ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (10/19/84)
Rich, My reply is a little puzzled because you seem to be adressing things that other people have said, rather than things I have said. My original comments are preceded by >>, yours by >. >> it is a philosophy >> based on the idea that all people should act to further their interests. >> Theirs, not anyone else's. [ANDY KOENIG] > The problem is that libertarians are short-sighted in their "selfish" > (Randian?) furthering of their own interests. They claim self-sufficiency, > but this is often the result of either partial support from society at > large and/or making use of facilities developed by a more cooperative > society. I would appreciate examples of this problem, and an explanation of why you think it is a problem. I'm afraid I do not understand your objection to my statement. >> Nothing is funded by government; it is always funded by taxpayers. >> Given that, there is nothing wrong with a bunch of people who live >> near each other deciding to pool some of their resources and build >> things like sewers and roads, as long as they can come to terms with >> each other. When they build their sewers though, they do NOT have >> the right to force people to give up their septic tanks and hook up >> to the sewer system. This has nothing to do with government. > They then have the right to require members of this bunch of people > to pay their fair share into the maintenance of the things that they > have built, or forfeit the right to use them. If they do not pay their > fair share, the police (a legitimate function of government) would have > the right to either disconnect the non-payers from the use of the > service or penalize them in some other way. They'd also have to have some > group/person to define what the fair share is, what would consitute reasonable > and unreasonable use of the facilities, etc. If the size of the bunch of > people got large enough, they might have to set up some sort of administrative > function, and perhaps an elected governing body. WHOOPS!!! We just got back > to representative democracy and taxation, and that, of course, is what we > were trying to avoid in the first place! How'd that happen? It happened because you misinterpreted my statement slightly. I said: "There is nothing wrong with a bunch of people who live near each other deciding to pool some of their resources and build things like sewers and roads, as long as they can come to terms with each other." The key words are "decide" and "come to terms." Let's take town sewers as an example. My understanding of the way they typically come about is that the town government decides at some point that the town should have sewers and goes through some long irrelevant process that ultimately results in a construction plan. If I live in this town, I am probably told at this point that a sewer line is going to be constructed onto my property, that I must connect my house to it, that I must pay $3,000 for this connection, and that I must shut down my septic tank. If I don't like those terms, tough. If the sewer line is going to rip up the landscaping I spent five years carefully arranging, tough. If I decide sometime in the future that my sewer bills are too high, tough. If the sewer system were privately constructed, the situation from my viewpoint might look similar, but the differences are important. A representative of the sewer company might come to me and say that for $3,000 they'll hook me up to the sewer system they're building. If I do want to be hooked up, I'll have to sign a contract agreeing to allow them to do the work, agreeing to shut down my septic tank, agreeing to bind anyone to whom I sell my property to the same terms, and so on. In fact, if I wanted to connect to this sewer system, I would probably have to agree to do everything I would have to do if the government were doing it. But there are two crucial differences. (1) If I do sign up, I agreed to it. No one forced me to do it. And therefore I gained more than I gave up. After all, I wouldn't have agreed otherwise, would I? (2) None of my rights were violated. If I had not been willing to live with the restrictions in the contract, I did not have to sign it. If I did not want workers tearing up my yard, I did not have to have them. > The point is: libertarianism is a nice ideal, and its basic tenet---don't > interfere in the lives of other people---is fundamental to the notion of a > minimal rational morality. But as long as you have people and things, you're > going to wind up administering some set of rules. Agreed. Some kind of government is necessary to protect the natural rights of individuals. > Libertarians often claim > to be loners, or self-sufficient survivalists, but this position is > mythological. This sentence is irrelevant to the discussion. > The minute you engage in ANY interaction with another person, > even a fellow survivalist libertarian type (to take the extreme case), you have > "taken part in society". Those who participate in societal interactions and > enjoy the fruits of that society should probably expect to have to live up to > some of the rules of the society, even some they might not like. A truly > rational society would only have a minimal set of rules to begin with, but > there WOULD be rules, and responsibilities. If one didn't want to adhere to > the designated responsibilities, one would always be free to leave the society > completely and not participate in any of the society's benefits. Andy claimed > that "what he created/made was his property and he had sole right to it". > Would it have been his property if society hadn't made available its > police/security facilities, if he had to create/make from his "profits" his OWN > security facility to protect his property. The point not being that such > things ought to be taken away, but rather to point out that as long as one > participates in a society one implicitly gains benefits from it, something I > think libertarians often fail to see. I believe I said that police protection is part of the rightful function of government. And of course one benefits from participating in society. Why do it otherwise? If you disagree with something I said, I'd appreciate it if you would come right out and tell me what I said and why you disagree, instead of talking in generalities about "survivalist libertarian types." >>> Can someone give me a clearer picture of what libertarians would accept >>> paying taxes for? [KIN WONG] >> Nothing. Taxation is robery. [ANDY KOENIG] > In Andy's argument above, he sees nothing wrong with people getting together > and pooling resources to provide common goods/services. Isn't representative > democracy just people getting together and selecting representatives to > determine how common resources might be spent to provide common goods/services? > To determine how much common resource ought to be contributed? Aren't such > representatives not re-elected if their choices are not considered reasonable > by their constituents? Isn't this how large groups of people (larger than > could all represent themselves in a voting body) work in a democracy? > (Before you jump up and say: "You're talking about an ideal picture here", > remember that the only basis for judging libertarianism is ITS ideal picture.) The key error in the paragraph above lies in the phrase "how much common resource ought to be contributed." What I earn is not "common resource," it's mine. Taxation is robbery. > A final question: if one of your "common services/goods" created by pooling > resources was somehow permanently locked into your property (a road built > down by the edge of a road leading to your property), would you have a right > to use that road if you willfully didn't contribute to the maintenance of > that road because you didn't feel like it? No, I wouldn't. In a free society, I also wouldn't buy land unless I could also buy (not rent) permission to use the roads I needed to access that property, with a possible exception in the case that I owned a helicopter. If I were stupid enough to buy land and only rent access to it, then it would be entirely proper for the owner of the road to prohibit me from using it if I didn't pay rent. > If you continued to use the > common road despite your non-payment, what would the rest of the "bunch of > people" be "allowed" to do to you and your property? The owner of the road would have the right to drag me into court and demand whatever legal sanctions were appropriate for trespassers.
jj@rabbit.UUCP (10/19/84)
Andy, Your puzzlement has a clear source. RLR is arguing against what he hears, not what you said. "I've been here, and I've been there, and I've been in-between." -- BE KIND TO SOFT FURRY CREATURES, THE LIFE YOU SAVE MAY BE YOUR OWN! "...How do you get this thing out of second gear? Beep Beep!" (allegra,ihnp4,ulysses)!rabbit!jj
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (10/21/84)
==============
Let's take town sewers as an example. My understanding of the way they
typically come about is that the town government decides at some point
that the town should have sewers and goes through some long irrelevant
process that ultimately results in a construction plan. If I live in
this town, I am probably told at this point that a sewer line is going
to be constructed onto my property, that I must connect my house to
it, that I must pay $3,000 for this connection, and that I must shut
down my septic tank. If I don't like those terms, tough. If the
sewer line is going to rip up the landscaping I spent five years
carefully arranging, tough. If I decide sometime in the future
that my sewer bills are too high, tough.
If the sewer system were privately constructed, the situation from
my viewpoint might look similar, but the differences are important.
A representative of the sewer company might come to me and say that
for $3,000 they'll hook me up to the sewer system they're building.
If I do want to be hooked up, I'll have to sign a contract agreeing
to allow them to do the work, agreeing to shut down my septic tank,
agreeing to bind anyone to whom I sell my property to the same terms,
and so on. In fact, if I wanted to connect to this sewer system,
I would probably have to agree to do everything I would have to do
if the government were doing it.
But there are two crucial differences. (1) If I do sign up, I agreed
to it. No one forced me to do it. And therefore I gained more
than I gave up. After all, I wouldn't have agreed otherwise, would I?
(2) None of my rights were violated. If I had not been willing to
live with the restrictions in the contract, I did not have to sign it.
If I did not want workers tearing up my yard, I did not have to have
them.
==============
When you are running your own septic tank, and deciding that you would
not hook up to the sewers, do you also pay for people to analyze the
groundwater flow to ensure that your effluent stays in your *own* yard?
Do you pay for studies to ensure that the smell won't bother your
neighbours if your tank overflows? When more people build near you,
putting in their own septic tanks, thus turning the whole area into
an unhealthy swamp, what is the appropriate libertarian response?
Get the neighbours to agree to put in sewers, I suppose. But perhaps
they don't agree. Maybe they are less public-spirited (read "responsible")
than you, and are willing to let their tanks leak into your yard,
and don't worry about the diseases that might result from the mosquitos
in the swamp (after all, they are immune, having been through this before).
Do you consider using force to stop their tanks leaking, or to get them
to use sewers so that YOU don't have to?
Where's the morality in this? Sure, you should be FORCED to use and
to pay for the sewers if they are installed in your area. You should
pay for them even if you use your own septic tank, because only the
use by others of the sewers allows your tank to function. If you are
so irresponsible as to think that the use of sewers should be a private
option, you should be treated the way any small child is treated before
it has learned to live in a community.
(Incidentally, the septic tank example is not only a good paradigm,
but also for me one with a personal history. My parents went through
exactly the problem described, with too many septic tanks being built
for the area to deal with. Nasty, to say the least!)
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt