rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/15/84)
It boils down to this: libertarians value individual freedom as paramount. (As, I admit, I do myself.) Yet they claim that they have no responsibility to the society that they live in. Democracy provides for majority rule and law, and sets up the rules governing how the benefits a society is supposed to provide get distributed, AND how each person is to be responsible for contributing (monetarily or otherwise) to the sustenance of society and its benefits. Those who choose to claim "I get no benefits from society" are clearly lying, unless they live in a cave, built their own domiciles with their hands and make no use of ANY societally provided facility. (Obviously anyone using this network doesn't qualify, since they are a priori using resources belong to other members of the society---even if they own their own computers, priced as they were by society's marketplace, they are using a public telephone network. Why does the libertarian standpoint sound like the rantings of a child who wants something but doesn't want to have to do what is required (e.g., work, interact sociably with other people) to get it? -- AT THE TONE PLEASE LEAVE YOUR NAME AND NET ADDRESS. THANK YOU. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) (11/17/84)
> > Why does the libertarian standpoint sound like the rantings of a child who > wants something but doesn't want to have to do what is required (e.g., > work, interact sociably with other people) to get it? > -- > AT THE TONE PLEASE LEAVE YOUR NAME AND NET ADDRESS. THANK YOU. > Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr What is this crap that Rich Rosen is spewing forth about a concept he doesn't understand? :-) Slightly more seriously, the answer to your question, Rich, is: I don't know why it sounds that way to you. It sure doesn't to me! (Again :-)) Considerably more seriously, you're off the mark when you say that libertarians claim no responsibility to society. I'm a libertarian (I think), and yet I simply don't take that stand. I do maintain, however, that a person should be allowed to decide for himself how much he interacts with society. If person X decides that he doesn't want anything from society, then he should not be obliged to do anything for the society. Clearly this is often not the case. My parents care not at all for the welfare of doctors who implant pacemakers. Yet they are forced to pay several hundred dollars per year for this cause, because we have the Medicare program. If they don't pay this money, the IRS can have them sent to jail.
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/18/84)
> Considerably more seriously, you're off the mark when you say that > libertarians claim no responsibility to society. I'm a libertarian (I > think), and yet I simply don't take that stand. I do maintain, however, > that a person should be allowed to decide for himself how much he interacts > with society. If person X decides that he doesn't want anything from > society, then he should not be obliged to do anything for the society. But whether you like it or not, you own a great deal to society. (A good illustration is the Myth of the Metals in Plato's Republic.) To be a bit extreme, if it were not for society you would be hanging from trees eating bananas. Assuming that you feel an obligation to repay debts, and you think that 'society' is a coherent idea in the first place, the issue would be how you think you can best contribute to society. > Clearly this is often not the case. My parents care not at all for the > welfare of doctors who implant pacemakers. Yet they are forced to pay > several hundred dollars per year for this cause, because we have the > Medicare program. If they don't pay this money, the IRS can have them sent > to jail. It seems to be the prevalent opinion that, as a compassionate and responsible society, we cannot let people die because they are too poor to pay for medical care. You can try to change this perception by writing about how silly this is, but in the meantime, you're stuck... Wayne
bdp@ptsfa.UUCP (J. Bashinski) (11/19/84)
This letter is a response to Rich Rosen's anti-libertarian
posting of November 15. I myself have just gotten direct access to the
contents of this newsgroup, so please excuse any ignorance I may show of
the contents of past postings.
Anyone reading this should bear in mind that libertarians are a
diverse group; even within the organized Libertarian party there is
considerable political heterogeneity. I think that most libertarians
would agree with most of what I'll be writing here, but you should
bear in mind that when I say "libertarians believe x", what I really
mean is something on the order of "I think most libertarians would
substantially agree with the statement that x".
In his posting, Mr. Rosen says that "... [Libertarians] claim that
they have no responsibility to the society that they live in.". He
proceeds to debunk the claim that "'I get no benefits from society'".
Obviously, the concepts of society and of its benefits are paramount
to Mr. Rosen's argument; it would therefore seem desirable to discuss
those concepts, and a logical place to begin would be with a definition
of "society".
Society is an aggregate of individuals, bound together by trade,
by the basic need for social intercourse, by shared goals and interests.
"Society", as the word is commonly meant, does not refer simply to an
individual, nor even to a collection of individuals, but to a whole with
its own structure, independent of those who make it up.
The structure of society is created by the interactions of individuals
with one another. Not all members of the same society need interact directly
with one another; they can be bound together by nearly endless chains of
indirection. Two people may engage in no trade, be unaware of each other's
existence, and share no common goal... and yet be parts of the same society.
It is certainly true that people gain many benefits from the existence
of this complex web of interactions. Libertarians do not deny this fact.
As far as I know, no serious libertarian thinker has ever claimed that it
is possible or desirable for a person to live without interacting with
others.
A key point, however, is that individuals interact, not with society
as a whole, but with other individuals. They may interact with many
large numbers of others, even with enormous organized groups- but they
never interact with the whole. If I incur a debt to every other person
alive, one may rightfully say that I owe everyone something, but not
that I owe SOCIETY anything.
Individuals create society by interacting for their benefit.
The shape of society reflects all the patterns of those interactions-
how they take place and how they are organized.
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.
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.
People do not interact with the aggregate that forms society.
How then can they owe it a debt? Even more importantly, if they do
owe it a debt, how can government claim payment of that debt in
the name of the whole?
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?
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.
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.
He also says "Democracy... sets up rules governing... how each
person is to be responsible for contributing (monetarily or otherwise)
to the sustenance of society and its benefits". Baloney. Democracy
(like any form of government) sets up rules for the sustenance of the
GOVERNMENT and of its benefits (however small they may be). People
create society independent of government; as long as there is human
interaction, society is self-sustaining. Of all the benefits of
human interaction Mr. Rosen mentions in his letter (housing, computers,
market pricing, telephone service), NONE is substantially provided
by government in this country, ALL could be entirely provided by
private means, and NONE would be eliminated under a libertarian
system.
What libertarians want to do is to sharply reduce or eliminate
government's control over human action and interaction. They believe that
coercion is undesirable, and seek to eliminate as much of it as
possible. They believe that whatever useful services government
provides can be moved mostly or entirely into the private sector,
and that its attempts to dictate to mutually consenting human
beings the ways in which they may interact (or even sometimes what
they can do *without* interacting) can be dispensed with entirely.
Libertarians are no more starry-eyed idealists than are members
of any other political movement. They have proposed many workable
schemes for private provision of services now provided by government;
some of those ideas are in the books listed at the end of this letter.
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.
Mr. Rosen ends his posting with a question:
"Why does the libertarian standpoint sound like the rantings
of a child who wants something but doesn't want to have to do
what is required (e.g., work, interact sociably with other people)
to get it?"
Although I'll ignore the appalling rudeness of this question, I'm afraid
that I can't answer it directly, since the state of affairs it mentions
does not exist. Mr. Rosen will have to look to his own perception of
libertarianism to see why it sounds that way TO HIM. Unlike many of their
political opponents, libertarians have never asked for a free lunch (i.e.,
not having to work or interact sociably...) from government or any other
system. Libertarianism stresses self-reliance, with the rights and
responsibilities of free citizens given to all. It is the very antithesis
of childishness.
For those who would like to gain a general knowledge of libertarianism,
with a complete development of its political philosophy, I recommend reading
FOR A NEW LIBERTY: THE LIBERTARIAN MANIFESTO, by Murray N. Rothbard. To
see a completely worked out and coherent scheme for private sector replacement
of ALL government services, try THE MACHINERY OF FREEDOM, by David Friedman.
J. Bashinski
...ucbvax!bashinsk%ucbcory
Please respond to the above address
rather than to the originator of
this posting.cdshaw@watmath.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (11/21/84)
The main thing which bugs me about libertarianism (aside from the smugness evidenced by some of its adherents) is the incredible frequency with which it is used as an excuse to avoid payment of taxes & levies in general. Is libertarianism a dogma of monetary expediency or what ??? I seem to remember from John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" that he stated that laws for the common good are legitimate, but laws regulating individual welfare are not. Laws are supposed to prevent you from hurting me, not you from hurting you. Given this kind of line, objections to medicare because "medicare pays for pacemakers and pacemakers are against my beliefs/morals/desire to pay" seem irrelevant to libertarianism. The wrong lib. argument is : "I'm free to participate as fully as I wish in society... I don't like X in program/tax regime Y, so I don't want to pay for that portion of Y which goes to finance X". In other words, society should operate contrary to IBM : everything should be unbundled & I'll pay for what I want. Unfortunately, society doesn't come unbundled (at least not the version I got (V7 release 3.233) (-:).. so making arguments of the above type is a waste of time. This is especially true of universal-pay-for-it schemes such as medicare, since opting out would be hard to manage on a subprogram-by-subprogram basis. This is par for the course, in fact, in all insurance-like programs: everyone must pay, or the system won't work. If you enjoy some of the benefits, you must pay for the entire package, no matter what. The babble that "I am free, so I have property, so I can do what I like with it, therefore, I won't pay taxes for a particular set of things" is vacuous, pure & simple, since if the argument were followed through, then society would no longer exist due to people refusing to pay for the services we all know & love. Arguments of this kind are a gross misapplication of the classic libertarian line, and should no longer be labelled "libertarian". yours 'til the baloney melts I remain CD Shaw
stewart@ihldt.UUCP (R. J. Stewart) (11/22/84)
> I seem to remember from John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" that he stated > that laws for the common good are legitimate, but laws regulating individual > welfare are not. Laws are supposed to prevent you from hurting me, not you > from hurting you. Many people would agree with this, if you limit the discussion to laws that forbid hurting. The laws in question, however, are those that mandate benefiting someone else. I believe that the libertarians are correct to claim that you can't have freedom without the right to control your property. I once saw it put quite well (though I can't remember the author): "Any person who produces something while someone else disposes of it is a slave." So, in a real sense, I spend a significant fraction of my time doing forced labor for my neighbors, since I have no children but must pay hefty property taxes, most of which is for the school district. I have no way of opting out of the system, since the people with children out-vote me, and have no qualms about taking my money. Bob Stewart ihldt!stewart
mwm@ea.UUCP (11/24/84)
/***** ea:net.politics / watmath!cdshaw / 4:35 pm Nov 21, 1984 */ > The main thing which bugs me about libertarianism (aside from the smugness > evidenced by some of its adherents) is the incredible frequency with which > it is used as an excuse to avoid payment of taxes & levies in general. Used as an excuse to avoid payment of taxes? I don't use it as an excuse not to pay taxes - I don't even use it as an excuse not to provide slave labor in figuring out how much Uncle Sugar is going to take from me at gunpoint (people object if I say "steal", so ... :-). I don't do so for the same reason that I wouldn't argue with anyone else who pointed a gun at me and said "Your money or your life": the cost/benefit ratio is wrong. > Is libertarianism a dogma of monetary expediency or what ??? > I seem to remember from John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" that he stated > that laws for the common good are legitimate, but laws regulating individual > welfare are not. Laws are supposed to prevent you from hurting me, not you > from hurting you. Ah, yes, but who decides what "the common good" is? Better yet, who decides how much it is moral to take from someone at gunpoint (and from whom) for "the common good?" > Given this kind of line, objections to medicare because "medicare pays for > pacemakers and pacemakers are against my beliefs/morals/desire to pay" seem > irrelevant to libertarianism. I take it that "medicare pays for pacemakers and pacemakers are not for the common good" would be a line you wouldn't object to? > The wrong lib. argument is : "I'm free to participate as fully as I wish > in society... I don't like X in program/tax regime Y, so I don't want to pay > for that portion of Y which goes to finance X". In other words, society should > operate contrary to IBM : everything should be unbundled & I'll pay for what > I want. Gee, but IBM was forced to unbundle their software from their hardware by a federal court. So, I guess that argument would be "society should operate like IBM : ... ." Now, *that* scares me. > The babble that "I am free, so I have property, so I can do what I > like with it, therefore, I won't pay taxes for a particular set of things" > is vacuous, pure & simple, since if the argument were followed through, then > society would no longer exist due to people refusing to pay for the services > we all know & love. If we all "know & love" them, then they would pay for them. If people refused to pay for them, then they must not "know & love" them. There would probably be a short period of confusion while people sorted out which of the government functions they actually were willing to pay for, but society wouldn't disappear. > Arguments of this kind are a gross misapplication of the classic > libertarian line, and should no longer be labelled "libertarian". More importantly, they should not be taken for all, or even an important part, of libertarianism. <mike
baba@flairvax.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (11/26/84)
> A key point, however, is that individuals interact, not with society >as a whole, but with other individuals. They may interact with many >large numbers of others, even with enormous organized groups- but they >never interact with the whole. If I incur a debt to every other person >alive, one may rightfully say that I owe everyone something, but not >that I owe SOCIETY anything... > > ...People do not interact with the aggregate that forms society. > How then can they owe it a debt? Even more importantly, if they do > owe it a debt, how can government claim payment of that debt in > the name of the whole? > J. Bashinski > ...ucbvax!bashinsk%ucbcory Wow! What a neat trick! Let me try a different application. PG&E has had the audacity to present me with a bill for my utilities last month. Now, it may be true that I owe a debt to *some* PG&E employees, those who actually had a hand in delivering gas and electricity to me, and to *some* PG&E shareholders, those who actually paid for the resources that were used on my behalf, but I owe *nothing* to the aggregate of PG&E! Even more importantly, if I *do* owe it a debt, how can the collections department claim payment of that debt in the name of the whole? This is going to save me hundreds of dollars a year! Thanks, Baba
bwm@ccice2.UUCP (Brad Miller) (11/28/84)
> /***** ea:net.politics / watmath!cdshaw / 4:35 pm Nov 21, 1984 */ > The main thing which bugs me about libertarianism (aside from the smugness > evidenced by some of its adherents) is the incredible frequency with which > it is used as an excuse to avoid payment of taxes & levies in general. Ok now, lets look at what Libertarianism is. Very, very basically. We all have DIFFERENT ideas on what is good, and what is bad. We all have DIFFERENT religions. We all have DIFFERENT concepts of what is or is not the 'right' thing to do. Libertarianism says: fine! DO what you think you should BUT: o DON'T IMPOSE YOUR VIEW ON ME o DON'T INTERFERE WITH MY LIBERTIES by expressing YOURS Killing is interfering with someones liberties, and should not be done. Taxing is imposing your will on someone else, e.g. what they should do with their money, property, etc. Libertarians do NOT (usually) believe in ZERO government, because there must be an ARBITER and AUTHORITY to enforce, essentially, the bill of rights. The arbiter can often be unassociated with the government, so all that may be needed is a 'supreme' court. There will be degenerates that do not belong in this society, and you need an executive branch to reform them, or kick them out. Finally, you need some body to determine where the lines are between protection of rights, and suspension of rights when it is warranted (as in when someone has violated someone elses rights). Three branchs of government. Sounds a hell of a lot like our very own constitution, doesn't it? THAT'S THE POINT -- THAT'S WHERE WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE. Didn't mean to be pedantic, and would love to continue this discussion in the mails. Brad Miller -- ...[rochester, cbrma, rlgvax, ritcv]!ccice5!ccice2!bwm
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/28/84)
> > The babble that "I am free, so I have property, so I can do what I > > like with it, therefore, I won't pay taxes for a particular set of things" > > is vacuous, pure & simple, since if the argument were followed through, then > > society would no longer exist due to people refusing to pay for the services > > we all know & love. > > If we all "know & love" them, then they would pay for them. If people > refused to pay for them, then they must not "know & love" them. There would > probably be a short period of confusion while people sorted out which of > the government functions they actually were willing to pay for, but society > wouldn't disappear. Here we have a simple argument from the goodness of human nature -- if you want public education, for instance, and you don't have to pay for it, you will anyway even though you know that there are a lot of people who also want it and also might pay for it. People just don't think that way -- they want something done that is for the public good, but they won't pay for it unless they know that everybody else is paying their fair share too. You can't rebuild society unless you rebuild human nature first... Wayne
mwm@ea.UUCP (12/01/84)
/***** ea:net.politics / flairvax!baba / 7:18 am Nov 27, 1984 */ > ...People do not interact with the aggregate that forms society. > How then can they owe it a debt? Even more importantly, if they do > owe it a debt, how can government claim payment of that debt in > the name of the whole? > J. Bashinski > ...ucbvax!bashinsk%ucbcory Wow! What a neat trick! Let me try a different application. PG&E has had the audacity to present me with a bill for my utilities last month. Now, it may be true that I owe a debt to *some* PG&E employees, those who actually had a hand in delivering gas and electricity to me, and to *some* PG&E shareholders, those who actually paid for the resources that were used on my behalf, but I owe *nothing* to the aggregate of PG&E! Even more importantly, if I *do* owe it a debt, how can the collections department claim payment of that debt in the name of the whole? This is going to save me hundreds of dollars a year! Thanks, Baba /* ---------- */ Ok, I'll concede your point. If "society" will start sending me bills, I'll pay the things. Of course, I expect that they will give me the same option that OG&E did - to not buy from them, and do without there services. Of course, until they present me with a contract (like the one I signed with OG&E), you can tell the board (Society does have a board, doesn't it? After all, it looks like PG&E and OG&E?) to shove it. <mike
nrh@inmet.UUCP (12/03/84)
>***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 8:11 pm Nov 30, 1984 >> >> If we all "know & love" them, then they would pay for them. If people >> refused to pay for them, then they must not "know & love" them. There would >> probably be a short period of confusion while people sorted out which of >> the government functions they actually were willing to pay for, but society >> wouldn't disappear. > >Here we have a simple argument from the goodness of human nature -- if >you want public education, for instance, and you don't have to pay for it, >you will anyway even though you know that there are a lot of people who >also want it and also might pay for it. People just don't think that way -- >they want something done that is for the public good, but they won't pay >for it unless they know that everybody else is paying their fair share >too. You can't rebuild society unless you rebuild human nature first... > > Wayne Here we have a simple argument, utterly uninformed by experience. Non-universal charities ABOUND. Just for example, the recent listener-supported radio fund raising drive for a Boston station was fond of pointing out that only about 20% of their listeners contribute. The remaining 80% benefit from the station, too. Presumably, the 20% (or whatever it turned out to be) who contributed this year count as "people", even though they contributed in the face of this statistic. In fact, Wayne, you'll find that almost all arts activities are not supported by getting a "fair share" from all of those people they serve. You'll find a similar pattern, I think, in donations to the Salvation Army -- not all of those who wish the homeless to be fed give, but enough give to enable them to work. Even were it true that "[people] won't pay for [a public good] unless they know that everybody else is paying their fair share too", one needn't involve government. David Friedman suggests the following scheme in the case of a dam that would benefit all dwellers in a valley: The potential builder visits each family. To each, he suggests that they sign a pledge to pay $x if everybody else will pay their share (everybody's share is to be public knowledge, presumably on the pledge, so that each family can judge if they're being overcharged with respect to others, and refuse to sign -- this means that the builder has to be pretty careful about fairness) which will vary, according to how much the dam benefits them. The pledge might specify a certain level of participation, but for simplicity's sake, let's assume that it says EVERYBODY must contribute, and that the amounts are roughly fair. Each landholder now has a choice -- refuse to sign, in which case the dam does NOT get built, and he loses the benefits he'd get from the dam, or sign, and pay NOTHING if someone else refuses to sign (in which case he only the opportunity cost of spending that money during the pledge period) or pay what the builder has defined as his likely benefit (and know that everyone else will have to pay, too). Actual agreements of this sort will probably have thresholds (80% must pay), and provisions for what happens if people who pledge refuse to pay. Note the lack of treasury agents with guns forcing you into a deal that you didn't want. As for your notion that you can't rebuild society without rebuilding human nature, I'm not sure what you mean by that, but the implication is that industrialization rebuilt human nature, because it sure rebuilt society.
mwm@ea.UUCP (12/04/84)
Here we have a simple argument from the goodness of human nature -- if you want public education, for instance, and you don't have to pay for it, you will anyway even though you know that there are a lot of people who also want it and also might pay for it. People just don't think that way -- they want something done that is for the public good, but they won't pay for it unless they know that everybody else is paying their fair share too. You can't rebuild society unless you rebuild human nature first... Wayne /* ---------- */ People want a public education? Why? I was lucky enough to avoid many of the horrors of public education, and certainly wouldn't foist such on my children. No, I wouldn't pay for it - I'd pay for a good education instead. Back to the topic, people *will* pay for things they really want. Given the option of letting a few people ride for free, or doing without, they will pay at a level they think is reasonable. Of course, the fewer things the government provides, the fewer areas where you can have free riders. <mike
mwm@ea.UUCP (12/04/84)
/***** ea:net.politics / ccice2!bwm / 3:58 pm Nov 30, 1984 */ Libertarians do NOT (usually) believe in ZERO government, because there must be an ARBITER and AUTHORITY to enforce, essentially, the bill of rights. The arbiter can often be unassociated with the government, so all that may be needed is a 'supreme' court. There will be degenerates that do not belong in this society, and you need an executive branch to reform them, or kick them out. Finally, you need some body to determine where the lines are between protection of rights, and suspension of rights when it is warranted (as in when someone has violated someone elses rights). Three branchs of government. Sounds a hell of a lot like our very own constitution, doesn't it? THAT'S THE POINT -- THAT'S WHERE WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE. Brad Miller ...[rochester, cbrma, rlgvax, ritcv]!ccice5!ccice2!bwm /* ---------- */ Well, that's where we are supposed to be, but that isn't where we are. The problem is that most of the government is unconstitutional. For instance, could you show me where the constitution grants the government the power to get involved in welfare, education, pension plans, housing, regulation of various industries (usually for the benefit of the the companies in the industry), etc. For that matter, if we go back to the original constitution and the bill of rights, the governments monopolistic control of the banking industry, income tax, and the enforced discriminatory hiring practices aren't constitutional. In fact, the US constitution (as it was written, not as it is interpreted today) is close enough to the libertarian line that the Libertarian party claims the principles behind it to be their own. However, the fly in the ointment is the fiction that "the will of the majority" is somehow a stamp of moral approval. I'm not sure how to avoid it, but Thomas Macaulay saw the problem back in 1857: The day will come when (in the United States) a multitude of people will choose the legislature. Is it possible to doubt what sort of a legislature will be chosen? On the one side is a statesman preaching patience, respect for rights, strict observance of public faith. On the other is a demagogue ranting about the tyranny of capitalism and usurers asking why anybody should be permitted to drink champagne and to ride in a carriage while thousands of honest people are in want of necessaries. Which of the candidates is likely to be preferred by a workman? . . . When Society has entered on this downward progress, either civilization or liberty must perish. Either some Caesar or Napoleon will seize the reins of government with a strong hand, or your republic will be as fearfully plundered and laid waste by barbarians in the twentieth century as the Roman Empire in the fifth; with this difference, that the Huns and vandals who ravaged the Roman Empire came from without, and that your Huns and vandals will have been engendered within your country, by your own institutions. And no, I don't know of a better way to select the legislative/executive branch than what we are doing now. Maybe a more intelligent method of deciding who shall be enfranchised than being "old enough". Does anybody have any ideas? <mike
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (12/05/84)
> Non-universal charities ABOUND. Just for example, the recent > listener-supported radio fund raising drive for a Boston station was fond > of pointing out that only about 20% of their listeners contribute. The > remaining 80% benefit from the station, too. Presumably, the 20% (or whatever > it turned out to be) who contributed this year count as "people", even > though they contributed in the face of this statistic. > > In fact, Wayne, you'll find that almost all arts activities are > not supported by getting a "fair share" from all of those people they serve. > > You'll find a similar pattern, I think, in donations to the Salvation > Army -- not all of those who wish the homeless to be fed give, but > enough give to enable them to work. There's a big difference between the arts and defense -- people get direct benefit from contributing to radio stations, and they tend to be very local. National defense is something that people do not directly benefit from at all, and would almost certainly not be willing to pay anything for if it weren't compulsory. Furthermore, I don't know how often organizations that live off of charity go under, but national defense is not something that should be made so risky. If th Soviets knew that all it would take to get rid of the U.S. defense would be to infuence public opinion enough, they would start supporting "peace movements" much more than they are now. > As for your notion that you can't rebuild society without rebuilding > human nature, I'm not sure what you mean by that, but > the implication is that industrialization rebuilt human nature, because > it sure rebuilt society. Nobody 'did' industrialization, it just happened. I'm sure that Fulton didn't foresee everything that would happen to human nature because of his invention of the steam engine... I can't think of many cases of large scale intentional changing of human nature... Wayne
bdp@ptsfa.UUCP (Barbara Petersen) (12/08/84)
[Actually from J. Bashinski] > From: baba@flairvax.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) > > > A key point, however, is that individuals interact, not with society > >as a whole, but with other individuals. They may interact with many > >large numbers of others, even with enormous organized groups- but they > >never interact with the whole. If I incur a debt to every other person > >alive, one may rightfully say that I owe everyone something, but not > >that I owe SOCIETY anything... > > > > ...People do not interact with the aggregate that forms society. > > How then can they owe it a debt? Even more importantly, if they do > > owe it a debt, how can government claim payment of that debt in > > the name of the whole? > > J. Bashinski > > ...ucbvax!bashinsk%ucbcory > > Wow! What a neat trick! Let me try a different application. PG&E has had > the audacity to present me with a bill for my utilities last month. Now, it > may be true that I owe a debt to *some* PG&E employees, those who actually had > a hand in delivering gas and electricity to me, and to *some* PG&E shareholders, > those who actually paid for the resources that were used on my behalf, but I > owe *nothing* to the aggregate of PG&E! Even more importantly, if I *do* owe > it a debt, how can the collections department claim payment of that debt in the > name of the whole? This is going to save me hundreds of dollars a year! > > Thanks, > Baba > > ---------- There's an obvious difference between the case of PG&E and that of society as a whole: when you ordered your gas and electric services, you ordered them from an aggregate- the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The person to whom you gave the order was acting as the agent of that aggregate. You agreed to purchase utilities FROM THE AGGREGATE. The employees who actually provided the services did so as AGENTS of that aggregate, under their own contracts with it. The collections department is acting as the agent of the aggregate in demanding payment. PG&E stockholders are even further removed from the picture; the aggregate is THEIR agent. On the other hand, when I go to the local grocery to buy food, which undeniably could not have been produced without the existence of human cooperation, and therefore of society, I do NOT buy that food from society, but from the grocer. If I buy the food on credit, I incur a debt to the grocer, not to society. In fact, the only way I could incur a debt to SOCIETY would be to interact directly with it or with its duly appointed agent. It is obviously impossible for me to interact directly with society in the aggregate; therefore I would have to interact with an agent. WHO IS THAT AGENT? In the case of PG&E, a process for appointing an agent can be exhibited; when the stockholders brought the corporation into being, they agreed on how its business was to be conducted. By purchasing stock in the corporation, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM agreed to be bound by its charter. In the case of society, no such process can be exhibited. Certainly when I helped to bring society into being by trading with the corner grocer, I did not implicitly agree to a method for appointing agents to collect debts due that society. Even if an agent for society (say, for the sake of argument, the government) could be found, that agent could have no claim on me, either in the name of society or in its own name; I have incurred no debt to society by trading with the grocer, and I have certainly not incurred any debt to the government. I suggest you save the money for legal defense; you'll need it. J. Bashinski ...!ucbvax!bashinsk%ucbcory Please send mail to this account rather than to the posting account
sean@westcsr.UUCP (Sean Hayes) (12/11/84)
>David Friedman suggests the following >scheme in the case of a dam that would benefit all dwellers in a >valley: The potential builder visits each family. To each, he suggests >that they sign a pledge to pay $x if everybody else will pay their >share >The pledge might specify a certain level of participation, but for simplicity's >sake, let's assume that it says EVERYBODY must contribute, and that the >amounts are roughly fair. > >Each landholder now has a choice -- refuse to sign, in which case the >dam does NOT get built, and he loses the benefits he'd get from the dam, >or sign, and pay NOTHING if someone else refuses to sign (in which case >he only the opportunity cost of spending that money during the pledge period) >or pay what the builder has defined as his likely benefit (and know that >everyone else will have to pay, too). >what happens if people who pledge refuse to pay. >Note the lack of treasury agents with guns forcing you into a deal that you >didn't want. The treasury agents might not come around with guns, but if you were the only non-payer in a valley of 10,000 libertarians I wouldnt go out much on dark nights. Sean.