klw@iwlc8.UUCP (kin wong) (10/25/84)
I want to reply to those who have written on libertarianism in reply to my earlier article. I disagree with someone who said that discussion on libertarianism should be totally removed from this group. After all there is some philosophy in libertarianism, although in my view a bankrupt one. Libertarianism has been described by its supporters to be a philosophy that "respects the sanctity of the individual". So far so good, however for unexplained reasons, it is also held that "property rights" is part of this "sanctity", and this "property rights" was further extended to mean "you can do whatever you want with your property". Some would argue that the later point is not included in their philosophy, in that case I have no quarrel; but in reply to my statement that the government can pass laws regulating their use of property (e.g. ensuring non discrimination based on race, sex, etc in renting or selling a house), the replies from libertarians were "no, government have no right to do such things, but they do it anyway", and answer yes to my query that do they really mean they want the rights of " you can do whatever you want with your property" . Such a view, if carried to its logical conclusion, would give us the following: An employer can discriminate, ban unions, provide no safety standards if he/she so choose; someone who bought a piece of jungle can poisoned all the wildlife, pollute it with radioactive waste or toxic chemicals, rendering it uninhabitable for generations to come. Anyone who manage to somehow build an atom bomb would have the right to keep it, regardless of its dangers. Someone who owns a piece of land including a major tributary of an important river have the right to divert all its water to someplace else with total disregard to the people down stream, etc, etc. Libertarians want roads and highways to be built and owned by private enterprise, so if my company own and built the highway from town A to town B, I have the right to refuse access to anyone that displeases me; imagine the power of the corporation that manage to have monopoly of highways! It is desirable that the power of the government over individuals be limited, but to grant individuals the right to own anything (howabout the sea and the airspace-- if I put a floating fence surrounding several thousands of acres of an ocean, does that make the sea area mine?) and the right to do anything to his/her property is ridiculous. It is nice to think that we are "respecting" individual rights, but fact is there is no guarantee that individuals would act in a responsible manner; in fact, with all the prejudice, hatred, homicidal maniacs, megalomaniacs that we have, giving such rights to individuals is sure to invite conflicts and injustice. Finally, on those who want to pay zero taxes: they want criminals to be caught, prosecuted, and locked up, but don't want to pay a cent for it! But perhaps I am mistaken, perhaps they like to live behind barbed wire fence, and dream about standing heroically in front of their homes shouting to some presumably hostile stranger the famous words " get off my land, Boy"
mwm@ea.UUCP (10/29/84)
["Why should a blockhead get one in ten?"] This is a blatant attempt to get the libertarian discussion out of the greed vs. extortion rut it's been in since its inception. Libertarians disagree about whether the government can pass laws regulating the use of property, and about what is and isn't property. This ranges from everything being property (anarchy) on the far right, to natural resources and production facilities not being property - and hence controlled by the government (socialism) on the far left. [Personally, I'm far left; democratic socialism is a right-wing plot. :-] What seem to penetrate to the core of libertarianism is something that hasn't been discussed here. Namely, that i own my body. [I *hope* there aren't any libertarians - or anyone else - who thinks that people should be property!] The statists, either on the right or on the left, appear to disagree about this, and pass laws to control what I can do with my body. For instance, the use of recreational drugs other than those in the "correct set" draws cries of "that's bad for you, you'll be a menace to society" and laws against it from the right-wing statists. On the other hand, trying to use medicinal drugs other than those in the "correct set" draws cries of "that could be dangerous, you could get hurt" and laws against it from the left-wing statists. Both groups of people, though they are urging entirely different sets of laws on the populace, are doing the same thing. They have decided that they know better what's good for me than I do, and are trying to protect me from myself. I don't really object to people trying to protect me from myself. What I object to is throwing people in jail when they don't agree with you on the subject, and act in what *they* think is their best interest. Comments, anyone? <mike
rwh@aesat.UUCP (Russell Herman) (11/02/84)
>What seem to penetrate to the core of libertarianism is something that >hasn't been discussed here. Namely, that i own my body. [I *hope* there >aren't any libertarians - or anyone else - who thinks that people should be >property!] The statists, either on the right or on the left, appear to >disagree about this, and pass laws to control what I can do with my body. > > ea!mwm Mike, I don't think you have to be a statist to pass laws about what you can do with your body. Do you favour being able to sell yourself into slavery? What about "organlegging" - should only the rich have access to kidney transplants? We can argue about where to draw the line; whether you have the right to pollute yourself with the chemical of your choice, or sell (perhaps rent is the better term) your body for sexual purposes, but there is a line somewhere. Remember, you don't HAVE a body, you ARE a body. -- ______ 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 (11/05/84)
> Mike, I don't think you have to be a statist to pass laws about what you > can do with your body. Do you favour being able to sell yourself into > slavery? I wouldn't want to sell myself into slavery, but I see no reason why I (or anyone else) should be allowed to stop somebody else who wanted to do so. Of course, that does present interesting problems - like who gets the compensation for the sale? :-). Something similar to selling yourself into slavery would be joining the US armed forces today. You sign a contract saying you will accept assignments, etc. given to you by the army, within certain limits, with no reasonable out (prison?). > What about "organlegging" - should only the rich have access to > kidney transplants? Only the rich currently have access to kidney transplants. Of course, many never see the money - it gets passed from the racketeer who took it from those who had it to the people involved in giving you a transplant. (half :-) I didn't say anything about what happens to your body after you cease to inhabit it, and I don't consider worrying about such to be in the purview of libertarianism. About transplanting your kidneys before you quit using your body, I certainly hope that you don't think people should be forced to give up their kidneys until they are through with them! > We can argue about where to draw the line; whether you > have the right to pollute yourself with the chemical of your choice, or > sell (perhaps rent is the better term) your body for sexual purposes, but > there is a line somewhere. There is? If I have the right to end my own life (and I claim I do), then it doesn't seem to make sense to worry about anything else I can do to/with my body. > Remember, you don't HAVE a body, you ARE a body. You may be a body, but I *have* one. I hope to be uploaded to something more durable in the future (and off we go into another net.philosophy debate.) > Russ Herman > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!aesat!rwh "Protect your software at all costs; the rest is meat." <mike