ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (10/20/84)
[]
Every posting and all correspondence I have seen from Libertarians
indicates that they base their strong adherance to property rights
on two principles: the right of a human to control his own self,
and the right of a human to control what he creates his own self.
This seems to exclude the right of a human to own land, which
was not created by any human, and seems to make very problematical
the situation where a human must give the fruits of his labor
to another to avoid starving.
Would the Libertarians on the net clarify these issues?
--
Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward
ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/25/84)
>***** inmet:net.politics / hao!ward / 10:28 pm Oct 20, 1984 >[] >Every posting and all correspondence I have seen from Libertarians >indicates that they base their strong adherance to property rights >on two principles: the right of a human to control his own self, >and the right of a human to control what he creates his own self. Do not forget the right of a human to assign control of property to other humans.... > >This seems to exclude the right of a human to own land, which >was not created by any human. Not at all. Nothing whatever is "created" by humans -- try making pottery without clay, electronics without metal and silicon, cheese without milk, and so forth. The "original owner" of land is the person who first claims it and uses it. Libertarians differ on what happens when the land is not, in fact, used. (Note that "use" need not be industrial development: wetlands are "used" by duck hunters, private parks are "used" by park rangers and invited guests or owners). I believe Murry Rothbard holds that if land is not possessed continuously it reverts to the "unowned" state, but I'm not up on the finer points. >and seems to make very problematical >the situation where a human must give the fruits of his labor >to another to avoid starving. This is, in a nutshell, the problem lots of people have when they first hear libertarian ideas. Socialists in particular argue that a starving man is not free, and therefore only through whatever measures are necessary to prevent starvation can man be freed. This is an emotionally satisfying sort of argument, until one realizes that there are no measures that are absolutely guaranteed to prevent starvation, that by attempting to take such measures, one will give up more and more freedom, and that people will still starve. How free are they? Is it possible that on balance, a society of unfettered people with some starving is freer than a society of slaves, all of whom eat? Now consider. Suppose that it is NOT POSSIBLE to feed all the slaves -- that the mechanism by which one turns people into slavers and enslaved has some economic inefficiency, so that some of the slaves still starve. NOW was it a good idea to enslave people to prevent starvation? I have, of course, exaggerated here to make a point: it is difficult, probably impossible, to measure the "net gain" or "net loss" of freedom. By enslaving everybody a little bit, you might feed more people. Did that make the society more or less free than when you found it? On the other hand, it IS possible to say: this or that law restricts this person's freedom -- and if the only justification of the law is a hazy, hard-to-measure notion that somehow it will increase society's net freedom, well.... In a hypothetical libertarian society where initiation of force or fraud are the only crimes, our starvation-avoiding laborer is free to find other markets for his labor (as the factors of the other markets are free to find him). No mechanism for institutionalizing his slavish dependence on a particular market exists. In a society with a government (originally imposed, perhaps, to help this laborer) the person whom he is forced to give his labor to may corrupt the local officials and thus keep the laborer from being allowed to seek other markets. This corruption need not be illegal -- indeed it mostly is not: thus railroads were finally able to fix prices only AFTER they were regulated, and the railroads came to control the regulators. (To explain: in the railroad example, farmers were critically dependent on railroads, but the railroads were unable to collude for price fixing. The farmer was thus in the position of the laborer critically dependent on someone else -- but he didn't suffer that much until pricefixing made it impossible for him to get competitive prices from the railroads). To sum up: we ALL benefit from a free society, since almost all of us MUST trade the fruits of our labors (or the labors themselves) for food and necessities. Restrictions on freedom in order to prevent starvation provide a ready avenue for institutionalizing what could otherwise be transient dependencies. Hope this helps.
lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (10/25/84)
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP:
"To sum up: we ALL benefit from a free [libertarian] society, since almost all
of us MUST trade the fruits of our labors (or the labors themselves)
for food and necessities. Restrictions on freedom in order to prevent
starvation provide a ready avenue for institutionalizing what could
otherwise be transient dependencies."
-----
I've never met a starving libertarian. In fact all the libertarians I've met
have been well educated (usually thru public education), well fed (as a
result of said education), and in general "have it made". Having found
themselves in such a situation, and seeing the dire poverty surrounding
them, (in the US and rest of world), they invented a philosophy which
justifies their priveleged status by idealizing relationships between
people as mutually informed rational transactions. They tend to be very
theoretical in their politics, using unrealistic analogies to make
questionable points. But, when you come right down to it,
libertarianism is simply a matter of greed. "I've got mine, and just
try to take it away from me."
Of course they will take it away from you. Either thru taxes, as in the
present case, or expropriation, after the inevitable revolution which
will take place if the mediating influence of social programs
dissapears. Take your pick libertarians, but first wake up and smell
the coffee.
--
larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate)
UUCP: ...{ihnp4, decvax!genrad}!mit-eddie!lkk
ARPA: lkk@mit-mcnrh@inmet.UUCP (10/31/84)
#R:hao:-122000:inmet:7800146:000:6877 inmet!nrh Oct 29 23:15:00 1984 CAUTION: Lots of sarcasm in my replies to Larry's argument. These are not individually "smilied" :-). >***** inmet:net.politics / mit-eddi!lkk / 12:11 pm Oct 25, 1984 >>From: nrh@inmet.UUCP: >>"To sum up: we ALL benefit from a free [libertarian] society, since almost all >>of us MUST trade the fruits of our labors (or the labors themselves) >>for food and necessities. Restrictions on freedom in order to prevent >>starvation provide a ready avenue for institutionalizing what could >>otherwise be transient dependencies." >>----- >I've never met a starving libertarian. That's nice. Look who else is hard to find: "There are no atheists in the foxholes" (William Cummings quoted in Carlos P. Romulo "I saw the Fall of the Philipines") Does this mean there ARE no atheists in foxholes, no starving libertarians? Not at all. It means that William Cummings never noticed the one, and Larry Kolodney never noticed the other. Of course, say what you will about starving people, but I find them absolute demons for political ideology. Many's the time you'll find them in the library paging through the library, or cornering you on the street to ask your opinion of Trotsky. This notion that "a philosophy has a strike against it unless starving people seen by Larry Kolodney believe in it" strikes me as a little odd. >In fact all the libertarians I've met >have been well educated (usually thru public education), well fed (as a >result of said education), and in general "have it made". I'll bet they've traveled on public roads, too! The Fiends! This certainly proves them self-serving, greedy types, even if they would MUCH have preferred a private road system, and even if they gladly would have traded access to public schools for a chance at the private ones that would have formed in the absence of government subsidized education. >Having found >themselves in such a situation, and seeing the dire poverty surrounding >them, (in the US and rest of world), they invented a philosophy which >justifies their priveleged status by idealizing relationships between >people as mutually informed rational transactions. Why bother? Why not just quietly make our megabucks and steal into the night? Why not just use those vast resources to corrupt politicians so that we can escape confiscatory taxation? Can it be that the libertarians are idealists? Can it be that their loud protests about the whittling away of freedom benefit others as well? Could it be that the reliance libertarians place on freedom is the surest way we know to attack poverty? Naaah! We aren't poor enough! At least, Larry doesn't know any poor libertarians, right? >They tend to be very >theoretical in their politics, using unrealistic analogies to make >questionable points. Yup. Theoretical, yes. Something wrong with that, bub? Unrealistic analogies? This from the man who wrote a note that said, in part: "GIVEN THAT NATURE ABHORS A POWER VACUUM...". Questionable points? Why yes, you've questioned them, although so far the basis for your question seems to be "why don't poor people I know believe in it, if it's such hot stuff?". Or, "You can't believe in that! There'd be a revolution!". Backing, please? >But, when you come right down to it, >libertarianism is simply a matter of greed. "I've got mine, and just >try to take it away from me." Okay, Larry, you got me! As I ride my bike home, I frequently yell out: "You just TRY to take it from me," or, as the guy who rode by on the previous bike said: The system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. and The power of a multiple millionaire, who may be my neighbor and perhaps my employer is very much less than that which the smallest fonctionnaire possesses who wields the coercive power of the state, and on whose discretion it depends whether I am to be allowed to live or to work [Both quotes from von Hayek, "The Road to Serfdom", Chapt 8] >Of course they will take it away from you. Either thru taxes, as in the >present case, or expropriation, after the inevitable revolution which >will take place if the mediating influence of social programs >dissapears. Well, golly! It seems as if we wealthy & powerful are just stuck. We've got all this wealth and privilege which cannot be defended without some slipshod philosophy or other, and which tend to bleed away if the poor are just free to form enterprises and compete with us..... wait! I know: let's tell the poor that we're helping them. Let's erect an enormous, screaming bloated government to run social programs which will also, because it has to, tax and regulate everybody, (but ESPECIALLY just the poor and middle class). The regulations can be made complex and burdensome, and they'll just about eliminate the major upward-mobile paths for the poor. Let's see, first a minimum wage (to make all labor less than $3.50/hr unsellable), then a complex net of business regulation (to prevent people from just setting up in business and selling their goods), rent control to destroy the neighborhoods of the poor, and finally a creaky, expensive, corruption-ridden welfare system, to make it unprofitable for people to learn how to work (they make so little more working than on welfare that it's not worth the time). Of course, the poor will love it! They're starving (they ARE poor) and the notion that we're "helping" them will keep them from revolting. A good thing, too. The only thing worse than the poor people rebelling would be the poor people ceasing to be poor. Best of all, how can they complain? We're GIVING them money, aren't we? We're KEEPING rents from going up, aren't we? And as a free bonus, we get to become fonctionnaires (see Hayek's quote above) as well as multi-millionaires and thus have considerably more power over the poor than we could if we were forced to treat them as free men in a free society. Of course, a few of the poor, a very few, will be mad because they realize that we're closing off their real chances at the future. But never mind that -- the starving ones will grab at whatever we give them, and if the soup is drugged, who can criticize? We're giving them soup, aren't we? Surely that's better than nothing..... I'll bet the socialists will go for it in a big way! Of course, the libertarians (who?) will yell about it, but who can argue with a free lunch? >Take your pick libertarians, but first wake up and smell >the coffee. Okay, Larry. Now, if you would be so kind, please reply to the point of mine you quoted at the beginning. Explain to me please why all these great-sounding laws and taxes to prevent starvation have NOT become an avenue for institutionalizing dependencies. Of course, if you think they have.....
lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (11/01/84)
Just a quick response: (I'm too amused to be sarcastic):
I don't like the american half-assed welfare state either.
Yes you are idealists. You have this conflict within you.
Be good.
Have what you have.
SO you invent this philosophy which says YOU ARE BEING GOOD
by being selfish.
--
larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate)
UUCP: ...{ihnp4, decvax!genrad}!mit-eddie!lkk
ARPA: lkk@mit-mcwetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (11/02/84)
There always seems to be a lot of talk about public and private roads when the topic turns to Libertarians. I hope you all remember that this country once had quite a system of private roads. The major reason for the building of public roads was that the cost of using private roads had become too prohibitive. Farmers were forced to pay fees to use the roads and it became a big problem just to travel a short distance. Is this what the Libertarians want to go back to? T. C. Wheeler
nrh@inmet.UUCP (11/06/84)
#R:hao:-122000:inmet:7800152:000:1655 inmet!nrh Nov 3 15:12:00 1984 >***** inmet:net.politics / mit-eddie!lkk / 9:41 am Nov 1, 1984 >Yes you are idealists. You have this conflict within you. >Be good. >Have what you have. > >SO you invent this philosophy which says YOU ARE BEING GOOD >by being selfish. This is sort of analogous to the ad hominem argument, where someone attempts to make an argument look invalid by criticizing the people behind it. The tactic is regarded as sleazy because a) it depends on an attack on people, and b) it does nothing whatever to undermine the logical basis of a position. In other words, Larry, it doesn't matter whether libertarianism is the result of curdled psychoses of the pampered wealthy who are trying to deal with their own wealth in the midst of poverty, whether it is only held by lectoids from space in the movie Buckaroo Banzai, whether it was formed by a particularly elegant random sentence generator, or whether it was foisted on people due to a massive misprint of a socialist text. This doesn't matter because neither the origin, nor the personalities, nor the motives of the believers of a philosophy can more than imply its merits. The true merits are measured (for philosophical systems such as libertarianism) by how well they work, and how well they fit to reality. Now, if you feel that libertarianism doesn't have merit because you don't think it is correct, fine. Tell us why. Show us where (when put in practice) it has failed. Tell us of weaknesses in its theoretical underpinnings. Arguing about how valid it is has nothing to do with arguing where it came from, or why people believe it (unless you believe them misguided as to its merits).
nrh@inmet.UUCP (11/09/84)
>***** inmet:net.politics / pyuxa!gamma / 1:40 am Nov 6, 1984 >There always seems to be a lot of talk about public and >private roads when the topic turns to Libertarians. I >hope you all remember that this country once had quite a >system of private roads. The major reason for the building of >public roads was that the cost of using private roads had >become too prohibitive. Farmers were forced to pay fees to >use the roads and it became a big problem just to travel >a short distance. Is this what the Libertarians want to >go back to? >T. C. Wheeler >---------- I'd be delighted to see the figures. Unless a price is absurdly low, there are always those who scream that it is too high. If the price is REALLY too high, then there's a chance for a good profit to be made, or a great cost avoided, in this case by a competing road (it needn't be directly competitive, but merely usable as a substitute) or by farmers forming co-operative roads. This is not to say that prices are always fair -- merely that given time and the opportunity for competition, they move in that direction.
biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) (11/12/84)
[]
Just one stupid question out of hundreds of possible ones:
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. Is that
allowed? If not, who is there to protect me? (Are my protec-
tors allowed to pass over my neighbour's land?).
If you consider the situation too academic, suppose someone
shields off some local recource (water?) in this way, while
all others are too far away. There is no river, just a well.
Or my neighbour, who owns the only possible road through the
mountain land, decides to rise the toll to an amount I can't
afford, so I'm locked in my little valley.
I think there must be law to prevent this sort of scenarios
from occurring; either a legal law or a moral law (Christian
love?), which is, either by force or by conviction, binding.
--
Biep.
{seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep
I utterly disagree with everything you are saying, but I am
prepared to fight myself to death for your right to say it.
--Voltaireark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (11/13/84)
klipper!biep asks: 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. Ask a simple question, get a simple answer. My parents are in exactly the situation you describe. They own the land on which they live, but other people own all the adjoining land. There is no way they can get to or from their land without passing over someone else's property. Therefore, when they bought the land, they also bought a "right of way" over land belonging to one of their neighbors. Briefly, this is a contract that was originally made between the people who built my parents' house and the people who then owned some of the adjoining land. It provided that: 1. The builders can build and maintain a driveway from their land to the public road. 2. The builders can sell the privilege of using this driveway when they sell the land. 3. The neighbors can do as they please with their land, but they may only sell it if the buyer agrees to continue to allow the builders (and whoever they sell this privilege to) to use the driveway. 4. In exchange for all this, the builders agree to pay the neighbors some amount of money. Thus, my parents are guaranteed legal access to their land, regardless of who owns the land under the driveway. Why would anyone buy land without a guaranteed way to get to it?
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) (11/14/84)
> 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. Is that > allowed? If not, who is there to protect me? (Are my protec- > tors allowed to pass over my neighbour's land?). > > I think there must be law to prevent this sort of scenarios > from occurring; either a legal law or a moral law (Christian > love?), which is, either by force or by conviction, binding. Two answers: 1. You see, there are these things called anti-trust laws... (Hint: Not all libertarians are against anti-trust laws) 2. You could make a contract with whoever owns the surrounding roads that reads as follows: "I will pay you $500 a year to keep the roads in good condition and let me use them. Furthermore, this contract is binding for the next 20 years, even if you sell the roads to someone else." One objection: 1. I don't see that Christianity and Libertarianism are compatible philosophies. Example: "Give and ye shall receive." -- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "His mind is like a steel trap: full of mice" -Foghorn Leghorn
nrh@inmet.UUCP (11/17/84)
***** 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. Is that > allowed? If not, who is there to protect me? (Are my protec- > tors allowed to pass over my neighbour's land?). I seem to remember that something like this actually happened in the 19th century, but all I remember is the tag "Corn and Enclosure laws", not anything else. There are a couple of possible answers to this dilemma: 1. Forseeing this possibility, you make a compact with the owner of any road you need to get to your property. The compact binds the road owner (and contractually binds him to bind buyers of the road) to allow you access. 2. NOT forseeing this possibility, you sneak out over his land one dark night. You've escaped. You now contact the "anti enclosure league" and try to get a boycott going of his produce. Better yet, you get the property owners surrounding HIM not to allow HIM off his land. Yes, by sneaking out over his land you've broken the law. If you really want to avoid that you can signal a passing helicopter for help (depending on what "air rights" means in such a society). In a libertarian society my guess is that #1 would almost always apply. In buying property, you'd find and buy access rights to it, just as in buying land today you do a title search, and buy a utilities hookup.