ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (10/13/84)
First, note that not all Libertarians will agree with every answer I will give to your questions. I do not exactly consider myself a Libertarian, because I have not studied their specific party platform in detail, but I believe that my political views closely approximate theirs on most issues. Perhaps I should call myself a libertarian (with a small l). Ultimately, of course, you must decide on the merits of these ideas for yourself. > 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, More generally: rights, and the legitimate functions of government. > 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. True. It also fits everyone else, in that it is a philosophy based on the idea that all people should act to further their interests. Theirs, not anyone else's. > 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? (a) No. I have the right to use what I have created because that is my only means of survival as a rational -- i. e. human -- being. (b) Yes. The no one has the right to dictate to me what agreements I can and cannot make with others. > 2) What are considered "rightful" acquisition of property, and what > are not? You rightfully own what you create or what you receive in trade for something else you own. If you work for an employer, you trade your work, which is yours, for money, which you therefore rightfully own. You can then trade that money for other things, and so on. > 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. Political power, in the sense I think you mean it, is not property. No one has the right to initiate or threaten the use of physical force against another. A government limited to its rightful functions would only be permitted to use its "political power" in defense of people's rights against those who try to abrogate them. In other words: courts, police, armed forces. > 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"? You are absolutely right that you cannot do what you like with my property. I earned it, so it's mine. Since it's mine, I can do what I like with it. This includes: give it to my children (if I had children), give it to you, give it to anyone, squander it, or destroy it. > I am not, repeat, NOT arguing that inheritance is unjustified, but > I would like to point out the above point on despotism and inheritance. Despotism is not a right, and is not property. It is not to be sanctioned under any circumstances, let alone given away. > 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. Correct. > 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), Yes, unfortunately. > and this is certainly a valid point, No it isn't, but that doesn't stop people from doing it anyway. > but do > libertarians also held that such laws are too much, Yes. > and prefer full > freedom in whatever they want to do with their property? Yes. > What would > libertarians accept on laws governing their property? I can do whatever I want with my property, as long as it does not interfere with your right to do the same, and vice versa. Thus, if you are my neighbor, I cannot lob rocks into your yard. > On taxes, I have the notion that libertarians would like to pay none Correct. > except perhaps for national defense, No; taxation is theft. Well, really more like robbery. There are many ways to support a legitimately small government without robbery. One proposal I have seen is for the government to offer contract insurance. When you sign a contract, you may elect to pay some fraction of the money involved in the transaction to "insure" the contract. This is not insurance in the ordinary sense of the word: what you would be buying is the right to enforce the contract in court should the other party default. In the absence of this "insurance," the government would wash its hands of the deal. When you consider that every credit transaction is a contract, and you consider how much business is transacted on credit, you will see that the amount of money available by this means would be quite sizeable. > and leave everything else to > private enterprise. Correct. > I would like to know what they would like be > done about police, Police is one of the legitimate functions of government. > public education, Abolish public education. It's collapsing anyway. > justice department, Courts are a legitimate function of government. > environmental > protection agencies, If I pollute the air you breathe or the water you drink, you should have the right to sue me. If there is some land that you and a bunch of your friends want to preserve as a park, a wilderness area, or whatever, then buy it. > emergency aid to disaster areas That's what insurance companies are for. > 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 ? 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. > Can someone give me a clearer > picture of what libertarians would accept paying taxes for? Nothing. Taxation is robery. > 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? I expect you will find some people to support each view. I support both, but consider the second to be completely incidental, in the sense that I would support individual rights even if I thought a better society would not result.