janw@inmet.UUCP (12/18/85)
> [Bob Stubblefield] The libertarian umbrella shelters conservative > "capitalists" who dare not speak in favor of selfishness, hippies who believe > in communal living, pragmatists who believe crime can be rational for > criminals, anarchists who believe that the concept of contract has meaning > in the absence of government, and anyone else who proclaims to be in favor > of liberty. This is the sense in which libertarianism takes liberty as an > axiom. And this is the reason that libertarianism is anti-philosophical. In effect, Bob accuses libertarians of forming an eclectic coali- tion in which everyone compromises her principles. There cannot, of course, be a coalition without a compromise. There are two kinds of compromise. Suppose one of us thinks twice two is six, the other that it is four. The wrong kind of compromise would be to split the difference and declare to the world 2*2 = 5. The *right* kind of compromise is to agree that the result is, at least, EVEN. Now we can confront the ODD party together ! One might suggest there is a third way: check the result. Being both rational, we will quickly agree. The trouble with this is that problems vary in difficulty. The time it takes for rational people to agree varies from seconds to millennia (during which, the problem keeps changing on us). Meanwhile, there is a need for cooperation and there are points of agreement. I believe the libertarian coalition to be of the right kind: it is united around a *principle* which is, for various members of it, a part of their respective comprehensive philosophies. The philosophies need not be identical, though they all have some- thing in common. There is nothing unphilosophical in this plur- alism. Refusal to *discuss* the differences would, indeed, be un- philosophical. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (12/19/85)
> [Bob Stubblefield] The libertarian umbrella shelters > ... anarchists who believe that the concept of contract has meaning > in the absence of government ... But of course it does ! Does the treaty on USA-Canada border have no meaning in the absence of a super-government ? Then why is it kept so well ? A lot of people pay their card debts - a contract unenforceable by government. Would Bob welch on a lost bet ? I'll bet him a buck he would not (a self-referential wager ...). A bet is a contract, and government has nothing to do with it. Jan Wasilewsky
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (12/20/85)
In article <28200411@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > > > [Bob Stubblefield] The libertarian umbrella shelters > > ... anarchists who believe that the concept of contract has meaning > > in the absence of government ... > > But of course it does ! Does the treaty on USA-Canada border have no > meaning in the absence of a super-government ? Then why is it kept > so well ? Contracts are generally enforced by threat. Without a threat, there is no reason to uphold the other end of the contract. The threat can be nice (I wouldn't trade with you any more) or nasty (I'd shoot you.) Threats are effective according to enforceability. Neither of the above threats is effective with a fly-by night operator, but they are effective for essentially immobile neighbors like the USA and Canada. Governments can provide effective threats for contracts with several social benefits. 1) More powerful than the individual can provide. 2) Standard limitations to threats. 3) Standards for contract enforcement allow less conservative judgement of contract risks, which increases number of contracts accepted, and thus benefits business. I'm sure libertarians will point out (accurately) that private organizations could perform these tasks also. (Which is better is a different debate.) I just want to demolish these two straw horses. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
janw@inmet.UUCP (12/22/85)
[Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh] >In article <28200411@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: >> >> > [Bob Stubblefield] The libertarian umbrella shelters >> > ... anarchists who believe that the concept of contract has meaning >> > in the absence of government ... >> >> But of course it does ! Does the treaty on USA-Canada border have no >> meaning in the absence of a super-government ? Then why is it kept >> so well ? > >Contracts are generally enforced by threat. Without a threat, there is >no reason to uphold the other end of the contract. The threat can be nice >(I wouldn't trade with you any more) or nasty (I'd shoot you.) > >Threats are effective according to enforceability. Neither of the above >threats is effective with a fly-by night operator, but they are effective >for essentially immobile neighbors like the USA and Canada. > >Governments can provide effective threats for contracts with several social >benefits. 1) More powerful than the individual can provide. 2) Standard >limitations to threats. 3) Standards for contract enforcement allow less >conservative judgement of contract risks, which increases number of >contracts accepted, and thus benefits business. > >I'm sure libertarians will point out (accurately) that private organizations >could perform these tasks also. (Which is better is a different debate.) >I just want to demolish these two straw horses. Mike: I had to quote your argument as a whole because I didn't understand it, so couldn't condense. Which two straw horses ? And are you rebutting my point or making a separate one (either would be all right, to be sure) ? My point was : the concept of contract retains a meaning even in the absence of government. Have I made it to your satisfaction ? --Jan W.