esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (04/20/85)
Odd # of >'s = mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan), even = me > > "there are some important consequences of libertarian principles > > which (most) libertarians have failed to note." > That's true of almost any ideology. So what? Ah, but some of these are fatal (or so I argue). > No complex ideology has been as fully discussed on the net as we might like; > which proves nothing about the virtues of any. Of course--but it probably does indicate the types of issues that the netters think about. > > To return to the > > Indian who says "my father told me he would have given the land to me", > > but can't prove this -- perhaps one should take his word for it. > That would depend on the quality of his word. If I knew that he never lied > and was never mistaken about such things, you'd be right. > > now consider it from the Indian's point of view -- suppose he *knows* > > his father would have given it -- it would seem that, by lib. std's, he > > has a right to take it. > Yes. Which is simply to say that ignorance can create conflicts. But it seems to me that such conflicts present bigger problems from a libertarian viewpoint than from most non-libertarian viewpoints. For example, if you forcibly resist his attempt to take it, and harm him, wouldn't you then owe him (probably huge) compensation? (And worse yet, what if you killed him?) On the other hand, conventional morality/politics would say that while he has a right to the land, he doesn't have a right to take it by stealth or force, at least not without a court decision in his favor. Admittedly, that doesn't seem fair either, but I think conven- tional morality gives a less implausible answer here than libertarian... Or have I gotten something wrong here? 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. 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... Fortunately, there IS a simple solution: we could determine how much compensation each person owed each other due to the injustices that figured into his coming to possess the objects he now does. Everybody could then settle his debts, which would be hectic but not absurd. But here's another problem: suppose most people didn't want to go along. 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. He can't tell the Indian "Look, Moe owes me that land or $40,000 (whichever Moe chooses), I owe you my land or $40,000; so let's simplify things -- you go bother Moe." "Sorry Joe," says the Indian, "I think you're a nice guy and all, and I don't like to see you sweat, but Moe is YOUR problem. I want my land." Of course, we *don't* know the history of all objects, we *can't* tabulate all the injustices and calculate everyone's debt to each other; we don't have 1/10th the information. 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. So, I think I have found an implausible consequence of libertarian theory. And now it's everybody else's turn to explain why I'm wrong. -- "We're number two -- we think harder" --Paul V. Torek, Iconbuster-In-Chief
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/22/85)
The issue of compensation (reparations) is Nozick's big contribution to libertarian thought. It is part of his ``just holdings'' issue. The whole belief in reparations is not shared by most libertarians. The assumption that it is always possible to put a price on something is a falacy - prices are what sellers and buyers determine when they want to reach an agreement, not something that somebody arbitrarily can decide by fiat. [In libertaria, of course -- I am well aware of marketting boards...] So Moe wants compensation for not having his land and Joe decides that he owes Moe compensation. Now what? Will they agree on a price -- probably not. Say Joe gives Moe the land back. Who pays Joe for improving the land? Moe? not likely -- Moe is broke. Sell the land? Boy, is there going to be a glut on the market! Another problem is where do responsibilities stop? If my grandfather ripped off somebody, do I owe that somebody's grandchildren? I think not. I do not think that dead people (well, people whose wills were not contested and so on) can be held responsible for their actions (since they are dead) and I don't think that their descendents can be held responsible either. It would have been good to fix the injustice at the time of my grandfatehr, yes, and if I am being injust it is good to nail me for it -- but I am not responsible for the crimes of my grandfather, even though I may benefit from those crimes. Given that we have not always lived in libertaria, it is reasonable to assume that a heck of a lot of injustice has occurred in the past. Everybody has suffered and everybody has benefitted. It may not even out, but it does mean that injustices *now* are more to the point than injustices *then*. If my great-great-grandparents had not faced religious persecution (injustice) in their homelands, I would not have been born. This does not make religious persecution good either -- but I certainly benefitted from it. The world is full of these good consequences of evil events and evil consequences of good events. You cannot ever determine how much anybody owes ``everybody else'' or ``society'' or ``mankind'' - it always works out to being ``what somebody says that you do''. WHich is why Nozick does not go down very smoothly in a good many libertarian circles. busy now, maybe back later... Laura