[net.politics.theory] Problems with libertarianism.

mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/22/85)

References:

In a recent article, one libertarian spoke of "natural rights".

I don't believe rights exist.  They are convenient legal fictions like
corporations.  Thus the search for "natural rights" is akin to the
quest for other supernatural entities (like gods.)

We choose the legal fictions based on social goals, one of which is
non-coercion.  Another common goal is social stability.  There are trade-
offs between all these goals, and I have yet to see a convincing argument
for one to be placed above all others.

It is relatively easy to show that an excess of attention to one goal
(such as non-coercion) leads to an assortment of problems in attending
to other goals.  By reducing negative feedback, you allow (for example)
class and racial divisions to grow and fester.  There are enough examples
in the world of these problems to convince me that preventing their
growth by coercive nipping in the bud of their roots (to mix and mutillate
some metaphors) is an important task.

This, really, is the basic problem with libertarianism.  "United we stand,
divided we fall"-- and libertarianism wants to pull the teeth that keep
us united.  On several levels.  Politically and economically.

A simple example of this principle is the cartel.  If there was a whaling
cartel, whales would not be in danger of extinction.  The cartel would
manage the whales to maximize yield.  But because there is no good way
to enforce a cartel among equals and newcomers, it falls apart (like OPEC)
or is never started (and thus we have the decline of the whales.)  We do
have working examples of successful cartels in the US though: state game
management.  Before hunting became regulated, white-tail deer became
practically extinct in NY state.  Since (I think it was Teddy) Roosevelt,
they have been managed, and have a huge, maintainable population.

The examples where maximization of benefits can only be secured by
enforcing cooperation are innumerable.  Unless cheating is made uneconomic,
cooperation will dissolve or never appear.  It's nice to minimize the
coercion required, but to make that a priority goal will cause
cooperation to suffer.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh

fagin@ucbvax.ARPA (Barry Steven Fagin) (04/23/85)

In article <485@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:

>I don't believe rights exist ... 

I thought as much.  I'm content to leave the discussion here, although
I hope all netters will ponder carefully the consequences of Mr. Huybensz's
statement.

--Barry

-- 
Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley

mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (04/25/85)

>/* mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) /  1:24 pm  Apr 22, 1985 */

>We choose the legal fictions based on social goals, one of which is
>non-coercion.  Another common goal is social stability.  There are trade-

What does "social stability" mean?

Whose goals?

>The examples where maximization of benefits can only be secured by
>enforcing cooperation are innumerable.  Unless cheating is made uneconomic,
>cooperation will dissolve or never appear.  It's nice to minimize the
>coercion required, but to make that a priority goal will cause
>cooperation to suffer.
>-- 
>
>Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh

Maximization of benefits to whom?

"Coerce" to "cooperate" -- Huh?

mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/27/85)

In article <6438@ucbvax.ARPA> fagin@ucbvax.UUCP (Barry Steven Fagin) writes:
> In article <485@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
> 
> >I don't believe rights exist ... 
> 
> I thought as much.  I'm content to leave the discussion here, although
> I hope all netters will ponder carefully the consequences of Mr. Huybensz's
> statement.

Golly, isn't it fun quoting out of context?  And using the citation as an
excuse not to respond to any of the points?  What a shoddy tactic.

Would you like to try again?
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh

brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) (04/29/85)

Barry Steven Fagin writes:

>>I don't believe rights exist ... 
>
>I thought as much.  I'm content to leave the discussion here, although
>I hope all netters will ponder carefully the consequences of Mr. Huybensz's
>statement.
>
>--Barry

My nomination for Out-Of-Context Quote of the Year!

If you READ the article, Mike seems to be saying that a person's "rights"
don't exist in the sense that "Good" and "Evil" don't exist (see net.religion).
People claiming that "I have a >*RIGHT*< to do xxx" are basically arguing that
people have an innate somethingorother that gives them this right.  Rights
only exist as part of a society; a lone human on earth needs "rights" as
much as a ping-pong table.

Merlyn Leroy
Exercising his RIGHT
					...fingers

fagin@ucbvax.ARPA (Barry Steven Fagin) (04/29/85)

Odd # >'s == Mike Huybensz, even # >'s == me
>> >I don't believe rights exist ... 
>> 
>> I thought as much.  I'm content to leave the discussion here, although
>> I hope all netters will ponder carefully the consequences of Mr. Huybensz's
>> statement.
>
>Golly, isn't it fun quoting out of context?  

The original quote, with some more context, was:

> I don't believe rights exist.  They are convenient legal fictions like
> corporations.  Thus the search for "natural rights" is akin to the
> quest for other supernatural entities (like gods.)

Was this enough context?  Does this really add anything?  Mike doesn't say "I 
don't believe rights exist, except in certain circumstances", or "...I don't 
believe most rights libertarians talk about exist".  He says that he believes 
that rights do not exist, and the rest of his quote proceeds to explain why.
Thus I did not feel like I was quoting Huybensz out of context.  Since he
disagrees, here's the rest of the quote:

> We choose the legal fictions based on social goals, one of which is
> non-coercion.  Another common goal is social stability.  There are trade-
> offs between all these goals, and I have yet to see a convincing argument
> for one to be placed above all others.



>And then use the citation as an
>excuse not to respond to any of the points?  What a shoddy tactic.

I did not respond to any of the points because I felt that further discussion
would be non-productive.  I believe that natural rights do exist; you do not.  I
cannot "prove" that these rights exist.  Seemed like a good point to stop
the discussion.  But of course you may disagree ...

>Would you like to try again?

Not particularly, since as I said I don't think it would be productive.
I'm grateful, however, that if nothing else our discussion has shown that 
one fervent believer in the use of coercion to stop discrimination
also believes rights do not exist.  This is something EVERYONE, conservative, 
liberal and libertarian, should think about.

>Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh

--Barry


-- 
Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley

mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/29/85)

In article <2380007@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes:
> >/* mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) /  1:24 pm  Apr 22, 1985 */
> >We choose the legal fictions based on social goals, one of which is
> >non-coercion.  Another common goal is social stability.  There are trade-
> 
> What does "social stability" mean?

The particular example I was thinking of is a stable relationship with
governments and communities.  Like not getting shot in next weeks revolution.

> Whose goals?

People.  People have desires, ya know.

> >The examples where maximization of benefits can only be secured by
> >enforcing cooperation are innumerable.  Unless cheating is made uneconomic,
> >cooperation will dissolve or never appear.  It's nice to minimize the
> >coercion required, but to make that a priority goal will cause
> >cooperation to suffer.
> 
> Maximization of benefits to whom?

The group that is cooperating.

> "Coerce" to "cooperate" -- Huh?

Did you make out a tax return this year?  There is strong coercion to
cooperate this way.  Need more examples?
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh

josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (05/01/85)

>> "Coerce" to "cooperate" -- Huh?
>
>Did you make out a tax return this year?  There is strong coercion to
>cooperate this way.  Need more examples?
>
>Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh

Has anyone ever shoved a gun in your face and told you to give
him your money?  If you did, you were "cooperating" in this sense.
I think that when Mike says "coerced cooperation" he really means
"coercion" and is just trying to make it sound nicer.

--JoSH

mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (05/01/85)

In article <6592@ucbvax.ARPA> fagin@ucbvax.UUCP (Barry Steven Fagin) writes:
> >And then use the citation as an
> >excuse not to respond to any of the points?  What a shoddy tactic.
> 
> I did not respond to any of the points because I felt that further discussion
> would be non-productive.  I believe that natural rights do exist; you do not.
> I cannot "prove" that these rights exist.  Seemed like a good point to stop
> the discussion.  But of course you may disagree ...
> 
> >Would you like to try again?
> 
> Not particularly, since as I said I don't think it would be productive.

Do you mean to say you already realize your foundations are built on sand,
and you don't want to publicly air that bit of laundry?  Such intellectual
bravery!

It sounds to me as if your belief in "natural rights" is merely religious.
You seem to have no way to defend your specific choices of "natural rights".
Ubizmo tells me that all humanoids have the right to leznerize, and
that contradicts the right to own property.  I cannot "prove" this right
exists, but you should accept it, right?

> I'm grateful, however, that if nothing else our discussion has shown that 
> one fervent believer in the use of coercion to stop discrimination
> also believes rights do not exist.

Why are you grateful?  What significance do you perceive in my scoffing
at your notion that rights are writ in stone by the finger of god?  (Sarcasm.)

> This is something EVERYONE, conservative, 
> liberal and libertarian, should think about.

Oh!  Throw up our hands in alarm that anyone could be so scandalously
iconoclastic as to question our sacred cow!  (Sarcasm.)
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh

nrh@inmet.UUCP (05/03/85)

I'd love to see orb's list sorted according to how much  the big
four in each industry benefit from government controls and buying.

In particular, aircraft, motor vehicles, and oil, tend to be highly
regulated/associated with government, whereas clothing (for 
example) does not.

I notice, by the way, that you're still bringing up Standard Oil.
Tsk!  How many times must it be pointed out that its market
share was diminishing, and its competitors flourishing when
it was broken up?  I posted a long note about Cornplanter refineries
growing something like (lost the figures) 20%/year for 10 years
while in that field.  Did you miss it?

brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) (05/07/85)

<I hope this is not out of context...:->

Barry Fagin writes:
>...I believe that natural rights do exist; you [Mike Huybensz] do not.  I
>cannot "prove" that these rights exist.

    This is the point!  If "natural rights" exist, but you can't offer any
proof of what they are, order of priority, etc, or someone else says that
natural rights exist but has an entirely different list of rights, then
in what way do these rights "exist"??  This is just a religious argument,
dogmatically stating "These are our rights - blah1, blah2, blah2.1...".

    However, if you want to try to convince people through rational
arguments that xxx should be a right (for whatever reasons), then I think
you got something.

Merlyn Leroy
Exercising his RIGHT
				...brain