peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (09/10/84)
I've just caught up on net.politics and can.politics and have noticed an
implicit belief in many of the libertarian postings which reminds me of
early AI work. It is the belief that the way to get a good society is to
let everyone act with as much freedom as possible, for their own immediate
self-interest. This reminds me of some of the early work on "neural nets"
and "perceptrons", which were to be left to their own devices and "naturally"
organize themselves into intelligent, useful systems. That idea has since been
abandoned, simply because it didn't work. The idea that a society can prosper
in a parallel situation is equally impractical; for a society to be a useful
construct, there must be a means of deciding on goals on *some* level.
One can, however, view libertarianism more as a force to balance natural
forces of totalitarianism, however, and in that way, I am somewhat more sym-
pathetic. However, I think philosophical anarchism does a better job of this,
because it explicity recognizes that we live in a *necessarily* inter-
dependent society (made so by our need to share resources and our social
natures). It seems to me that libertarians say "release me so that I may
compete with you (and make my life better, possibly helping you also)".
Philosophical anarchists say "let us be released so that we may cooperate on
an individual basis, so that we can produce more together".
I cannot help but associate libertarian thought with the spectre of use-em-
up-and-toss-em-out capitalism, which justifies such treatment of people by
the mythical belief that they don't "have" to take a job if they don't want
to. The myth seems to be based in an essential psychosis: the feeling that
the world is limitless, that there are always more resources to exploit,
always another job to be found, always new products to invent. While this is
a useful fiction in some ways (it is easier than thinking about how one's
actions impact on global resources), it *is* psychotic-- the world is *not*
limitless, Ayn Rand notwithstanding. When one realizes this, one recognizes
that individial rights can conflict in *many* ways and some means of
compromise has to be found. If one can't say much for mainstream political
parties, one can at least say they recognize the need to compromise.
So, in a phrase, I think libertarians are psychotic competition fanatics
while anarchists are useful proponents of decentralization in order to
make society better adapted to local conditions, and to encourage cooperation
between people treated as equals.
peter rowley, University of Toronto Department of C.S., Ontario Canada M5S 1A4
{watmath linus ihnp4 allegra floyd utzoo cornell decwrl decvax}!utcsrgv!peterrbrad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (09/10/84)
First of all, let's be careful about the terms used. "Libertarian", with a capital L, refers to the Libertarian party, which certainly does contain some very fringe elements. If you want to talk about the philosophy of freedom, that's a different story. No capitalist thinks that we don't live in an interdependant society. The very essence of capitalism is free trade. The capitalist simply thinks that money, held in private hands, should be the machanism of the economic system, not force as the socialists believe. Capitialism supports the belief that we will work together if it is in our nature to work together. Socialism is the belief that we must be forced to work together, whether we like it or not. Now, of course there have been plenty of excesses under capitalist society, although some will argue that they would not have come about in a true capitalist (lassez-faire) system. ie. that the problem is not in the system but in our implementations. I am not sure I agree with this, but I do think that the excesses of our current socialist society are even worse. Our government takes almost half we earn and uses it very badly. This massive wastage of wealth is responsible in many ways for the amount of poverty we have in society. The government's so called social programs destroy jobs, discourage the work ethic and encourage mediocraty. They do, on the other hand, provide some help in the direction of an equal opportunity society, but they do it rather badly in my estimation. Not all Capitalists are short-sighted, by the way. Some are, but in no greater proportion than politicians. In fact, most politicos can't see beyond the next poll or election, and businessmen usually have to think further that that. It's good to see the world waking up a bit to the philosophy of economic freedom - if we stick on the socialist path much longer I have real fears for the world economy. On the other hand, it's sad to see other movements to the so-called "right" involving anti-abortion, religion, pro-weapons etc. The journey of a "progessive" society (I loathe that word for it's misuse) is towards more freedom. -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ontario (519) 884-7473
chrisr@hcrvax.UUCP (Chris Retterath) (09/11/84)
But there is a whole solar system out there up for grabs! The
idea that we must limit our growth to our environment would have
left us up in the trees -- man is man (woman) because he moves
into hostile environments and makes use of the resources in them
to live. There is an abundance of energy and raw materials available
starting 200 miles above our heads -- I cannot agree with any argument
that starts out with such a false premise about "limited resources".
One more thing: if individuals do not enjoy the society in which they
live, what good is it to them if that society survives? I do not consider
myself to be a 'libertarian' in that I am not a member of the Canadian
Libertarian party, but I agree with the philosophy that personal responsibility
and happiness is more important than social control and stability.
"If you make the world foolproof, it will be populated by fools".
--
Chris Retterath
{decvax,utcsrgv,utzoo}!hcr!hcrvax!chrisrken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (09/11/84)
-- >> So, in a phrase, I think libertarians are psychotic competition fanatics >> while anarchists are useful proponents of decentralization in order to >> make society better adapted to local conditions, and to encourage >> cooperation between people treated as equals. >> peter rowley I almost agree. I think libertarians are compulsive about logial systems, viz: the government with the fewest good rules is the best. So it's really only a neurosis--a handy one for scientists looking for order among the chaos--merely inappropriately applied to the human sphere. I'll pick an easy example. Libertarians often speak of "freedom" as if it were one uncontested good thing, essentially, as Peter suggests, capitalism unchained. That is pure economic democracy. But there's also social democracy--human rights--and it is often at odds with economic democracy. Sometimes a free spirit bumps up against the body of free enterprise. (Consider modern environmental issues.) Then whose freedom is more precious? No decent (in the moral sense) political philosophy will have an easy answer. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 10 Sep 84 [24 Fructidor An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/11/84)
> ............................................... for a society to be a useful > construct, there must be a means of deciding on goals on *some* level. I have two questions: (1) Why? Let's be realistic: societies do not "have goals", individuals do. The question is whether specific individuals should be allowed to impose their goals on disagreeing people, and if so, under what conditions this should be allowed. My contention is that a major (perhaps the *only* major) legitimate role of society is precisely to minimize the incidence of such coercive practices. (I do not contend that they can be eliminated entirely.) (2) How? I see no evidence that any recent Canadian government has been able to set any goal other than re-election, which is clearly not particularly in society's interest. The Reagan administration, whatever one may think of it in other respects, at least seems to have some specific ideas of where it's going in some areas. Food for thought... -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
slack@wxlvax.UUCP (Tom Slack) (09/12/84)
I believe that you are being uneccesarly harsh on libertarian Ideals. I am not a libertarian, but I do appreciate some of the philosophy. 1. Libertarians do subscribe to having some goals worked out by central authority. They are not opposed to all central government. Their point is that central government should be limited. In other words, a central government (independant of whether it is controled by a majority of the people governed or not) should be limited in what things it should be able to do. 2. One limitation that Libertarians would like to see safeguarded from government is the right of individuals to own property. 3. If something truly belongs to me, if someone takes it away without my consent, he is stealing from me. This is also true if a group of people get together and take property from an individual. The government is just such a group. 4. This is not to say that taxes are inherently stealing, but only that they should be equally applied to all the people lest one group steal from another. Of course you can think of systems of government where individuals cannot own property. Tom Slack
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (09/12/84)
========================== > ............................................... for a society to be a useful > construct, there must be a means of deciding on goals on *some* level. I have two questions: (1) Why? Let's be realistic: societies do not "have goals", individuals do. ========================== That is not necessarily a "realistic" position. How does a cell know that its body has goals different from its own. How do WE know that our society doesn't have goals. The more you look at it, the more important collective phenomena seem to be in what actually happens to a society. Read Hofstader (especially the Prelude and Ant Fugue, which occurs in both Godel Escher Bach and in The Mind's Eye, the latter including an interesting commentary). -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/13/84)
> > (1) Why? Let's be realistic: societies do not "have goals", > > individuals do. > > society doesn't have goals. The more you look at it, the more important > collective phenomena seem to be in what actually happens to a society. Okay, I confess, that first sentence of point (1) was a bit on the over-enthusiastic side. The rest of the paragraph still holds up well, I think. Slightly restated, the question is to what extent society's goals, which inevitably do not suit everybody, are to be allowed to run roughshod over the goals of members of the society. My position is that the preferred answer is "as little as possible". [Note again that I do do not contend that it can be reduced to zero.] -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry