ward@hao.UUCP (08/02/84)
[] > Oh, please forgive me for my ignorance, but could someone please mail me > a definition of 'libertarian'? I looked in the dictionary and found: > > 1. A person who believes in the doctrine of the free will. > 2. A person who advocates full civil liberties. > > This is so vague to me that I can't imagine anyone labeling themselves > one based solely on the above definition. This is not only vaque, it is inaccurate. Every Libertarian I know considers property "rights" (the right to use or abuse anything you "own") to rank above all other rights. This of course restricts civil liberties to those who are strong enough or devious enough (or, maybe even smart enough) to wrest "ownership" (as defined by whom?) away from others. The vast majority of humanity would have no liberty at all, except the liberty to starve. -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!sa!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
mwm@ea.UUCP (08/06/84)
#R:tellab1:-35500:ea:10100074:000:793 ea!mwm Aug 5 18:19:00 1984 /***** ea:net.politics / hao!ward / 7:38 pm Aug 3, 1984 */ This is not only vaque, it is inaccurate. Every Libertarian I know considers property "rights" (the right to use or abuse anything you "own") to rank above all other rights. This of course restricts civil liberties to those who are strong enough or devious enough (or, maybe even smart enough) to wrest "ownership" (as defined by whom?) away from others. The vast majority of humanity would have no liberty at all, except the liberty to starve. -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD /* ---------- */ Got news for you - this is the system we have now. Except that the strong can make you do what they want with your property. Next time you explain someones views for them, consider checking your version against theirs. <mike
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (08/13/84)
[]
Wasn't explaining your veiws to you. Don't really care what you feel that
your version is, unless your version of Libertarianism doesn't set property
rights as the ultimate Good. In which you hold a non-standard version
of Libertarianism.
What I was saying was: Property Rights are anti-Liberty. At least for
the vast majority of people.
If Libertarians were true to their name they would hold Liberty, not Property,
to be the highest good.
--
Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!sa!ward
ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (08/14/84)
[]
I'm glad that Bill Pfeifer knows enough about me to call me a socialist.
I will assume that this intellectual deficiency is his own, and
is not shared by most Libertarians.
As to the issue he raised:
As long as 'property' is limited to products created by people, then I
tend to agree that folks should do with them as they like. The loss of
manufactured items usually affect only those who lose them.
When 'property' includes those basic resources that all of us, as well
as our children, depend on to survive, then the concept of 'ownership',
at least in the Libertarian sense, becomes absurd.
The idea that an 'agricultural industrialist' can poison the land that
we all depend on for food so that he can make a quick fortune is insane.
The land was not produced by him or by anyone else. There was no "rightful
owner' of that land who could have passed 'ownership' to him.
Also, history has made it clear that concentration of land into the hands
of a few, which is the normal result of uninhibited property rights, leads
to the deprivation of liberty for those who have no land. ie, most people.
So to Libertarians I ask this: assume, for the sake of argument, without
judgment on its real-world validity, the following statement.
"The adaption of Libertarianism will inevitably lead to the loss of liberty
for the majority of people." Would this make Libertarianism invalid?
--
Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!sa!ward
ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307nrh@inmet.UUCP (08/18/84)
#R:hao:-110800:inmet:7800128:000:2129 inmet!nrh Aug 16 12:59:00 1984 >***** inmet:net.politics / hao!ward / 2:10 pm Aug 14, 1984 >Also, history has made it clear that concentration of land into the hands >of a few, which is the normal result of uninhibited property rights, leads >to the deprivation of liberty for those who have no land. ie, most people. Thanks SO much for the history lesson. Now, if you would care to give some examples of this happening WITHOUT government intervention? Remember, YOU said "uninhibited property rights". Uninhibited -> no taxation, no seizure, no eminent domain. > >So to Libertarians I ask this: assume, for the sake of argument, without >judgment on its real-world validity, the following statement. >"The adaption of Libertarianism will inevitably lead to the loss of liberty >for the majority of people." Would this make Libertarianism invalid? An uninteresting question -- I assume you meant "adoption", not "adaption". The question is uninteresting because it proceeds from a proposition you're practically admitting is "false" in the view of libertarians. To put it another way: "Suppose all your suppositions are wrong. Does this invalidate your ideas?" Sure! So your question is a conversational gambit, nothing more. As such, it's hardly worth "refuting", but one may point out that your criteria are bad (I'd support Libertarianism, even if it resulted in a loss of liberty for MOST of the population, so long as there was a net INCREASE in liberty -- for example, the freeing of a slave population on whose enslavement the "liberty" of the majority depended would result in a net increase in liberty even though the majority lost some liberties). So to Michael Ward, I ask this: Assume, for the sake of argument, without judgement on its real-world validity, the following statement: "Agreement with Michael Ward on any issue will inevitably result in death in great pain for the majority of the population." Would this make Michael Ward's ideas invalid? If no, why did you bother asking the question above? If yes, please explain what good it is to know this, given that the proposition is either incorrect or undecidable.
billp@azure.UUCP (Bill Pfeifer) (08/20/84)
------------- > What I was saying was: Property Rights are anti-Liberty. At least for > the vast majority of people. > > Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD Spoken like a good socialist. There can't be any Liberty unless property rights are protected. When I buy a car with my hard-earned money, that's my property, and no one elses. If someone takes it from me, he now has the results of my labor. While I was working to save up for that car, I was actually working for him with no benefit to me. That sounds pretty much like the definition of slavery. Unless I have the sole right to determine what will happen to that car, I am not free. If the owner does not have the right to his property, then who has? The state? Any thief? Just anybody? Michael Ward? Bill Pfeifer {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4,allegra,uw-beaver,hplabs} !tektronix!tekmdp!billp
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (08/21/84)
[] A response to an article I posted leads me to post a clarification of my position, and of my question. First, may I say that I am attracted to many of the notions of the Libertarians. There are a few problems I have with the philosophy, and a few questions I have about what people who call themselves Libertarians believe. All the statements I make and questions I ask are meant to be made in good faith, and, I think, hardly deserving of hostile, emotional attacks. Especially if the attackers don't even have the courage or the courtesy to sign their articles. I posted: > >So to Libertarians I ask this: assume, for the sake of argument, without >judgment on its real-world validity, the following statement. >"The adaption of Libertarianism will inevitably lead to the loss of liberty >for the majority of people." Would this make Libertarianism invalid? "Somebody" replied: >> >>An uninteresting question -- I assume you meant "adoption", not "adaption". >>The question is uninteresting because it proceeds from a proposition >>you're practically admitting is "false" in the view of libertarians. >>To put it another way: >>"Suppose all your suppositions are wrong. Does this invalidate your ideas?" >> I did not admit, or even almost admit, that the proposition was false. My purpose in stating it the way I did was to determine if the proposition was worth discussing. That is, if Libertarians feel that *their* liberties were important, to the exclusion of all others, then I need not waste time arguing about the loss of liberty of most people. On the other hand, if the *general* increase in liberty was a goal of Libertarianism, then arguments about how this should be brought about are important, indeed. This discussion has so far been held on a mature, rational level. I would hate to see it degenerate as have so many before it. -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!sa!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
nrh@inmet.UUCP (08/22/84)
>***** inmet:net.politics / hao!ward / 4:53 pm Aug 12, 1984 > >What I was saying was: Property Rights are anti-Liberty. At least for >the vast majority of people. > >If Libertarians were true to their name they would hold Liberty, not Property, >to be the highest good. Just two ways of saying the same thing. At the core of Libertarian property rights is the concept of ownership of self. Freedom consists (partly) of not being owned by someone else.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (08/29/84)
#R:hao:-110800:inmet:7800131:000:4431 inmet!nrh Aug 27 22:23:00 1984 >***** inmet:net.politics / hao!ward / 11:55 am Aug 21, 1984 > >All the statements I make and questions I ask are meant to be >made in good faith, and, I think, hardly deserving of hostile, >emotional attacks. Especially if the attackers don't even have >the courage or the courtesy to sign their articles. I am assuming that it was my article that ticked him off as it is my article he quotes below. Well excuuuuuse me! My name is Nat Howard, I stand behind what I say, and simply regard my logname as sufficient -- people can send me mail, there are (so far as I know) no other "nrh"'s on the net, and I dislike the impact Sturgeon's law (90% of everything is crap) has had on signature lines. I don't understand why it should be so important to Michael that I sign my full name, but please consider it done, if that makes you happier, or my article more strongly backed. > >I posted: > >> >>So to Libertarians I ask this: assume, for the sake of argument, without >>judgment on its real-world validity, the following statement. >>"The adaption of Libertarianism will inevitably lead to the loss of liberty >>for the majority of people." Would this make Libertarianism invalid? > >"Somebody" replied: If the article was mauled by news or notes software I mourn, but if not, it should have had "inmet!nrh" on it, not "Somebody". >>> >>>An uninteresting question -- I assume you meant "adoption", not "adaption". >>>The question is uninteresting because it proceeds from a proposition >>>you're practically admitting is "false" in the view of libertarians. >>>To put it another way: >>>"Suppose all your suppositions are wrong. Does this invalidate your ideas?" >>> >I did not admit, or even almost admit, that the proposition was >false. I did not say (read it over, please) that you admitted your proposition was false. I said that you were practically admitting that it was false in the view of libertarians. It seems to me that you're practcially admitting that libertarians would regard the question's premise is false because you're asking people to consider it hypothetically rather than actually -- you're saying: "Never mind whether this proposition is true or not -- accept it, let it put you in an awkward position, and then evaluate it". Sounds to me like you didn't want to support the proposition. >My purpose in stating it the way I did was to determine >if the proposition was worth discussing. That is, if Libertarians >feel that *their* liberties were important, to the exclusion >of all others, then I need not waste time arguing about the loss >of liberty of most people. Happy to respond: for myself, a libertarian society would only be worthy of the name if EVERYBODY is accorded certain rights, within the framework of human possibility -- in other words, the world ain't perfect, so I wouldn't demand that a libertarian society administer itself PERFECTLY -- merely as well as can be done by human beings. As for the freedom of others, many of the benefits of a libertarian society vanish if you make only SOME of the people in it free (arguably, this is one of the worst problems with our society today). Of course, personally, I do regard my liberties as MY business. While I definitely support the attempt to make this into a freer country for everybody, I get the most violent when (no surprise) my personal liberties are encroached upon. >On the other hand, if the *general* >increase in liberty was a goal of Libertarianism, then arguments >about how this should be brought about are important, indeed. And indeed they are. >This discussion has so far been held on a mature, rational level. >I would hate to see it degenerate as have so many before it. Ummm, okay. I've signed (retroactively, but no less authoritatively I hope) my article, and I've tried to point out what I saw as the kernel of the logic flaw that led you to ask the question. Shall we continue? By way of concession, I'll sign this article, but I'd rather not have to sign each one explicitly. Now that you know who I am, can we just take it as "read"? I'll be glad to sign them now and then...... Many users on the net do not bother to sign their names, others sign them effusively. I don't mind being known as inmet!nrh (pronounced "inmet-bang-nyrrh"), and I'm not particularly trying to be anonymous, or cute. Nat Howard "That's MISTER 'inmet-bang-nyrrh' to you, fellah" :-)
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (08/31/84)
[]
Thanks, Nat. And May I publicly apologize for being more peevish
than a person really should be. (Gotta keep those peeves from breeding
like that)
Having determined that Libertarians feel that an increase in
liberty for the general populace is a necessary goal of their
philosophy (I hope I have not misstated this), I would like to
discuss the concept of property rights in this context.
It is my growing feeling that the term "property rights" is too
simple a term, since it includes many different concepts. The
notion that ownership of one's body and self is a "property right"
strikes me as a strange use of the language.
Ownership of one's body is an essential foundation to personal
freedom, and to the extent that this is ignored in our society
(the draft, laws against drug use, etc) our society is deficient
in personal freedom.
Ownership of land is another issue. Land is not a person, nor
was it created by a person. Every inch of land in the world
was just found lying around by somebody who decided
to use it for his own benefit. Much of the land in the world
was taken over by use of brute force. The basis for "ownership"
seems to be tenuous.
--
Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward
ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307