carmine@qusavx.UUCP (Carmine Scavo) (07/03/84)
I think I would be much less critical of Libertarianism if it could
address two problems I have:
How can we expect that all people are actually created equal and that
they all compete on an equal level when each is born with an
accumulation of inherited wealth? If libertarians believed that all
wealth accumulated within one's lifetime was forfeited upon death, I
might actually think they BELIEVED in equal competition, etc.
How can each of us individuals be expected to compete (on an equal
basis) with the mythical 'individuals' called corporations? If I
were to sue General Motors, IBM or even (horrors) AT&T, I sure as
hell would want the government on my side!! A neutral government,
in such a situation, is one which is actually opposed, at all times,
to the interests of the individual citizen and in favor, at all times,
of the interests of the corporate citizen.
Libertarians often use the example of forest ecology to 'prove' the
idea that nature exists rather nicely without the guiding hand of a
government and the image is a nice one. But remember, that this is
the case only from the perspective of the forest, as a whole. From
that perspective, it doesn't matter a great deal if half the squirrel
population dies. Equilibrium will reassert itself at quite a different
level. From the squirrel population, such a loss has a very different
meaning. As a member of the squirrel population, I think that the
loss of a great deal of our population through some natural act (like
poverty or disease) which an activist government might avert, is a
tragedy which is beyond imagination. I would certainly hope that you
fellow squirrels out there believe the same thing. After all, . . .
WE'RE NOT LEMMINGS, ARE WE?dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (07/10/84)
<>
I agree with the author of this article. I think Libertarians have the right
idea, if they could only get away from the loony notion that only the
government constitutes a threat to liberty. Their obsession with government
is something like the Conservative obsession with sex (maybe this is why
conservatives look less 'lean and hungry' than Libertarians :-) ??
D Gary Grady
Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706
(919) 684-4146
USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgaryjudy@ism780.UUCP (07/13/84)
#R:qusavx:-19200:ism780:20200009:000:1430 ism780!judy Jul 11 14:04:00 1984 > How can we expect that all people are actually created equal and that > they all compete on an equal level when each is born with an > accumulation of inherited wealth? If libertarians believed that all > wealth accumulated within one's lifetime was forfeited upon death, I > might actually think they BELIEVED in equal competition, etc. > Libertarians often use the example of forest ecology to 'prove' the > idea that nature exists rather nicely without the guiding hand of a > government and the image is a nice one. Given the latter statement, that libertarians believe in minimum government, the assertion that libertarians should abolish inheritance is a contradiction. A law abolishing inheritance would be just the kind of governmental interference libertarians are against. And if there were not predatory animals in the forest keeping the squirrel population in balance, the damn squirells would eat up all the nuts and we wouldn't have any giant oaks coming from those acorns. Equal rights means that certain basic rights are equally available to all in this country. That does not mean the same as equal opportunity. Life is NOT fair. But it never has been. And the person with the inheritance does have a better privelege. But it is not a guarantee. That wealth can be squandered as well as put to productive use. The idea of abolishing inheritances is a socialistic idea and belongs in another party.
mwm@ea.UUCP (07/14/84)
#R:qusavx:-19200:ea:9800011:000:2207 ea!mwm Jul 7 23:15:00 1984 /***** ea:net.philosophy / qusavx!carmine / 2:43 am Jul 4, 1984 */ >I think I would be much less critical of Libertarianism if it could >address two problems I have: > >How can we expect that all people are actually created equal and that >they all compete on an equal level when each is born with an >accumulation of inherited wealth? If libertarians believed that all >wealth accumulated within one's lifetime was forfeited upon death, I >might actually think they BELIEVED in equal competition, etc. > >How can each of us individuals be expected to compete (on an equal >basis) with the mythical 'individuals' called corporations? If I >were to sue General Motors, IBM or even (horrors) AT&T, I sure as >hell would want the government on my side!! A neutral government, >in such a situation, is one which is actually opposed, at all times, >to the interests of the individual citizen and in favor, at all times, >of the interests of the corporate citizen. > /* ---------- */ Neither of these concepts are implicit in libertarianism (note the small l) per se. The first is something we do "because we've always done it." Since most libertarians assume that there must be a government to settle disputes between individuals, this government will *of necessity* define what is and isn't property, and the valid ways to obtain it. If you choose to decide that inheritance isn't a valid way to obtain property, that's perfectly ok to most libertarians (but not ok with most anarchists!). BTW - the Analog editorial dealt with the problem better, and even suggested a solution. The second problem is a problem with an economic system, not with a political system. The socialist solution is to have the means of production controlled by the government (though they won't put it that way). This only clashes with libertarianism in how you get people to go to work in the silly things under those conditions. I personally have problems with it in that I expect such a system to stifle creativity & progress. If you hack things so that people can compete with the government-run production systems, you don't have these problems. Of course, you now have to prevent capitalism from re-emerging. <mike
bprice@bmcg.UUCP (07/21/84)
>I agree with the author of this article. I think Libertarians have the right >idea, if they could only get away from the loony notion that only the >government constitutes a threat to liberty. Their obsession with government >is something like the Conservative obsession with sex (maybe this is why >conservatives look less 'lean and hungry' than Libertarians :-) ?? > >D Gary Grady The Libertarian notion is more completely stated as "The Government's monopoly on the use of force constitutes the threat to liberty." The Libertarian 'prescriptions' for this threat amount to severe restrictions on the government's right to use its monopoly against people. The current lack of effective restriction makes each of us terribly vulnerable to every little political movement that can coopt a piece of government and use the government's force to further the movement's ends. Given that the government has that monopoly on force, is there any other real threat to liberty? -- --Bill Price uucp: {decvax!ucbvax philabs}!sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice arpa:? sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice@nosc
esk@wucs.UUCP (09/27/84)
[] > From: ea!mwm Sep 17 02:13:00 1984 >From me, Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 > The question is, what goal should the [social] meta-rules be set up > to achieve? I maintain that they should give as much freedom to individuals > as possible. Other people think other goals are appropriate, which is a > good thing. Using threats of physical force to make others agree with them > is *not* a good thing, just the usual thing. I maintain that they should promote people's welfare as much as possible. I also have my doubts about the way you state your goal for the meta-rules. What kinds of freedom do you really support? The freedom to amass large quantities of wealth, backed by the claim that since one's ancestors and/or trading partners gave it to one, one therfore "owns" it? But where did THOSE people get it from (or from whom did they take it?) And let there be no doubt that LIBERTARIANS ARE QUITE WILLING TO USE PHYSICAL FORCE to protect "their" "property" (translation: to protect the status quo)! > I don't want to be "forced by governmental or any other kind of authority" > to participate in [cooperative societal] efforts. However, if I > don't participate, I don't expect (or necessarily want) the benefits of > said efforts. My objection isn't to the existence of the effort, or to my > getting the benefits if I choose to participate, my objection is to being > *forced* to participate, whether I want the benefits or not. A generous-sounding offer. Problem is, he INEVITABLY receives the benefits of such public goods as: scientific research, education (of other people), air pollution control, national defense ... I could go on for pages. 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 ... ". Even though you may not be one such person, we can't make an exception just for you; and we can't make an exception for "all honest people" because we don't know who they all are. What we have here is "the problem of public goods", a concept from economics -- a subject that libertarians could use to study. --The return of the Aspiring Iconoclast Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 P.S. Please send any mail to this address, NOT the address of the sender (a friend who's helping me out).
stuart@genrad.UUCP (stuart) (10/08/84)
>quantities of wealth, backed by the claim that since one's ancestors and/or >trading partners gave it to one, one therfore "owns" it? But where did >THOSE people get it from (or from whom did they take it?) And let there be >no doubt that LIBERTARIANS ARE QUITE WILLING TO USE PHYSICAL FORCE to >protect "their" "property" (translation: to protect the status quo)! > What I find quite revealing here is the "where did THOSE people get it from (or from whom did they take it?)." This view that wealth is a static entity simply found lying around in nature is quite the opposite of what really happened( happens). Wealth is, for the most part, created by people. My computer terminal was not just found in the dark side of the forest waiting to be exploited. People put it together from items that other people put together from items ... . Of course, the raw materials were just lying around, but even then, alot of effort probably went into obtaining and refining them. It is that EFFORT which the author of the above passage thinks so very, very little of. The ameliorating circumstances which might count in that authors favor, are that such misconceptions are so widespread that its easy for someone to fall into the trap.
jim@ism780b.UUCP (10/18/84)
I subscribe to a newletter that provides me with various "devices for executives to acquire personal wealth". There is no evidence of a correlation between amount of effort expended and resulting wealth. Too many people with wealth, or attributes derived from their culture, upbringing, or other situations which provide them with means to acquire wealth, fail to observe this. People say "I worked hard for what I have". The implications are a) everyone with wealth works hard for what they have. b) everyone without wealth does not work hard. These are trivially empirically false. It is my firm opinion that if wealth were distributed according to some principle of amount of effort expended (I am not saying I know of an implementation), then not only would the poor have more, but *so would you*. People are just too stupid and self-centered to realize how badly they are being ripped off. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
rwh@aesat.UUCP (Russell Herman) (11/23/84)
>Society is an aggregate of individuals, bound together by trade, >by the basic need for social intercourse, by shared goals and interests. > J. Bashinski > ...ucbvax!bashinsk%ucbcory Aha! Now I know why I have trouble talking to Libertarians. The society I (want to) belong to is bound together by the mutual concern for its own welfare and that of the individuals composing it. -- ______ Russ Herman / \ {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!aesat!rwh @( ? ? )@ ( || ) The opinions above are strictly personal, and ( \__/ ) do not reflect those of my employer (or even \____/ possibly myself an hour from now.)
mwm@ea.UUCP (12/01/84)
/***** ea:net.philosophy / aesat!rwh / 6:29 pm Nov 26, 1984 */ >Society is an aggregate of individuals, bound together by trade, >by the basic need for social intercourse, by shared goals and interests. > J. Bashinski > ...ucbvax!bashinsk%ucbcory Aha! Now I know why I have trouble talking to Libertarians. The society I (want to) belong to is bound together by the mutual concern for its own welfare and that of the individuals composing it. -- ______ Russ Herman /* ---------- */ I don't think it does, unless it's just a matter of viewpont. Mutual concern for the welfare of the individual members of society sounds like "shared goals" to me. The welfare of society, on the other hand, is a redundancy. Since society is an aggregate of individuals, the "welfare of society" doesn't make much sense in any form but "the welfare of the individuals composing it." <mike
bdp@ptsfa.UUCP (Barbara Petersen) (12/08/84)
[Actually from J. Bashinski] > From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP > Subject: Re: Re: Libertarianism > > > Government, on the other hand, is an attempt by some > > group of individuals to control what interaction may occur. > No, rather government is an attempt by a majority of individuals, acting > as a group, to form some system to regulate social interactions in some > ways. How does what you say differ from what I say? The majority (if indeed a government is set up by a majority) remains a group of individuals, and regulation of social interactions "in some ways" is still control of what interactions may occur. > > Many people, apparently including Mr. Rosen, say that government > > is the voice and representative of society as a whole, and that it > > may exercise prerogatives that that whole possesses. They believe that > > one owes the benefits one has accrued in interacting with others to > > create society to that creation itself, and that government, as its > > representative, is entitled to collect on that debt. > > Not necessarily. Government is not formed because some people think that > it should collect on people's debt to society. Its function is purely > pragmatic -- society could not exist without government. It's true that governments are formed for pragmatic reasons, however misguided those reasons may be. Does thst mean that the formation of a government is RIGHT? The most pragmatic thing for me to do at this moment may be to cut your head off. Should I do so? There are people who want to legitimize their government by saying that it has the right to collect on debts owed society. What I argue is that it DOES NOT have that right, and furthermore that no debts can be owed society in any case. Moral legitimacy for government cannot come from this source. > > Is it even likely that society, taken as a whole, has > > goals or desires from which to derive the decrees of government? > > Yes, these goals are the natural ones of self-preservation and self- > improvement. What is good for society is a difficult question which > I made some statements about in a posting a while ago... I think you're confusing the goals of society with the goals of the individuals who make it up. It may be that all or almost all of those individuals have self-preservation and self-improvement as their goals. It may even be that these individuals want to preserve and improve society. But it seems unlikely that society as a whole has thought processes equal to the task of understanding the concepts of self-preservation or self-improvement, much less of desiring them. In any case, libertarians do not advocate the destruction of society, and I believe that a libertarian society would be an improvement over what we have now. Since we have no way of learning the desires of society in the aggregate (assuming it has any), we can't be sure of doing what it wants, no matter what we do. Even if we knew that society had desires and what those desires were, there would be no reason for us to follow them. We do not incur a debt to society by creating it, even if that creation makes our own lives easier. We CANNOT incur a debt to it in any other way, since we do not interact directly with it. > > This necessary coercive element in the operation > > of government should alone lead anyone interested in individual liberties > > to wish to severely restrict government involvement in human life. > > You are right, but anybody who is interested in both individual liberties > and collective goods (like education) will take a long look at what > he is considering eliminating from government. I'm a bit confused by the phrase "collective goods". I can't see defining a collective good as something that's good for society as a whole. I've already discussed the problems with considering the desires of society. Those same problems apply to its "good". Who is to decide what's good for society, if we can't ask society itself? If we know what's good for society, why should we care? While we have plenty of debts due each other, we owe society nothing. The only alternative I can see to defining a "collective good" as something that is good for society as a whole is defining it as something that is good for all individuals. Education definitely doesn't pass this test. Is education good for someone whose religion values ignorance as a virtue? For someone who just plain doesn't believe what's being taught? I can't think of a single example of something that would be good for EVERYBODY, at least not if each person were permitted to decide for him/herself what's good for her/him. > > Mr. Rosen says that "Democracy... sets up rules governing how the > > benefits a society is supposed to provide get distributed...". But > > clearly the benefits of interacting with others are self-distributing; > > they accrue to those who interact beneficially. In fact, these benefits > > are no in essence provided by society at all; the interacting parties > > provide them to each other. By doing so, they CREATE society. All the > > government can hope to do is to decide who is to interact with whom > > and how (with or without the consent of the interacting parties), or > > to confiscate and possibly redistribute any material gain from the > > interaction. > > Society without government is a probably better than no society at all > (no interaction between people). But when government is working > properly, it makes it much easier for individuals to interact in > productive ways. Some of this rests on the assumption that government > intervention in economics is sometimes good, which I don't want to > argue about any more, but such things as public education and the > judicial system are clearly cases of productive government regulation. Now I AM confused. A couple of paragraphs ago you said that society couldn't exist without government. Now you say that a society without government is probably better than none at all. Isn't this a contradiction? I don't concede that government makes it easier for individuals to interact in productive ways. Prove it. > > If anyone on the net wishes to name a useful service, not involving > > interference with people's rights to self-determination, now provided > > by government, I'll be glad to propose a private alternative, either > > of my own or from the libertarian literature. > > National defense, education, and police are a few that come to mind. > I can think of a lot more that are less obvious, like regulation of > consumer goods, control of the economy, amd so forth, that I'm not > so sure about and many of the people on the net would be very quick > to attack, so I won't propose them. National defense: I can think of at least three private solutions to the problem of national defense. The first is to ignore it entirely. A nation without armed forces would present no threat to other nations. It would therefore be a less tempting target for attack. If the citizens of that nation were known to be well-armed as individuals, an attack would still threaten heavy losses for the attacking force. Since traditional techniques of military conquest involve taking over the government apparatus already in place, a libertarian nation would be difficult to take and still more difficult to hold. The second possible solution would be an all-volunteer army supported by voluntary contributions. Such an organization could even maintain a minimal strategic nuclear capability, if such were desired. In the event of an attack by another nation, this already-existing force could provide organization for a strong resistance. A third idea (due to David Friedman) would be to have one or more profit-making "defense companies", which would rely on citizen's honor to induce them to pay what the services were worth to them. Such companies might well be recognized by other nations as the "governments" of the areas they defended, and could therefore augment their income by charging for the issuance of passports. It is interesting to note that in a libertarian WORLD, the question of NATIONAL defense would not arise. World peace would have been achieved without the unnecessary repression of world government. Education: The private alternative to publically supported education already exists; it's called the private school. Under a libertarian system, all schools would be private schools. Parents would be free to send their children to the school of their choice. The children of the poor would go to schools operated by private charities, or would be taught by their parents. The public school system in this country serves only one purpose that would not be served by a wholly private education system- the inculcation in children of the views the government feels they should hold as adults. Even private schools are required to teach courses (primarily history and government courses) with substantial political content... from state-approved textbooks. Police: Police services could easily be provided by companies similar to the existing private security firms. People would purchase as much police protection as they felt they needed. I really don't see the need to say anything more about police protection. I know that there's a lot of debate going on about the desirability of this system. People seem to be afraid of trusting private companies with the means to use as much force as they might need to use to keep order. Myself, I have a lot more trouble trusting GOVERNMENT with that much force; at least under the private system I can hire another company to protect me from one that runs amok. > Another interesting point about libertarianism that I have noticed is > that it seems to be very anachronistic. In the 19th century, when > lassez-faire was the prevailing system, libertarianism would have > been right at home. But in the 20th century, every trend seems to be > away from this sort of philosophy. Communism is its absolute antithesis, > and it dominates half of the world, and the rest of the world is either > dictatorships or welfare states of varying degrees (I think that as > welfare states go, the US is about the most libertarian nation in the > world). And yet, libertarianism still exists and seems to be growing > in the US. Is its day really past, in the modern world of communist > dictatatorships and welfare states, or will we experience a swing back > to small government? > > Wayne > > ---------- I don't know whether libertarianism is an anachronism or not. On even days, I think it's got a good chance; on odd days, I think the entire world is sinking into a repressive mire. We're not arguing about whether libertarianism is in tune with the times, but about whether it's RIGHT. J. Bashinski ...!ucbvax!bashinsk%ucbcory Please respond to this account, rather than to the posting account.
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (12/10/84)
> I'm a bit confused by the phrase "collective goods". I can't see > defining a collective good as something that's good for society as a > whole. I've already discussed the problems with considering the desires > of society. Those same problems apply to its "good". Who is to decide > what's good for society, if we can't ask society itself? If we know > what's good for society, why should we care? While we have plenty of > debts due each other, we owe society nothing. What is good for society as a whole is what is good for most of the members. I guess that this isn't always a useful definition, but I am not trying to claim that society has any sort of existence apart from its members. You could say that society is a set of epiphenomena of social interactions, properties that cannot be said to belong to any of the members but belong to the whole. It is pretty easy, in theory, to decide what is good for society -- whatever leads to the greatest good, in the long run, for the most individuals. > The only alternative I can see to defining a "collective good" as > something that is good for society as a whole is defining it as something > that is good for all individuals. Education definitely doesn't pass this > test. Is education good for someone whose religion values ignorance as > a virtue? For someone who just plain doesn't believe what's being taught? People who value ignorance as a virtue are, fortunately, a minority. If you don't believe what's being taught, that's no reason to say that you shouldn't be taught anything. I think that having other people educated tends to benefit everybody, not only the people being educated. For one thing, it makes them less jealous of those who can afford good educations... > I can't think of a single example of something that would be good for > EVERYBODY, at least not if each person were permitted to decide for > him/herself what's good for her/him. Well, neither can I, but just because people don't always know what's good for them doesn't mean that they are right. > > Society without government is a probably better than no society at all > > (no interaction between people). But when government is working > > properly, it makes it much easier for individuals to interact in > > productive ways. Some of this rests on the assumption that government > > intervention in economics is sometimes good, which I don't want to > > argue about any more, but such things as public education and the > > judicial system are clearly cases of productive government regulation. > > Now I AM confused. A couple of paragraphs ago you said that society > couldn't exist without government. Now you say that a society without > government is probably better than none at all. Isn't this a contradiction? Ok, I'll admit that I was being a bit liberal with the word 'society'. I should have said that any reasonable level of society (what we consider society today) wouldn't be possible without government. > National defense: > > I can think of at least three private solutions to the problem of > national defense. The first is to ignore it entirely. A nation without > armed forces would present no threat to other nations. It would therefore > be a less tempting target for attack. If the citizens of that nation > were known to be well-armed as individuals, an attack would still threaten > heavy losses for the attacking force. Since traditional techniques of > military conquest involve taking over the government apparatus already > in place, a libertarian nation would be difficult to take and still more > difficult to hold. A nation with a large military is a temping target for attack? I don't understand that one. A threat, maybe, but I think that a rich economy is a much better motivation to try to take over a country than a big army. > The second possible solution would be an all-volunteer army > supported by voluntary contributions. Such an organization could even > maintain a minimal strategic nuclear capability, if such were desired. > In the event of an attack by another nation, this already-existing > force could provide organization for a strong resistance. > > A third idea (due to David Friedman) would be to have one or more > profit-making "defense companies", which would rely on citizen's honor > to induce them to pay what the services were worth to them. Such companies > might well be recognized by other nations as the "governments" of the > areas they defended, and could therefore augment their income by charging > for the issuance of passports. Rely on the citizen's honor? Not that reliable a basis... I have made arguments against private "defense companies" in other postings, so I won't repeat them again, but I think they should be pretty obvious. > It is interesting to note that in a libertarian WORLD, the question > of NATIONAL defense would not arise. World peace would have been achieved > without the unnecessary repression of world government. And in the land of Oz nobody ever dies. Wouldn't that be wonderful? > Education: > > The private alternative to publically supported education already > exists; it's called the private school. Under a libertarian system, all > schools would be private schools. Parents would be free to send their > children to the school of their choice. The children of the poor would go > to schools operated by private charities, or would be taught by their > parents. Parents would also be free no completely neglect their children's educations, which I think would be more common. Do you think that a poor unmaried mother would have the time and motivation (not to mention education) to teach her children herself? You have to consider the rights of the children to an education also, not only the rights of the parents to do whatever they want with their children. > > Another interesting point about libertarianism that I have noticed is > > that it seems to be very anachronistic. In the 19th century, when > > lassez-faire was the prevailing system, libertarianism would have > > been right at home. But in the 20th century, every trend seems to be > > away from this sort of philosophy. Communism is its absolute antithesis, > > and it dominates half of the world, and the rest of the world is either > > dictatorships or welfare states of varying degrees (I think that as > > welfare states go, the US is about the most libertarian nation in the > > world). And yet, libertarianism still exists and seems to be growing > > in the US. Is its day really past, in the modern world of communist > > dictatatorships and welfare states, or will we experience a swing back > > to small government? > > I don't know whether libertarianism is an anachronism or not. On > even days, I think it's got a good chance; on odd days, I think the entire > world is sinking into a repressive mire. We're not arguing about whether > libertarianism is in tune with the times, but about whether it's RIGHT. I thought I was making points about both. I think that most of the people who have been defending libertarianism are really defending anarchism, including Mr. Bashinsk. As I understand it, libertarians (real Libertarians, that is) don't believe in a society with no government at all, but rather one with a minimal government. If people want to argue that all government is evil, they should identify themselves as anarchists, not libertarians. Wayne
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/11/84)
> I really don't see the need to say anything more about police > protection. I know that there's a lot of debate going on about the > desirability of this system. People seem to be afraid of trusting > private companies with the means to use as much force as they might > need to use to keep order. Myself, I have a lot more trouble trusting > GOVERNMENT with that much force; at least under the private system I > can hire another company to protect me from one that runs amok. Isn't that known as an arms race? At what level of nuclear armaments do your two (or more) companies stop? In most countries of the Western world the Government police doesn't need or use as much force as in the USA, because the "opposition" is not as well armed. I prefer to keep the force level low, rather than return to feudal times, when the strongest baron (read "purveyor of protection") controlled the most villeins (read "purchasers of protection"). -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
shad@teldata.UUCP (12/13/84)
> ... If >people want to argue that all government is evil, they should identify >themselves as anarchists, not libertarians. > > Wayne I am rminded of a quote out of America's past but don't remember the author (Adams, Franklin, or Jefferson?): "Governments at best are necessary evils and at worst intolerable ones." Warren
87064023@sdcc3.UUCP ({|lit) (12/21/84)
> > I'm a bit confused by the phrase "collective goods". I can't see > > defining a collective good as something that's good for society as a > > whole... > > What is good for society as a whole is what is good for most of the members. I think you should be careful about this. Killing welfare recepients (instead of feeding them) could be construed as being good for most of "society's" members. And again, who determines what is "good" for whom? Government? > People who value ignorance as a virtue are, fortunately, a minority. If > you don't believe what's being taught, that's no reason to say that you > shouldn't be taught anything. Should these people be forced to be educated? Should I be forced to provide their education (thru taxes, etc.)? The idea that the initial use of force should be utilized to solve problems is exactly what libertarians are arguing against. Force should only be used to respond to attempts to infringe on an individuals rights to life, liberty, and property. > > > I can't think of a single example of something that would be good for > > EVERYBODY, at least not if each person were permitted to decide for > > him/herself what's good for her/him. > > Well, neither can I, but just because people don't always know what's good > for them doesn't mean that they are right. > Say what?!! Government should decide what is best for me? Because I *CAN'T* ?! The final judge of what is good for an individual IS THAT INDIVIDUAL. I especially resent this argument that my liberty is being infringed upon "for my own good". > > Under a libertarian system, all > > schools would be private schools. Parents would be free to send their > > children to the school of their choice. The children of the poor would go > > to schools operated by private charities, or would be taught by their > > parents. > > Parents would also be free no completely neglect their children's > educations, which I think would be more common. Do you think that a > poor unmaried mother would have the time and motivation (not to > mention education) to teach her children herself? You have to consider > the rights of the children to an education also, not only the rights > of the parents to do whatever they want with their children. > Yes, parents would be free to neglect their children's education, just like it is now. Your solution to this problem is to use force to coerce children into schools. The solution proposed by libertarians is to realize that individuals do and should have the ultimate responsibility to act in their own interest, and if this includes not going to school (or not sending your children to school) then it is nobody else's business. As for the rights of children to an education, you might note that libertarians believe that human rights also extend to children, and we make no distinction between "people" and "children". Hence, the ultimate responsibility for a person's educations rests with that person, not with his or her parents. > > I think that most of the people who have been defending libertarianism > are really defending anarchism, including Mr. Bashinsk. As I understand > it, libertarians (real Libertarians, that is) don't believe in a society > with no government at all, but rather one with a minimal government. If > people want to argue that all government is evil, they should identify > themselves as anarchists, not libertarians. > > Wayne Libertarianism is not anarchism. We Libertarians stress that government is formed to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizenry, and that governments are properly judged on the extent to which they do so. As such, government is a necessary institution. (Legitimate functions of government include a police force, a national defense, and a judicial system. These are all necessary to protect lives, liberty, and property.) When a government starts to INFRINGE on individual rights instead of PROTECTING them, then that government becomes evil. Since governments rule only by consent of the governed, any individual or group of individuals has the right to rescind the consent to be governed. John Wallner
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (12/22/84)
> > As for the rights of children to an education, you might note that > libertarians believe that human rights also extend to children, and > we make no distinction between "people" and "children". Hence, the > ultimate responsibility for a person's educations rests with that > person, not with his or her parents. > Absolutely. I'm sick and tired of seeing children treated as if they were second-class citizens. Some interesting facts: 1) The US Constitution *forbids* children to hold high elective office. State and local law is similarly discriminatory. They cannot vote. There is not a single judge sitting in a US Federal or state court below the age of puberty. 2) The US Armed Forces *refuse* to accept volunteers below the age of 16, and then only with parental permission, despite the obvious enthusiasm of ten year old boys for warfare. 3) "Dumb Kid" laws exist in every state of the union that intrude on the most personal aspects of children's lives, effectively *denying* them the right to have sex with whomever and whatever they choose. Abolishing these discriminatory practices will be an important step into the Libertarian future! Baba
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (12/22/84)
> > > I'm a bit confused by the phrase "collective goods". I can't see > > > defining a collective good as something that's good for society as a > > > whole... > > > > What is good for society as a whole is what is good for most of the members. > > I think you should be careful about this. Killing welfare > recepients (instead of feeding them) could be construed as being > good for most of "society's" members. And again, who determines > what is "good" for whom? Government? Killing welfare recipients can be considered good for most people only in the most limited and short-sighted analyses. Probably the only way to decide what is good for most people is to see what most people think is good for most people, or at least what most people want. (Of course, in fields like international politics, this wouldn't work very well.) > > People who value ignorance as a virtue are, fortunately, a minority. If > > you don't believe what's being taught, that's no reason to say that you > > shouldn't be taught anything. > > Should these people be forced to be educated? Should I be forced to > provide their education (thru taxes, etc.)? The idea that the > initial use of force should be utilized to solve problems is exactly > what libertarians are arguing against. Force should only be used to > respond to attempts to infringe on an individuals rights to life, > liberty, and property. The origonal question was abot whether the children of people who value ignorance as a virtue should be taught. Since children are not, and cannot be expected to be, responsible for themselves (see below), it is justifiable to force them to do what is good for them. > > > I can't think of a single example of something that would be good for > > > EVERYBODY, at least not if each person were permitted to decide for > > > him/herself what's good for her/him. > > > > Well, neither can I, but just because people don't always know what's good > > for them doesn't mean that they are right. > > Say what?!! Government should decide what is best for me? Because > I *CAN'T* ?! The final judge of what is good for an individual IS > THAT INDIVIDUAL. I especially resent this argument that my liberty > is being infringed upon "for my own good". No, not YOU, I'm talking about other people. :-) > > > Under a libertarian system, all > > > schools would be private schools. Parents would be free to send their > > > children to the school of their choice. The children of the poor would go > > > to schools operated by private charities, or would be taught by their > > > parents. > > > > Parents would also be free no completely neglect their children's > > educations, which I think would be more common. Do you think that a > > poor unmaried mother would have the time and motivation (not to > > mention education) to teach her children herself? You have to consider > > the rights of the children to an education also, not only the rights > > of the parents to do whatever they want with their children. > > Yes, parents would be free to neglect their children's education, > just like it is now. Your solution to this problem is to use force > to coerce children into schools. The solution proposed by > libertarians is to realize that individuals do and should have the > ultimate responsibility to act in their own interest, and if this > includes not going to school (or not sending your children to > school) then it is nobody else's business. > > As for the rights of children to an education, you might note that > libertarians believe that human rights also extend to children, and > we make no distinction between "people" and "children". Hence, the > ultimate responsibility for a person's educations rests with that > person, not with his or her parents. The fact is that children are not capable of understanding their responsibilities and excercising their rights. If a child ran away from home and his parents tried to stop him, would you say that they are violating his basic rights? This is a major fallacy of libertarianism -- that every individual, no matter who he is or what he is like, has a basic right to do whatever he wants to do. If that individual is incapable of understanding what he is doing, I think that you can't give him this responsibility. Under your system, if you were consistent, the best thing that a parent could do with his child is to abandon it soon after birth, because he has no right to force it to stay with him when he does not know for sure that it wants to. In the case of such people, small children and insane people, for instance, who is to be responsible for them if they cannot be responsible for themselves? I think that the system we have now works reasonably well -- the parents of a child are responsible for him until he reaches a certain age, but if they do not do a good enough job the government becomes responsible for him. Wayne
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/24/84)
>Yes, parents would be free to neglect their children's education, >just like it is now. Your solution to this problem is to use force >to coerce children into schools. The solution proposed by >libertarians is to realize that individuals do and should have the >ultimate responsibility to act in their own interest, and if this >includes not going to school (or not sending your children to >school) then it is nobody else's business. Ah...The paradoxes of libertarianism. It is in MY best interest that your kids get a good education. I "do and should have the responsibility to act in [my] best interest," and therefore I have the right to coerce your children into school, No? I suspect you would answer, "no", but that wouldn't resolve the paradox, would it? -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt