faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/06/84)
In response to the posting of the Libertarian Platform, I'm posting some comments on this. Anything that I don't address directly I either agree with or cover in other places. A few things about this document are notable: first, the reliance on a few ideas, which are taken to be absolutely and unconditionally true. The main one is that the rights of the individual are the most important consideration involved in political theory. This is really a matter of faith, so I'm not going to argue against it, but if you look at some of the conclusions that follow from it, it is not at all obvious that the best possible society results from this sort of application of individual rights. Second, the utopian nature of the goals of Libertarianism. I think that it can be safely said that any system that promises wonderful things if just a few simple principles are applied can't be trusted. In this respect Libertarianism resembles such social failures as religon and communism. Maybe eventually I will write up a similar platform as a possible alternative to both Libertarianism and what we have now, but for now 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. (As I see it, this would lead to a system with substantially more individual freedom than what we have now, but not quite as much as Libertarians desire.) Well, here are my comments on the Libertarian Manifesto: > As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all > individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced > to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others. > > We Believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition > for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from > human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity > be realized. I can't help being suspicious of any statement like "Through absolute and complete X, we can achieve maximum Y." I think it is a matter of faith that the highest peace and prosperity can be reached by maximum freedom. > The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their > own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any > authoritarian power. The world we have now is pretty much like this, unless your dreams involve lots of money. (And taxes aren't an insuperable obstacle to becoming a millionare, if that's what you want.) I can do pretty much what I want to do, in most cases, and that's what I would call freedom... > We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent > state and defend the rights of individuals. WHAT cult of omnipotent state? > Even within the United States, all political > parties other that our own grant to government the right to regulate the > lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their > consent. Correction: with the consent of the majority. > We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and > hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any > individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support > prohibition of the initiation of physical force against other; How often does the government kill people? Certainly you don't get killed if you don't pay taxes. You just get dragged to jail and locked up, at worst. > People should not be forced > to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should > be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the > resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of > individual rights, is the free market. But does an absolutely free market work as well as one with some government interference? (The answer is no...) As for being forced to sacrifice their lives for others, if it is a situation like war, drafting people into the army is justified. > We applaud the > trend toward private protection services and voluntary community crime > control groups. You mean private armies-for-hire? > Because only actions that infringe the rights of others can properly be > termed crimes, we favor the repeal of all federal, state, and local > laws creating "crimes" without victims. Sounds good to me. > e. the repeal of all laws interfering with the right to commit suicide > as infringements of the ultimate right of an individual to his > or her own life. It is pretty silly to make it illegal, but I'll bet that almost all people who try to commit suicide and are prevented from doing it are glad that they were when they come back to their senses. 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. (To be continued)
stewart@ihldt.UUCP (R. J. Stewart) (11/09/84)
> How often does the government kill people? Certainly you don't > get killed if you don't pay taxes. You just get dragged to jail > and locked up, at worst. Normally this is true, but only because they don't need to flaunt power that everyone knows is there. Whether you're killed or not depends on how far you want to take things. Consider what would happen if the IRS decided that you owed an extra $1,000 in taxes; you disagree and decide to stand up for your principles: GOV: You owe us $1,000. YOU: No I don't, and I'm not going to pay it. GOV: Since you didn't pay your taxes, we'll give you a last chance to pay the $1,000 plus penalty and interest. YOU: I didn't owe you the money in the first place. GOV: Very well, you're going to jail. Report first thing in the morning. YOU: I will do no such thing. GOV: OK, we'll send some men to take you to jail. YOU: I will resist them, since I never owed any money. GOV: BANG! YOU: The record will show that you were killed for resisting arrest. This, however, is only the last in a chain of increasing punishments. So the question is, at what point do you give up? Most people give up before being killed, because they know that the consequences only get worse as you go along. You may believe that this use of the police power is justified, but you can't deny that this is where the government gets much of its ability to persuade people. Bob Stewart ihldt!stewart