torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) (12/10/85)
In article <841@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: >Here we get closer to the real issues. It is impossible to do ANYTHING >without polluting at least a little bit. Where do you draw the line? >More to the point, HOW do you draw the line? I have yet to see a >reasonable response to any of these questions from any libertarian. Let's put the issue in down-home terms: is it OK for me to piss in the toilet over there, where the waste will eventually be treated (but not rendered *completely* innocent) and then dumped in some river? I went through several rounds of discussion with Nat Howard on this once, and never got a convincing answer. Do libertarians have a principled solution? Hurry up with those answers -- I can't hold it in forever! --the blooming iconoclast, Paul V Torek torek@umich
radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) (12/13/85)
> >Here we get closer to the real issues. It is impossible to do ANYTHING > >without polluting at least a little bit. Where do you draw the line? > >More to the point, HOW do you draw the line? I have yet to see a > >reasonable response to any of these questions from any libertarian. I think any libertarian who thinks about it will have to agree that there is a problem here. Somehow one has to decide that certain things which could conceivably be made the subject of property rights are to be considered "common" because their effects are too trivial, and the effects of making them property are to severe. This isn't particularly surprising. All political philosophies have similar "weak points", arising because they are social approximations to more base moral principles. I don't think it is a valid argument against libertarianism to point this out. Sometime I might get around to thinking about and posting how a libertarian society would manage to gloss this one over. For now, about all I could say is that much of the problem might go away in a society of diverse communities. People could chose the community that's in accord with their views. Of course there's still inter-community pollution... Radford Neal
torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) (12/15/85)
In article <618@calgary.UUCP> radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes: >This isn't particularly surprising. All political philosophies have >similar "weak points", arising because they are social approximations >to more base moral principles. I don't think it is a valid argument against >libertarianism to point this out. It depends. If you regard your libertarianism as logically derived from certain moral "axioms" (whether or not you regard the "axioms" as provable), then it IS a valid argument. If you fudge your logical derivation at any point in such a system, you ruin the whole system. If you regard your libertarianism as merely an attempt to systematize some conflicting intuitions, then you shouldn't be worried by the pollution argument. However, first, I wonder how anyone could admit that this is the only foundation of his ethical views, and still be a libertarian -- after all, libertarians seem to be pretty dogmatic about exceptionless rules. Second, I tend to agree with Stubblefield that one's ethical views should have a better foundation (note that this assumes they CAN have a better foundation!). --Paul V Torek torek@umich
radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) (12/17/85)
> In article <618@calgary.UUCP> radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes: > >This isn't particularly surprising. All political philosophies have > >similar "weak points", arising because they are social approximations > >to more base moral principles. I don't think it is a valid argument against > >libertarianism to point this out. > > It depends. If you regard your libertarianism as logically derived from > certain moral "axioms" (whether or not you regard the "axioms" as provable), > then it IS a valid argument. If you fudge your logical derivation at any > point in such a system, you ruin the whole system. > > If you regard your libertarianism as merely an attempt to systematize some > conflicting intuitions, then you shouldn't be worried by the pollution > argument. However, first, I wonder how anyone could admit that this is the > only foundation of his ethical views, and still be a libertarian -- after > all, libertarians seem to be pretty dogmatic about exceptionless rules.... Some libertarians may be dogmatic about rules, but I don't feel any such obligation. What I meant is that the *political ideology* of libertarianism is justified (for me) on the basis of moral principles, but that this justification is not absolute. There are exceptions in certain extreme cases (extreme meaning "not the typical case considered in the justification") and in things like "lifeboat situations". For an analogy, consider the derivation of classical electrodynamics from quantum electrodynamics. The classical laws can be derived as statistical approximations, but not absolutely. In practice, this means that I can apply the usual "rules" of libertarianism to a large number of real cases but don't have to try to defend *every* application of them to peculiar circumstances. I don't think this is cheating; everyone does it. It's just only noticable in people with a coherent ideology. Radford Neal
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/17/85)
In article <618@calgary.UUCP> radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes: >> >Here we get closer to the real issues. It is impossible to do ANYTHING >> >without polluting at least a little bit. Where do you draw the line? >> >More to the point, HOW do you draw the line? I have yet to see a >> >reasonable response to any of these questions from any libertarian. > >I think any libertarian who thinks about it will have to agree that there >is a problem here. Somehow one has to decide that certain things which >could conceivably be made the subject of property rights are to be considered >"common" because their effects are too trivial, and the effects of making >them property are to severe. The problem is the in between cases. At one time putting smoke in the air was a "common" right, because its effects were too trivial. Today, that it is no longer true. Yet you cannot make the air property; the effects are too severe. The only solution I can think of is government regulation. >This isn't particularly surprising. All political philosophies have >similar "weak points", arising because they are social approximations >to more base moral principles. I don't think it is a valid argument against >libertarianism to point this out. The question is, how useful is the approximation? Pollution is not exactly an esoteric issue. >Sometime I might get around to thinking about and posting how a libertarian >society would manage to gloss this one over. For now, about all I could >say is that much of the problem might go away in a society of diverse >communities. People could chose the community that's in accord with their >views. Of course there's still inter-community pollution... Let me get something off my chest: IT'S ALL INTER-CONNECTED AND YOU CAN'T TAKE IT APART. Thank you. That feels much better. Pollution is *mostly* an inter-community problem. If a community doesn't like its own wastes, it gets rid of them. (Note that the worst outstanding pollution problems are the international ones.) The situation improves as you approximate one large community, and gets worse if you split into many small ones. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) (12/19/85)
In article <2@calgary.UUCP> radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes: >For an analogy, consider the derivation of classical electrodynamics from >quantum electrodynamics. The classical laws can be derived as statistical >approximations, but not absolutely. > >In practice, this means that I can apply the usual "rules" of libertarianism >to a large number of real cases but don't have to try to defend *every* >application of them to peculiar circumstances. I don't think this is >cheating; everyone does it. Well, it depends. Note that one can predict when the classical laws fail, and when they do fail, one can turn to quantum-mechanical desription for principled answers. Now, what analogous recourse does your libertarianism have in the problem cases? If there is none, I think something very fishy is going on. --Paul V Torek torek@umich (Or is that torek@zippy now? Darn rn headers!)