flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek) (05/30/85)
Even no. of >'s = me, Odd no. = McKiernan, 'L>' = Laura Creighton > Actually, you've asked a good question here, and I suspect that Libertarians > will split on this issue.[...] See, I'm not as dumb as you thought! :-> > >I've thought harder about the reparations issue, and the absurdity doesn't > >follow from the libertarian view as easily as I thought. Suppose we knew > >the history of every object which anyone claimed to own, and we could > >trace every incident where the object was coercively taken from someone. > >We could then determine the proper owner of every object, and for most > >wealth, that very well might not be the same as the current possessor. > If I read you correctly in the above (and in the concluding) paragraph, > you're making the mistake of thinking that establishment of justice > REQUIRES a knowledge of 'the history of every object which anyone claimed > to own, and' [...] 'every incident where the object was coercively taken'. No!, sorry if I invited that misinterpretation. I don't think that. I'm just asking, "WHAT IF...?" WHAT IF we did have such a knowledge? I'm saying that IF WE HAD, certain things would follow for libertarian-style justice. > >But it would be disastrous to switch possessions -- I might find out that > >I own land in Russia, while the land I was using is owned by someone else, > >but I don't want to move... > Given the point that I made above (and in an earlier posting to sevener), > there wouldn't be that many transfers. As "the above", I take you (please correct me if wrong) to refer to: > [...] When a person does not know that she had > title to something, there is (at least) some doubt as to whether she > transferred it to another (let alone WHICH other); after a sequence, it > becomes unreasonable to suppose [...] This was part of your response to me under your misreading of me; again, I am asking "WHAT IF we DID have the relevant knowledge?" So, in this (admit- tedly hypothetical) situation, I might find out that I own land in Russia, etc. >> Fortunately, there IS a simple solution: we >>could determine how much compensation each person owed each other [...] > I hate to undercut your attempt to shore-up Libertarianism (albeit an > unnecessary attempt), but I don't see an acceptable system of calculating > compensation value. (I hate to shore it up in the first place, but it's a matter of intellectual honesty.) Laura gave some reasons why she too is not happy with the concept of compensation; my reply is below; of course, your reasons may be different. > >Suppose, as is the case today, most people weren't libertarians, and they > >didn't see why they had to make all these compensations. Now Joe > >Libertarian looks at the situation and realizes that the land he was using > >is properly owned by a particular Indian, whereas the land Joe properly > >owns is being used by some non-libertarian Moe who tells Joe to f--- off, > >when Joe explains to him the coercive history of that land. It looks like > >Joe is stuck. [...] > This is an example of a practical problem for all ideologies: What if the > majority won't go along? If a radically different order were established > tomorrow, then it would probably be gone by month's end. (and McK concludes:) > Your point on the possible majority rejection of Libertarianism is valid > when applied to a naive (but extant) program for Libertarian take-over. OK, that point granted, still, there is a conceivable (though hypothetical) situation in which disastrous consequences flow for those who accept libertarian principles, and my point is, that this casts doubt upon the principles. It might be replied, that this situation is ONLY hypothetical, and therefore, does not really cut against the principles. But my response is, that the situation I have dreamed up is hypothetical ONLY in a respect in which it is "better". That is, disastrous consequences flow from the principles in a world which, though hypothetical, is supposed to be better. Thus my statement: > >Of course, we *don't* know the history of all objects[...]. But before > >any libertarian breathes a sigh >of relief, he should consider that by > >his lights WE SHOULD BE UPSET, NOT RELIEVED that the info isn't available. The point being, not that justice REQUIRES such info, but that (on a lib. view) such info allows, if anything, more complete, more perfect justice. Let me attempt to clarify more. My objection here to libertarianism rests on considering a hypothetical situation. Now, ANY principles can be made to give disastrous consequences -- simply dream up a disastrous situation! (I.e., one in which all options are terrible.) But my objection does not rest on this type of hypothetical situation. My hypothetical world is not inherently disastrous -- it is, if anything, superior to the actual. ------------------------------------ L> The whole belief in reparations is not shared by most libertarians. L> [...] So Moe wants compensation for not having his L> land and Joe decides that he owes Moe compensation. Now what? Will L> they agree on a price -- probably not. Say Joe gives Moe the land back. L> Who pays Joe for improving the land? Moe? not likely -- Moe is broke.[...] Will they agree on a price? They don't have to. Joe decides that he owes Moe compensation. He can simply ask Moe, "how much do you feel would be adequate compensation?" He simply has to trust Moe's honesty, that if Moe would feel compensated by $40K, he will say so and not say $50K. And if Moe's number is too high, Joe can always give him the land instead. As for Joe's improving the land, again, he can ask Moe "how much are my improvements worth in your eyes" and trust Moe's honesty. If Moe says "they're worth nothing to me", then Joe can at least sell any movable improvements (small trees, maybe), and perhaps restore the land to its original condition if he thinks Moe is lying. (And then Moe, if he IS lying, might change his tune: "no wait -- I've thought about it harder, and I think the improvements are worth something"). --The developing iconoclast, Paul V. Torek, (soon at) umcp-cs!flink