orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (06/24/85)
> 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 The abhorrence to democracy of most Libertarians is made explicit here by JoSH. All will be solved by the "market" and competition. Yet I would contend that this is precisely what we wish to *avoid*. Let us take "competition" in traffic, to continue my mundane example of social interaction. Essentially that is to some degree the system that prevails in New Jersey - people go for their own self-interests with little regulation of competition. I have seen a number of people go right through a red light, after sitting stopped for it for at least a minute. It was not then a case of having momentum and failing to stop, but sheer disregard for the law and *others* in pursuit of their own self-interest. In such a competitive situation those who win out will be those with the biggest cars and those with the least qualms about hurting their own car or *others*. Those who wish to consider others rights will be left behind as well as those with special care for their passengers such as those with children in the car. A *democracy* ruled by law implies the opposite situation. All will be treated equally by the law *regardless* of the size of their car, their racing prowess, or their reckless disregard for others safety. Such regulations not only protect *everyone* but also, in fact, allow faster traffic than rampant and unregulated competition. "In a market, the collective result is often completely different than the (self-interested) intents of all the actors therein." says JoSH. The result of a totally free "competition" in traffic would be the evolution from bigger and bigger cars to monstrously expensive tanks. Certainly it is true that this collective result is completely different than the self-interests of all actors in daily traffic. After all, who can afford a tank? Only the rich. But even they would actually find less expense in a smaller-sized car allowed by some reasonable regulation of commuter interactions. Which is why there has *never been* and never will be a completely competitive system of economics or social interaction. Because such a system harms the self-interests of *all*. tim sevener whuxl!orb
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (06/26/85)
> > 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 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). > > > > --JoSH > > The abhorrence to democracy of most Libertarians is made explicit here by > JoSH. > > tim sevener whuxl!orb No, Tim, it is only *JoSH's* abhorrence of democracy that is explicit here. Implicit is the notion that contempt for democracy is not incompatible with contempt for government in general - hardly surprising. But it is wrong to tar "most" libertarians with JoSH's brush. I hope. Baba
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/28/85)
> The abhorrence to democracy of most Libertarians is made explicit here by > JoSH. All will be solved by the "market" and competition. > Yet I would contend that this is precisely what we wish to *avoid*. > Let us take "competition" in traffic, to continue my mundane example of > social interaction. Essentially that is to some degree the system that > prevails in New Jersey - people go for their own self-interests with > little regulation of competition. I have seen a number of people go > right through a red light, after sitting stopped for it for at least > a minute. It was not then a case of having momentum and failing to stop, > but sheer disregard for the law and *others* in pursuit of their > own self-interest. In such a competitive situation those who win out > will be those with the biggest cars and those with the least qualms about > hurting their own car or *others*. Those who wish to consider others > rights will be left behind as well as those with special care for their > passengers such as those with children in the car. > A *democracy* ruled by law implies the opposite situation. > All will be treated equally by the law *regardless* of the size of their > car, their racing prowess, or their reckless disregard for others > safety. Such regulations not only protect *everyone* but also, > in fact, allow faster traffic than rampant and unregulated competition. > > > tim sevener whuxl!orb If traffic in New Jersey is libertarian in nature, it's the only thing about New Jersey that is. Seriously, my experience is that in the absence of operating traffic signals, and where the right of way is not clear, most people drive *very* cautiously, because they desire to avoid accidents in which they will be injured, or at a minimum, their car will be damaged. Perhaps New Jersey's problem is too many years of governmental control --- I refuse to believe that any significant chunk of the population of New Jersey is so completely incapable of thinking far enough ahead to avoid a potentially dangerous accident. Are there that many morons in New Jersey? This represents the most significant difference between the libertarian and leftist perception of "the masses". Libertarians maintain that most people are capable of making rational decisions in their *own* interest, or at least, better than the collective can do. We assume that most people, even if not well-educated, are at least rational most of the time, and are not actively seeking to damage themselves. The left seems to view individuals as hardly smarter than livestock, incapable of making decisions for themselves, so that they must turn over almost all decision making to an elected body of representatives who are presumably smarter and more rational.
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/29/85)
>/* baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) / 2:19 am Jun 26, 1985 */ >No, Tim, it is only *JoSH's* abhorrence of democracy that is explicit here. >Implicit is the notion that contempt for democracy is not incompatible >with contempt for government in general - hardly surprising. But it is >wrong to tar "most" libertarians with JoSH's brush. I hope. The point is not that Libertarians prefer other forms of choosing government than democracy -- they don't. Libertarians just want to limit the scope of government. In a country which chooses its government democratically this necessarily limits the scope of democracy. Mike Sykora