klw@iwlc8.UUCP (kin wong) (10/13/84)
Several articles on this group have brought up the issue of libertarianism. I do not know much about libertarianism, and have only form opinions about them from a few articles on them that come over on the net. The major points that libertarianism touch seem to be property rights, and taxes, and I have the notion that it is a philosophy that fit those who are quite well to do, am contented with their income but wholly frustrated with paying taxes. It could be that I am totally mistaken, as such I have several questions on this for libertarians, and if my impression is wrong, they can surely correct it. 1) Should there be a limit of property rights, if so, what are the limits? (e.g. if all the land in a country is owned by just a few people, should governments have the right to "nationalize" them?) Would laws against monopoly be against libertarianism? 2) What are considered "rightful" acquisition of property, and what are not? 3) On the question of inheritance, we do not seem to treat economic "power" the same as political "power", i.e. we do not agree that political should be passed from parent to child (despotism), but we do think it justified that we can give our properties to our children. In the case of land ownership for example, owners of land certainly have "power", in the sense that they are the ones who decide who can do what on those property. What is the difference between these two forms of power that we think one case is "just", and the other "unjust"? I am not, repeat, NOT arguing that inheritance is unjustified, but I would like to point out the above point on despotism and inheritance. Some reasons I can think of in support of the right of inheritance is that children inherit genes (and whatever that come from them) from their parents anyway, and we certainly cannot say that parents have no such rights, otherwise there would be no children. Also if one can give one's properties to anyone, one can certainly give them to ones' children. Also one could argue that laws can be passed to reduce the rights of property owners (e.g. non-discrimination based on race, sex..., when renting or selling property), and this is certainly a valid point, but do libertarians also held that such laws are too much, and prefer full freedom in whatever they want to do with their property? What would libertarians accept on laws governing their property? On taxes, I have the notion that libertarians would like to pay none except perhaps for national defense, and leave everything else to private enterprise. I would like to know what they would like be done about police, public education, justice department, environmental protection agencies, emergency aid to disaster areas etc. Should most public services be all left to communities that can afford them? or would they tolerate some "minimum" amount of general public services funded by government ? Can someone give me a clearer picture of what libertarians would accept paying taxes for? Finally, there is this philosophical question -- when libertarians proposed say, property rights, are they arguing for such rights in terms of "inalienable" or "absolute" rights, i.e. (regardless of the effects on society, such rights must be guaranteed, because they are "rights" ), or do they propose such rights based on the belief that such "rights" ultimately would produce a better, fairer, more just society, and are arguing for such rights on the basis that they make a better society? Not yet a libertarian, kin wong
graham@convex.UUCP (10/18/84)
There is such a thing as "working smart". One does not always have to do
do something "the hard way" when there is an ethically sound "easy way".
I have no objection to weath which is acquired the easy way so long as
it also an ethical way.
Marv Graham; Convex Computer Corp. {allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs,ctvax}!convex!graham