt refuse to acknowledge. As the previous paragraph of mine points out, there is a LOT more to democracy than elections. I am CHILLINGLY aware of this. >AND, as Wayne >has been trying to get you to realize, the question arises of how stable >YOUR version of government is against overthrow or internal tyranny. An interesting point. I remind you that it took England CENTURIES to conquer Ireland (although Ireland certainly had no massive central government to collect taxes). There are books on this "Defending a Free Society" ed. by Robert Poole is one (haven't read it yet, though). As for internal strife, there's lots of evidence that it is REPRESSIVE regimes that spark revolutions. I don't know that I've ever heard of one being overthrown that was too free. Eroded, as ours has been, yes; overthrown, no. Internal tyranny is another interesting question. It's hard to set it up when the populace is armed, when there's no central identification bureau, when they are prosperous and have good prospects under the current system. You may recall (and I hope your memory does better this time) that this was roughly the state of affairs in the brand new United States. It is true that we've steadily bled away much of our freedom since then, that the constitution has been used in ways that would make its framers spin in their graves. On the other hand, it's also true that Reagan got elected promising (though he certainly didn't deliver) LESS government, that yesterday the Treasury Department has proposed a radical simplification of the Tax structure, that the FCC is doing its best to dismantle itself, that David Bergland got about a quarter of a million votes in the 1984 election. Slight gains in the face of great losses. >(I >can just imagine how a nation will defend itself when taxes are abolished! >What a JOKE!) Let's not call something impossible without actually asking the question, CAN this be done? Better yet, consider how much can be done to make defense a popular and viable charity (for example). Remember: defense is popular NOW, in a republican society, where people are (hopefully) aware that a larger defense budget means a bigger tax bite -- perhaps those who feel it is needed (me among them) would be willing to contribute to a defensive militia -- not, of course, if it was "in bed" with some people trying to make zillions illegitimately off of the government, not, of course, if it was being used to attack Viet Nam. >>> But does an absolutely free market work as well as one with some >>> government interference? (The answer is no...) >>They are not saying here that the free market DOES work better than one >>with some government interference. They are merely saying that the >>free market is the only type compatible with, well, freedom. > >Well, what kind of freedom? Libertarians seem to have a not-too-popular >definition. Quite so. As Murray Rothbard points out, EVERY new idea begins as a minority opinion. I don't think the definition of "freedom" is as much in dispute here as "how much freedom is enough". What kind of freedom? How about the freedom to buy and sell goods at mutually agreeable prices. Is that so much to ask? It was too much to ask of Nixon -- he instituted wage & price controls. It was NOT too much to ask of Ford -- he managed to refuse the people pressuring him to do something, giving them "WIN" buttons (relatively harmless) instead. How about the freedom to buy and sell ANYTHING -- drugs, sex, liquor, pot, Cuban cigars, Japanese cars, fruit and milk not checked by the FDA, gold, nukes (I'm sure to get flames about that one), encryption algorithms the NSA can't beat, dangerous children's toys (so long as they aren't advertised as "safe"). Is that so much to ask? >>> Preventing suicides is generally a socially useful function >>> of police forces, and doesn't cause much trouble for people other >>> than the suicide, so it should be continued. Besides, if the >>> person REALLY wants to commit suicide, he will sooner or later. >> ... Yes sir! ... The good of society dictates that you should >> have to try REAL HARD, and maybe SEVERAL TIMES. > >Not just the good of society but -- to leave a really bad taste in your >mouth -- for the good of the individual concerned. This would be, of course, very generous of you, but not so long as you're willing to initiate force to make your generosity felt. If I find it morally abhorrent that the police prevent suicides, I fail to see how your opinion in the matter gives you (and any majority you might summon) to extort money from me to pay for it. I particularly dislike the notion that you invoke the "good of society" in a question so profoundly irrelevant to society as a whole (how much more personal can you get than suicide?). >>***** inmet:net.politics / talcott!gjk / 10:30 pm Nov 13, 1984 >>> Suppose I own some piece of land, and while I'm on it my >>> neighbour buys all the surrounding land and tells me that >>> I am not allowed to pass over it. He certainly isn't initi- >>> ating force, nor does he impose an active duty upon me. Ne- >>> vertheless he can starve me to death in this way. >> ... >>2. NOT forseeing this possibility, you sneak out over his land one dark >>night. ... Yes, by sneaking out over his land you've broken the law. ... > >But isn't that solution *wrong* in your view? Looks like you're stuck! Sure it's wrong. The encloser sues you for it, or you get killed in the mine-field he's put under the petunias. I don't argue that a libertarian society would allow fools the chance to escape the consequences of their actions, any more than our society does (my guess is it would be a little more reasonable in dealing with fools, but that's a whole other discussion). In any case, leaving aside the petunia-mine-field case, it would probably be hard to get an arbiter to award much against someone who had been imprisoned on his own land, and seized the opportunity to sneak out. Now consider the petunia-mine-field case. If you wander on to someone's property, does he have the right to imprison you because you are now surrounded by his land? Does he have the right to kill you? My belief is that he does not have the MORAL right to do this if he can simply get you to leave by asking you to. Sneaking out over his land violates his rights -- keeping you imprisoned on your land probably violates yours to a greater extent. Not permitting you to RETURN to your land strikes me as a reasonable thing to do, but given helicopters and such it is probably not worth worrying about. Let me emphasize that this is my own personal response to this "dilemma", not any sort of carefully thought out party line. >Thanks, gjk, for pointing out this problem. Of course, as nrh points >out, such situations would probably rarely happen because they're for- >seeable. Nevertheless, the problem of "imperfect competition" (there I >go again, trying to talk economics with libertarians) still arises. >Even though (odds are -- is it worth risking it?) nobody could surround >you entirely, they still might own the only really practical route from >your land. They could then charge semi-monopoly prices, and as anyone >who understands economics knows, that lowers efficiency. Lowers it compared to WHAT? Remember, if you're going to have the State around to guarantee access to the land, you're going to have to let it regulate you in ways it chooses. I doubt very much if the free market situation is LESS efficient than having the state impose (for example) eminent domain on your land, paying what it chooses, and then not building something on it for years. If somebody charges high rates, it means somebody else can make a profit selling you a helicopter, or that you might want to sell the land you so foolishly bought, knowing that nobody will buy it unless they can arrange a deal with the route-owner, or unless they were as foolish as you were.
hawk@oliven.UUCP (12/20/84)
>"Oh, but we still had tariffs, etc." I can hear you say. Fine, just how did >we finance the revolutionary war? After all, the taxes that the US had been >paying up till then went to the *other side*. Could it be, just possibly, >that that war was financed with private donations? [Yeah, I know, the >French helped.] So did bonds sold by Congress to pay for the war. These require taxes or salable property later. So did promises of land to the soldiers (this scrip (?) was often sold to speculators.) rick