trc@hou5a.UUCP (10/01/84)
Paul Torek: >...LIBERTARIANS ARE QUITE WILLING TO USE PHYSICAL FORCE to >protect "their" "property" (translation: to protect the status quo)! Protect their property from what, Paul - lustful gazes? Insulting words? 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. It isn't the "status quo" I want protect - its my life and means of supporting it! Are you really willing to say outright that it is wrong for a society to arrange to keep vandals from burning down a person's home, or stealing his food? I doubt it - so why act as if this were a horrible libertarian sin? >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. On the face of it, Paul could improve his main thesis by trying to show that the money spent is a good investment. I've seen this so often, from other writers, that I have begun to wonder if it isnt a lead up to suggesting that programs (EG welfare) that really dont return much benefit are also worthwhile. Sort of a "bait and switch" fallacy. 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? May an institution fund some important research by hiring thugs to go out and extort money from people? Even if those people will, obtain benefits from the research of greater value than the money they are forced to pay? 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? The only essential way which governments differ from other institutions is that they claim a monopoly on the use of force within a territory. All other aspects are incidental, or arise from that force monopoly. Note that it is not sufficient to say "people form govts to do certain things" - the point of discussion is to answer "What should people form their government to do" - a moral question, not a legal one. How does this monopoly on force give it the moral right to use it coercively? I say that it doesnt. >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), and if side benefits accrue to others, they won't mind. You need to show that there is a need for a govt to provide those "goods". Even the one "good" that a government must provide (defensive/retaliatory wielding of its force monopoly - police, army, courts, etc) should be voluntarily funded. Tom Craver hou5a!trc