rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/19/84)
> it is a philosophy > based on the idea that all people should act to further their interests. > Theirs, not anyone else's. [ANDY KOENIG] The problem is that libertarians are short-sighted in their "selfish" (Randian?) furthering of their own interests. They claim self-sufficiency, but this is often the result of either partial support from society at large and/or making use of facilities developed by a more cooperative society. > Nothing is funded by government; it is always funded by taxpayers. > Given that, there is nothing wrong with a bunch of people who live > near each other deciding to pool some of their resources and build > things like sewers and roads, as long as they can come to terms with > each other. When they build their sewers though, they do NOT have > the right to force people to give up their septic tanks and hook up > to the sewer system. This has nothing to do with government. They then have the right to require members of this bunch of people to pay their fair share into the maintenance of the things that they have built, or forfeit the right to use them. If they do not pay their fair share, the police (a legitimate function of government) would have the right to either disconnect the non-payers from the use of the service or penalize them in some other way. They'd also have to have some group/person to define what the fair share is, what would consitute reasonable and unreasonable use of the facilities, etc. If the size of the bunch of people got large enough, they might have to set up some sort of administrative function, and perhaps an elected governing body. WHOOPS!!! We just got back to representative democracy and taxation, and that, of course, is what we were trying to avoid in the first place! How'd that happen? The point is: libertarianism is a nice ideal, and its basic tenet---don't interfere in the lives of other people---is fundamental to the notion of a minimal rational morality. But as long as you have people and things, you're going to wind up administering some set of rules. Libertarians often claim to be loners, or self-sufficient survivalists, but this position is mythological. The minute you engage in ANY interaction with another person, even a fellow survivalist libertarian type (to take the extreme case), you have "taken part in society". Those who participate in societal interactions and enjoy the fruits of that society should probably expect to have to live up to some of the rules of the society, even some they might not like. A truly rational society would only have a minimal set of rules to begin with, but there WOULD be rules, and responsibilities. If one didn't want to adhere to the designated responsibilities, one would always be free to leave the society completely and not participate in any of the society's benefits. Andy claimed that "what he created/made was his property and he had sole right to it". Would it have been his property if society hadn't made available its police/security facilities, if he had to create/make from his "profits" his OWN security facility to protect his property. The point not being that such things ought to be taken away, but rather to point out that as long as one participates in a society one implicitly gains benefits from it, something I think libertarians often fail to see. >> Can someone give me a clearer picture of what libertarians would accept >> paying taxes for? [KIN WONG] > Nothing. Taxation is robery. [ANDY KOENIG] In Andy's argument above, he sees nothing wrong with people getting together and pooling resources to provide common goods/services. Isn't representative democracy just people getting together and selecting representatives to determine how common resources might be spent to provide common goods/services? To determine how much common resource ought to be contributed? Aren't such representatives not re-elected if their choices are not considered reasonable by their constituents? Isn't this how large groups of people (larger than could all represent themselves in a voting body) work in a democracy? (Before you jump up and say: "You're talking about an ideal picture here", remember that the only basis for judging libertarianism is ITS ideal picture.) A final question: if one of your "common services/goods" created by pooling resources was somehow permanently locked into your property (a road built down by the edge of a road leading to your property), would you have a right to use that road if you willfully didn't contribute to the maintenance of that road because you didn't feel like it? If you continued to use the common road despite your non-payment, what would the rest of the "bunch of people" be "allowed" to do to you and your property? -- Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr