orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (06/19/85)
As I noted before, I really don't care about what may or may not be
in any given individual's self-interest, nor do I consider such a
topic an issue of politics. If somebody chooses to commit protracted
suicide by smoking that is their choice, and while I may try to
discourage friends from making that choice because they are friends,
otherwise it is really none of my business. *Until* that smoking
starts to affect my own health by polluting the air that I breathe.
What *difference* does it make to political decisions *what* a
particular person decides is in their self-interest?
*Unless* it *does* have social and political implications?
And then we can no longer argue about what is best for a given
individual in one given situation and go back to the fundamental
issue of politics- how do we improve the interests of *all*?
*That* is the fundamental question of politics!
For non-Libertarians such as Baba and Tony to waste their words
arguing about one individuals self-interest is foolish.
Let us return to Basics.
For example, to return again to the mundane example I have cited before
which we usually encounter almost every day: consider traffic.
It would obviously be in *my* self-interest if everybody just got the
hell out of my way as I speed down the road at 100 miles per hour.
So what?
Unless I am either a tinhorn dictator or some sort of privileged
aristocrat or a high-ranking party member that isn't going to happen.
And even if it *does* happen does that make it right?
Unless some higher purpose is served (eg fire engines and ambulances)
it is *unjust* and *unfair* for one driver to have more privileges than
another. The rule of law requires laws to be applied fairly to *all*.
The decision to adopt such rules of law is a political decision.
Moreover it is hardly one which has been adopted in all times and places
including our own.
By continuing endless debate about *self* interest, nonLibertarians
are failing to address the fundamental questions of politics of
*social* interests.
tim sevener whuxl!orb
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/19/85)
>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 5:46 pm Jun 18, 1985 */ >Unless I am either a tinhorn dictator or some sort of privileged >aristocrat or a high-ranking party member that isn't going to happen. >And even if it *does* happen does that make it right? >Unless some higher purpose is served (eg fire engines and ambulances) >it is *unjust* and *unfair* for one driver to have more privileges than >another. What do you mean by "higher purpose?" Why should such a purpose (fire engines, etc.) be considered higher? >By continuing endless debate about *self* interest, nonLibertarians >are failing to address the fundamental questions of politics of >*social* interests. How do you suppose that a group can have interests which are not derived from the interests of individuals within the group? > tim sevener whuxl!orb Mike Sykora
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (06/20/85)
In article <657@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >As I noted before, I really don't care about what may or may not be >in any given individual's self-interest, nor do I consider such a >topic an issue of politics. ... > >What *difference* does it make to political decisions *what* a >particular person decides is in their self-interest? > ... >And then we can no longer argue about what is best for a given >individual in one given situation and go back to the fundamental >issue of politics- how do we improve the interests of *all*? > >*That* is the fundamental question of politics! >...it is *unjust* and *unfair* for one driver to have more privileges than >another. The rule of law requires laws to be applied fairly to *all*. >The decision to adopt such rules of law is a political decision. >Moreover it is hardly one which has been adopted in all times and places >including our own. > tim sevener whuxl!orb Are there two tim seveners? If not, I will have to revise my opinion of the one to some degree. The questions and positions posed here are interesting and reasonable. Now, into the fray. The basic question is, what is the "interests of all", the social good? Is there such a thing? If so, is it any different from the self-interests of the individuals in the society, perhaps weighted in some way, and summed? If so, and this is essentially the utilitarian point of view, how are the self-interests of the individuals to be reckoned--by a single universal criterion or as judged by the people themselves? Since tim does not appear to feel that the self-interests of the individuals are part of the interest of the whole, (claiming it irrelevant to talk about them), perhaps we should seek the good of society elsewhere. Surprisingly, I agree. I feel that the good of society as a whole lies in the system of morals which defines the interactions through which individuals can seek their *own* self-interests without ruining the prospects of others from doing likewise. It is of technical interest to consider which sets of rules for ordering a society protect the health of society as a whole, and which merely organize it to the self-interest of some of the members (generally at the expense of the others). It is clear that a democracy fails this test. The individuals in a society will always act in their own self-interests; even if voting were a theoretically perfect collective decision-making process (no such process is possible), the result would then merely reflect the self-interests of all the people voting (in reality, it reflects the self-interests of the more powerful groups). A market-like system is at least theoretically capable of exhibiting the behavior we would like. In a market, the collective result is often completely different than the (self-interested) intents of all the actors therein. The competition of producers, each trying to make as much money as possible, drives prices down. The result of the market decision-making procedure is an overall allocation of resources and goods, efforts and rewards, that *no single individual can even understand*. Can the mechanisms of the market be adapted to make the law in the same synergistic way? I don't know, but it couldn't do much worse than what we have now. --JoSH
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (06/21/85)
In article <657@whuxl.UUCP>, orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > By continuing endless debate about *self* interest, nonLibertarians > are failing to address the fundamental questions of politics of > *social* interests. > tim sevener whuxl!orb My own stance on society and institutions is what is called "methodological individualist", that is, I distrust statements about groups which cannot be justified by analysis of the motivations and choices of members of groups, and ultimately individuals. The "mi" stance makes a determination of what is *social*, that is, what is beneficial to society as a whole, very much a question of what is beneficial to the individual. If a social order cannot justify itself by its benefits to individuals, or if it cannot explain why individuals should be loyal to it beyond threats of raw coercion, then to me that social order is questionable on its face and one's stance to it should likely be very opportunistic. I only agree that questions of *self* interest are stupid in the sense that the *self* in most such discussions is usually an abstract rational being lacking ethical and moral dispositions which I think most people do possess and which they have to take into account. Also the question of what is the subject of *self* interest -- the individual, group, set of friends, nation, etc -- is almost never dealt with in most discussions of *self* interest because most participants on this net conceive of the self's orientation almost entirely in terms of individuals or family units. Still, social cohesion has to be explained in terms of the needs and choices of individuals before *social* interests can be constructed and acted upon. Questions about individuals are prior to questions of *social* interest. So I don't apologize for attempting to explain why individuals might want to follow a social system that doesn't always assume they know what's best for themselves. It's an important question. Where nonLibertarians likely differ from libertarians (at least those I've read) is that the nons think that there are many answers that can justify many different kinds of social systems. Libertarians think the number and diversity of justifyable types of social systems are few and narrow in dimension. Hence to my mind talking about individual motivations to follow social systems can only help the nonLibertarians, since every new social system that can be justified by reference to individual needs and choices represents another viable alternative to Libertaria. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
robg@mmintl.UUCP (Robert Goldman) (06/24/85)
Mike Sykora writes:(in response to tim sevener) >>By continuing endless debate about *self* interest, nonLibertarians >>are failing to address the fundamental questions of politics of >>*social* interests. >How do you suppose that a group can have interests which are not derived >from the interests of individuals within the group? Even if we assume that a group only has interests derived from the interests of individuals within the group, that does not mean that the interests of the group are necessarily THE SAME AS the interests of the individuals which make it up, nor can we assume that the interests of the group are some SIMPLE function of the interests of its components. It is quite possible that the interests of a group are some non-obvious, non-intuitive function of the interests of its members. Furthermore, Mr. Sevener's auto example makes it clear that by becoming a member of a group, my interests are changed. Even this is a big concession to the libertarians, for it is clear that human beings as individuals, rather than as members of society, only exist in works of fiction like _Robinson_Crusoe_ and _Anthem_. Robert Goldman these opinions are mine, and mine alone (yawn)
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (06/24/85)
> >/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 5:46 pm Jun 18, 1985 */ > > >Unless I am either a tinhorn dictator or some sort of privileged > >aristocrat or a high-ranking party member that isn't going to happen. > >And even if it *does* happen does that make it right? > >Unless some higher purpose is served (eg fire engines and ambulances) > >it is *unjust* and *unfair* for one driver to have more privileges than > >another. > > What do you mean by "higher purpose?" Why should such a purpose > (fire engines, etc.) be considered higher? > I think it is self-evident that the possibility of saving people's lives by the prompt arrival of a fire engine or ambulance far outweighs the possible cost for the average commuter of being 5 minutes late for work. Can you understand the worth of human lives, Mike? > >By continuing endless debate about *self* interest, nonLibertarians > >are failing to address the fundamental questions of politics of > >*social* interests. > > How do you suppose that a group can have interests which are not derived > from the interests of individuals within the group? > Mike Sykora I do not suppose that a group has some interests not derived from the interests of its individuals or potential individual members. Quite the contrary, the existence of traffic laws which apply equally to all members of the group benefit them all. How do you suppose that there are no interests which individuals have in common which benefits all of them? How do you suppose that conflicting interests of individuals are to be decided? Or do you suppose that individuals's separate self-interests will always be completely harmonious by some miraculous process? tim sevener whuxl!orb *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/27/85)
>/* robg@mmintl.UUCP (Robert Goldman) / 11:29 am Jun 24, 1985 */ >It is quite possible >that the interests of a group are some non-obvious, non-intuitive function >of the interests of its members. Could you give an example? I really don't see how this is possible >Furthermore, Mr. Sevener's auto example makes it clear that by becoming >a member of a group, my interests are changed. I don't find this clear at all. Joining a group can change intemediate goals, i.e., goals, the achievement of which are necessary for the achievement of ultimate goals. But ultimate goals would never change. >Even this is a big >concession to the libertarians, for it is clear that human beings as >individuals, rather than as members of society, only exist in works of >fiction like _Robinson_Crusoe_ and _Anthem_. Human beings are individals. They form societies for mutual benefit, i.e., to facilitate achievement of their individual goals. > Robert Goldman Mike Sykora
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/28/85)
>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 12:48 pm Jun 24, 1985 */ >I think it is self-evident that the possibility of saving people's lives >by the prompt arrival of a fire engine or ambulance far outweighs the >possible cost for the average commuter of being 5 minutes late for work. >Can you understand the worth of human lives, Mike? It is not at all self-evident. I could claim that 5 minutes of my time are worth more "to me" than some stranger's life. You could not claim I am wrong, because you have no way of knowing my values. This is the central point here: the concept of "worth" is only meaningful in the context of someone's values. >How do you suppose that there are no interests which individuals >have in common which benefits all of them? This is not clear. Please rephrase it. >How do you suppose that >conflicting interests of individuals are to be decided? By a system of laws based on individuals' rights to life, liberty and justly acquired property (what constitutes "justly acquired" is certainly deatale), and a government to enforce these laws and only these laws (read: no or little new legislation). > tim sevener whuxl!orb Mike Sykora
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/28/85)
>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 12:48 pm Jun 24, 1985 */ >I think it is self-evident that the possibility of saving people's lives >by the prompt arrival of a fire engine or ambulance far outweighs the >possible cost for the average commuter of being 5 minutes late for work. >Can you understand the worth of human lives, Mike? It is not at all self-evident. I could claim that 5 minutes of my time are worth more "to me" than some stranger's life. You could not claim I am wrong, because you have no way of knowing my values. This is the central point here: the concept of "worth" is only meaningful in the context of someone's values. >How do you suppose that there are no interests which individuals >have in common which benefits all of them? This is not clear. Please rephrase it. >How do you suppose that >conflicting interests of individuals are to be decided? By a system of laws based on individuals' rights to life, liberty and justly acquired property (what constitutes "justly acquired" is certainly debatale), and a government to enforce these laws and only these laws (read: little or no new legislation). > tim sevener whuxl!orb Mike Sykora
bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) (07/01/85)
Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ Keywords: In article <2380062@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: >>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 12:48 pm Jun 24, 1985 */ > >>I think it is self-evident that the possibility of saving people's lives >>by the prompt arrival of a fire engine or ambulance far outweighs the >>possible cost for the average commuter of being 5 minutes late for work. >>Can you understand the worth of human lives, Mike? > >It is not at all self-evident. I could claim that 5 minutes of my time >are worth more "to me" than some stranger's life. You could not claim >I am wrong, because you have no way of knowing my values. This is the >central point here: the concept of "worth" is only meaningful in the >context of someone's values. > > Mike Sykora Well, this is why this argument is never going to end, most of us see why someones life is worth 5 minutes of Mike's time, and he doesnt. :-) ? In fairness, he does say he could make this argument, not that he does. And I agree that this is the central point, we all have different values. But I think thats how societies get formed, people of similar values get together and impose those values on everyone else. The libertarians are no different, they still want to impose values, just not quite as many. Property rights come to mind. Thats why there is no large libertarian society, there just aint enough people with exactly those values. One question for the libertarians out there, how does a libertarian society deal with seccesion? Suppose a large segment of the population decided that they would rather be socialists after all? In particular, what happens if the workers cease the factory?
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/03/85)
>/* bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) / 1:07 pm Jul 1, 1985 */ >And I agree that this is the central point, we all have different >values. But I think thats how societies get formed, people of similar >values get together and impose those values on everyone else. This may be how societies have typically been formed, but it does not rule out the voluntary formation of societies because men perceive that they will benefit by it. >The libertarians >are no different, they still want to impose values, just not quite >as many. But the libertarians attempt to impose as few restrictions as possible. Certainly, property rights on relatively non-scarce resources do not inconvenience anyone. As for relatively scarce resources, that is certainly debatable. >Property rights come to mind. Thats why there is no large libertarian >society, there just aint enough people with exactly those values. You don't mean tht there aren't a lot of people who strongly desire greater material wealth do you? Certainly, the libertarian system is the best one to achieve such goals, if nothing else. >One question for the libertarians out there, how does a libertarian society deal with seccesion? Provided such seccesion does not include forcing anyone to go along or violation of any contracts, I don't see any problems with it >Suppose a large segment of the population decided >that they would rather be socialists after all? As long as they don't force others to go along, I can see no objection from the libertarian point of view. One might easily imagine an institution like the Israeli Kibbutz existing harmoniously within a libertarian society. I might even join one myself. >In particular, what happens if the workers cease the factory? No problem, provided they don't violate any contracts. Mike Sykora