esk@wucs.UUCP (10/03/84)
[] >>Paul Torek: >>...LIBERTARIANS ARE QUITE WILLING TO USE PHYSICAL FORCE to >>protect "their" "property" (translation: to protect the status quo)! >Tom Craver: (trc@hou5a.UUCP) >Come on Paul! The horrible "WILLING TO USE PHYSICAL FORCE" you refer to >is in fact defense against someone who is already using "PHYSICAL FORCE" >to try to steal or damage the property. I didn't say that willingness to use force is necessarily horrible. I was reacting, though, to someone who does think so; and I was pointing out to him that he is just as willing to use it as I am. What does "steal" mean here? Is it a morally loaded word that JUST MEANS *wrong* taking, or is it "purely descriptive", meaning only *illegal* taking. If you mean illegal taking, I point out to you that the government (when it follows its rules) can never take something from you illegally, so taxation is not (contra libertarians) theft. >It isn't the "status quo" I want protect - its my life and means of >supporting it! If that's really true, then more power to you. I ask only the same enthusiasm for other people's lives and the means they need to support it. I have nothing against [legal] property rights; they are necessary. I just am not an absolutist about them. >>Now if we don't force anyone to contribute, many people are going >>to say to themselves "hey, I can get a free ride by letting other people >>contribute; whereas I'd receive only a puny fraction of the benefits that >>would be created by my contribution ... ". > >Paul is simultaneously claiming that the benefits to society are great, yet >that *many* individual contributors "receive only a puny fraction of the >benefits" created by their own contribution. If everyone puts in a dollar >and gets back only a dime's worth of benefits, it seems that society has >*lost* $.90 per person. *Each* individual contributor receives only a fraction of the benefits accruing from *his* contribution. If everyone receives 10 cents *each* for every dollar spent on Research Project X, and everyone puts in a dollar, and there are 100 members of society, then society has *gained* $9 per person. And note that if each person thinks only of himself, nobody will contribute. If I have a choice whether I put in my dollar, I see that I create $9.90 worth of benefits for *others* by putting in my dollar, and $.10 worth of benefits for myself. >Does the fact that an action provides benefits to others justify forcing >those others to pay for the action? If I paint a wonderful picture on >the side of my house, may I stop passing admirers, point a gun at them, >and demand that they pay for the paint? No, but only because doing so would shake them up and humiliate them. If we change the example from you to the govt, from pointing a gun to filing a tax form (the IRS being backed up *ultimatley* by guns, granted), and from beautifying your house to beautifying the countryside by (say) cleaning up litter: then THAT would be ok. >Assuming that you've answered "No" so far, what do you think it is about >a govt that should allow it to do similar things? My answer is implicit in the above. The govt (hopefully) is more tactful about using force. It is known to all, familiar, and (generally!) accepted. It operates (hopefully) by a democratic process that has at least a good probability of reflecting and protecting the people's vital interests. >>What we have here is "the problem of public goods" >The solution to this problem is simply to not let the government provide >such goods as research, education, etc. Then the primary benefits accrue >to those who are willing to pay for them (and do so) [...] But it doesn't work that way! The benefits can not be "internalized" so easily (check your economics text). >You need to show that there is a need for a govt to provide those "goods". That has already been done quite adequately by many economists. --the aspiring iconoclast, Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's. Thanks.