flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek) (08/22/84)
An awful lot of this discussion seems to be on the level of it's-mine-and-I-don't-wanna-share and I-shouldn't-have-to-do-it- if-I-don't-want-to. Of course, the opposing attitude of "we're stronger than you are, and you'll do what we tell you whether you want to or not" is an attitude that most bullies hold. <mike But we (non-libertarians) ARE stronger than you (libertarians) are! And this is not entirely beside the point. Libertarians have a hangup about coercion. They are always eager to defend the 'right' of cigar-smoking millionaires to buy a seventh car while others starve. This they argue in the name of 'liberty'. The problem with their view is that SUCH LIBERTY DOES NOT HAVE THE OVERRIDING VALUE WHICH THEY SEEM TO ATTRIBUTE TO IT. And if it is not supposed to be a matter of the value of liberty relative to other goods -- if libertarian-style 'rights' are supposed to be acknowledged regardless of the value of doing so -- then the supposed justification of libertarianism is left entirely mysterious. Libertarians have yet to supply an argument for regarding 'liberty' as the overriding value they take it to be. And unless and until they do so, we political moderates have every logical right to think otherwise. If preventing starvation requires depriving wealthy persons of some of 'their' 'property', so be it. And since we ARE stronger than you are, the PRACTICAL burden of argument rests on you to convince us we are wrong. Furthermore, I submit that such an argument is not forthcoming. Reason: it is impossible to give a sound argument for a false conclusion. --The aspiring iconoclast, Paul Torek, umcp-cs!flink
mwm@ea.UUCP (08/25/84)
#R:umcp-cs:-813500:ea:9800033:000:1425 ea!mwm Aug 24 16:50:00 1984 > is from: --The aspiring iconoclast, > Paul Torek, umcp-cs!flink > Libertarians have yet to supply an argument for regarding 'liberty' as the > overriding value they take it to be. Furthermore, I submit that such an > argument is not forthcoming. Reason: it is impossible to give a sound > argument for a false conclusion. Yes, you won't get an argument. Why? The key can be found in your own words: > LIBERTY DOES NOT HAVE THE OVERRIDING VALUE WHICH THEY SEEM TO ATTRIBUTE TO IT. The key word is "value." What I think liberty is worth is a value call, and as such can't be explained. Let's turn the challenge around: Can you tell me why freedom - either mine or anybody else's - is worth *less* than a human life? I don't think you can do it, because that's a value call. If you can, I'll attempt to show why freedom is worth so much. And yes, I think that freedom is worth more than a human life, even if it is the one I'm most attached to. I'd rather be dead than a slave. People dying trying to escape from southern plantations suggest that I'm not alone in this sentiment. > But we (non-libertarians) ARE stronger than you (libertarians) are! > And since we ARE stronger than you are, the PRACTICAL burden of argument > rests on you to convince us we are wrong. You're right, you are. So we bitch about the coercion, just like you bitch about people stronger than you doing things you don't like. <mike
neal@denelcor.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (09/07/84)
************************************************************************** >Libertarians have yet to supply an argument for regarding 'liberty' as the >overriding value they take it to be. And unless and until they do so, we >political moderates have every logical right to think otherwise. If >preventing starvation requires depriving wealthy persons of some of 'their' >'property', so be it. And since we ARE stronger than you are, the PRACTICAL >burden of argument rests on you to convince us we are wrong. Furthermore, I >submit that such an argument is not forthcoming. Reason: it is impossible >to give a sound argument for a false conclusion. > --The aspiring iconoclast, > Paul Torek, umcp-cs!flink O.K., here are two to try on for size: 1. "The Goose that Laid the Golden Egg" also "The Modern Little Red Hen". If you really think that you can do better for yourself(ves) by banging us over the head and taking what we have than you can by trading for what we create, I submit that your philosophy is in pretty bad shape. What happens when you run out of people that are willing to produce so that you can rob them? 2. If you really want to bring it down to this level, I further submit that, even though you might outnumber us, productive people make better fighters than starving people. Regards, Neal Weidenhofer "Nothin' ain't worth nothin' Denelcor, Inc. but it's free" <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/12/84)
I always thought the "problem with libertarianism" is that, in their
quest for ultimate personal freedoms, they ignore/deny/nullify any
implicit and/or explicit agreements they have made as human beings
with the rest of society.
Example: Some libertarians feel restricted by what they consider to
be unfair traffic laws (speeding regulations). The rules have been
made as to how roads that were constructed using public monies should
be used, yet these people don't like them. So much so that they'll
violate them at will (instead of or just possibly in addition to lobbying
for changes in the rules). The rational solution for libertarians who
dislike the rules of the road (or any societal rules concerning some
common societal element) is for them not to use the roads at all (or to
build roads of their own, though that's unlikely since it would involve
a cooperative effort among libertarians, and *that* might result in rules
and other infringements on their personal freedoms).
Since we're discussing money, let's bring up the subject of taxes, which
many libertarians feel is a form of enslavement. But let's look at it
rationally. Taxes pay for public services, common societal functions,
like the roads described above, police/military protection, etc. Thus,
logically, anyone who doesn't pay taxes is not entitled to any of these
services/functions (unless other societal rules deem them as hardship cases
or exemptions). If one is only to allow those who pay their defined share
to make use of the desired facilities, then some mechanism is necessary to
administer and regulate and prevent those who haven't paid from doing the same.
Since it's their choice not to pay, shouldn't they then pay for at least the
cost of administering the system? (Point being: either way, you lose.)
The typical libertarian response to all of this revolves around "the dangers
of bureaucracy and government". Obviously, too much government and bureaucracy
is counterproductive (and quite possibly dangerous). But does this imply that
they should be eliminated almost entirely? If this country should "go
libertarian" (e.g., the government as we know it falls after a nuclear war,
and "everybody is on their own"), how long do you think it would take for
even the strongest-minded libertarians to wind up having to form some set of
societal agreements, followed by a government to administer these agreements,
followed by a bureaucracy to maintain that government? ("Remember, we're
against bureaucracy and government in our new society! That's why we have the
Bureaucracy and Government Prevention Agency to make sure that the minimal
government we agree upon doesn't get out of hand!")
Lest you jump in and remark: "If you honestly think that what you described
is how this country operates (re: taxes, services, government), then you're
un poco loco, senor." I never said that the US (or any country) operates in
the ideal fashion I describe. Mainly because ideals don't often work in
real life situations to the degree expected. The rules, in many cases, are
fouled up. And so are the implementations of some of the meta-rules (the
rules/methods for making rules). But the foundations laid by the meta-rules
(if people work to make best rational use of them) are sound, and have great
potential for rational society.
In summary, it would appear that libertarians want the benefits of cooperative
societal efforts without being "forced by governmental or any other kind of
authority to participate in such efforts" (i.e., without participating in them
for whatever reason).
I do hope to hear what libertarians have to say about my perceptions of
libertarianism, hopefully beyond the "that's a load of crap and you're an
asshole" style of argument.
--
Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought.
Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlrmwm@ea.UUCP (09/17/84)
/***** ea:net.philosophy / pyuxn!rlr / 7:47 pm Sep 13, 1984 */ > I always thought the "problem with libertarianism" is that, in their > quest for ultimate personal freedoms, they ignore/deny/nullify any > implicit and/or explicit agreements they have made as human beings > with the rest of society. No, we only deny implicit agreements that the rest of society has forced on us (usually at gunpoint). > Example: Some libertarians feel restricted by what they consider to > be unfair traffic laws (speeding regulations). The rules have been > made as to how roads that were constructed using public monies should > be used, yet these people don't like them. So much so that they'll > violate them at will (instead of or just possibly in addition to lobbying > for changes in the rules). The rational solution for libertarians who > dislike the rules of the road (or any societal rules concerning some > common societal element) is for them not to use the roads at all I don't know any libertarians who are willing to violate traffic laws at will; at least any more so than everybody else who is ignoring the 55 mph limit. You are correct in that breaking the laws because you don't agree with them isn't a rational solution. However, not using the roads at all *isn't* a rational solution. You still have to pay to support them, and there isn't an alternative road system available. My solution was to not use cars, and thus avoid the high tax on gasoline (but not the high sales tax). > (or to > build roads of their own, though that's unlikely since it would involve > a cooperative effort among libertarians, and *that* might result in rules > and other infringements on their personal freedoms). Ah, yes, but those infringement are entered into with complete knowledge that it would happen. I, for one, had absolutely *nothing* to do with the current system of public roads, and make negligible use of them. However, I still have to pay taxes to keep those roads up (and poorly, at that) for people who do use them. If they can afford a car, why can't they afford to support the roads without my help? > Since we're discussing money, let's bring up the subject of taxes, which > many libertarians feel is a form of enslavement. But let's look at it > rationally. Taxes pay for public services, common societal functions, > like the roads described above, police/military protection, etc. Thus, > logically, anyone who doesn't pay taxes is not entitled to any of these > services/functions (unless other societal rules deem them as hardship cases > or exemptions). If one is only to allow those who pay their defined share > to make use of the desired facilities, then some mechanism is necessary to > administer and regulate and prevent those who haven't paid from doing the same. > Since it's their choice not to pay, shouldn't they then pay for at least the > cost of administering the system? (Point being: either way, you lose.) You have the idea right, but have totally mangled the implementation. You don't keep track of who has & hasn't paid, you keep track of who is and isn't willing to pay, and bill them at the time of service (or shortly thereafter). The cost of keeping track (if you need to) is part of the overhead of the service, and shows up in a higher cost of service. Using your roads example again, what you wind up with is a system of toll roads. The ones we have seem to be working fine. At this point, someone is sure to throw up the straw man "but you use these services even if you don't use them explicitly, in that other services you do use use them." The reply is that use of such services is part of the overhead for the services I use. As such, I expect to help pay for it by paying slightly higher prices than I would if the service in question doesn't use the service I don't use (gack, what a mouthful! :-). > The typical libertarian response to all of this revolves around "the dangers > of bureaucracy and government". Obviously, too much government and bureaucracy > is counterproductive (and quite possibly dangerous). But does this imply that > they should be eliminated almost entirely? No, no, no, it's not "the dangers of bureaucracy and government," but "the dangers of government interference in private lifes." Not quite the same thing - and the results are different. One gives you no or little government, the other gives you no or little *noticeable* government. BTW, don't confuse libertarianism with anarchism. Anarchists advocate no government at all; I'm not sure why (any anarchists want to speak up?). > Lest you jump in and remark: "If you honestly think that what you described > is how this country operates (re: taxes, services, government), then you're > un poco loco, senor." I never said that the US (or any country) operates in > the ideal fashion I describe. Mainly because ideals don't often work in > real life situations to the degree expected. The rules, in many cases, are > fouled up. And so are the implementations of some of the meta-rules (the > rules/methods for making rules). But the foundations laid by the meta-rules > (if people work to make best rational use of them) are sound, and have great > potential for rational society. All very true. The question is, what goal should the 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. > In summary, it would appear that libertarians want the benefits of cooperative > societal efforts without being "forced by governmental or any other kind of > authority to participate in such efforts" (i.e., without participating in them > for whatever reason). You have it almost right. I don't want to be "forced by governmental or any other kind of authority" to participate in such 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. > I do hope to hear what libertarians have to say about my perceptions of > libertarianism, hopefully beyond the "that's a load of crap and you're an > asshole" style of argument. Well, I most certainly didn't call you an asshole. I tried to correct some of your misconceptions about libertarianism (at least my brand of it. There are many different flavors - that's what you get from what a philosophy that esteems individualism.) > -- > Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought. > Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr Need to borrow a bus token? :-) <mike