esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (03/29/85)
Even no. of >'s = Torek; odd no. = McKiernan. >>was an attempt to show how libertarians fail to examine the consequences >>of their principles, by way of an example. >Okay, I was wrong, and I apologize; you were doing something even dumber: >Assuming what Libertarians did and did not think about without conducting a >reasonable investigation. I had reasonable grounds for my statement (see below). However, it *was* unfair of me to say that "libertarians fail to examine the consequences of their principles" -- many of those consequences have been examined quite thoroughly. But others areas haven't been. Or at least, not in sufficient rigor. What I should have said was "there are some important consequences of libertarian principles which (most) libertarians have failed to note." > The question of reparations is OFTEN discussed amongst Libertarians, > and with informed outsiders. For example, I have [...] I think you are the "exception that proves the rule." I am, of course, open to evidence to the contrary. Evidence for my statement, however, can be found in Nozick's book (ASU, p. 152): "I know of no theoretically sophisticated treatment of these issues [about reparations]" (not an exact quote). Nozick adds in a footnote: "But see the helpful discussion ... in *The Case for Black Reparations*" (again, not an exact quote -- I can look up the exact quotes if you like). So Nozick -- one of the most well-known and intelligent libertarians -- apparently thinks that the issues have not been sufficiently addressed. > For example, American Indians have been invited (and come) to Libertarian > Party conventions to speak. For example, there was an emotional battle > some years ago in the SLS when members from the LPRC advocated seizing > lands which had been plantations, and redistributing them amongst > American Negroes. Well, I stand to some extent corrected. However, I challenge you to come up with a discussion of this issue by the libertarians on the net (besides yourself, but you were *responding* to *my* *initiation* of the issue, which is a very different story!). In my several years on the net I've seen no such thing. And such explanation has often been called for, because (I'll bet) most non-libertarian netters would be surprised to learn that libertarians support many "left"-sounding causes (like restoring land to Amer. Indians, to blacks, etc.). >that Torek accuses us of ignoring an issue in the same posting in which he >attacks my addressing of the issue, implies that he views his readers as >too irrational or stupid to notice the contradiction. Two can play this game: "that McKiernan accuses me of contradiction, in spite of the obvious fact that he was in effect *challenged* to address this issue BEFORE he said anything about it, and the other obvious fact that there is no contradiction between saying a group has failed to address an issue and admitting that they will address it if it is brought to their attention -- shows that he thinks his readers are stupid." Gee, aren't ad hominem attacks fun?? >> The disruption and confusion that would result, if we tried to trace >> the history of each possession to find its "rightful owner", constitutes >> a reductio ad ... implausibilium of libertarianism. > No, it's a reductio ad implausibilium of a straw man. Hardly: take a look at Nozick, p. 153, on what a correct libertarian principle of rectification would look like. Nozick's principle has precisely this implausible consequence. Last time I looked, Nozick was made of flesh and blood (of course, you are entitled to say that Nozick is an atypically poor thinker for a libertarian -- ?,!). I urge all my readers to take a look at this passage in Nozick, and judge for themselves whether his principles have absurd consequences. > The idea that the burden of proof is on the accuser, rather than on the > occupier, is in complete accord with Libertarian principle -- and, in fact, > with Anglo-American tradition. "Complete accord"? Predictable, yes; consistent -- depends what you mean. You fail to distinguish -- or forget to mention the distinction -- between what the *legal* system ought to say, and what the *moral* actions of the parties involved ought to be. SURE -- the legal system ought (by lib. std's) -- in an archist libertaria, anyway -- to put the burden of proof on the accuser. BUT -- the holder of the property perhaps ought only to require reasonable evidence before giving up the goods. 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. And 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. >>> It should be recognized that not all the land of the Americas was used >>> by Indians, and that this land was therefore legitimately up for grabs. > >> But in the absence of a precise definition of "use", this begs questions. > No, it doesn't 'beg the question' Yes it does: it begs the Q of whether the land was legitimately up for grabs. If, as I have suggested, there are many subtle ways of using land (such as the buffalo needing to roam), then little or none was for grabs. > ; it begins to establish the limits of the problem. ... Ok, that point granted -- when we get around to it, I do hope to see more discussion of what constitutes "use" and why that confers property rights. I am convinced that Walter Wego's (here at Wash. U.) position on this is the consistent one for libertarians, and his position differs considerably from most ... he should be posting his article on this soon. > The subject of internally consistent but mutually exclusive systems of > property fascinates me; I have had many intellectually challenging > discussions with friends on the matter. In fact, this point is integral > to my argument against anarcho-Libertarianism. Well stay tuned for more (what I hope will be) challenging discussions... > Back in the saddle again, > DKMcK Is this where they got the expression, "Blazing Saddles"? :-> --The uninspiring iconoclast, Paul V. Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/31/85)
Paul, Not all libertarians find Nozick's entitlement theory palatable. There is a book called ``reading Nozick'' which outlines some of the objections. In it there is an article on Indian land rights, as well... I have a problem with Nozick's formal definition of a ``rightful holding''. Anything that you have acquired, either through mixing your labour with something unclaimed is yours, and anything that you acquired through a fair exchange of goods is also rightfully yours. The problem is that when Nozick gets down to this as a principle of justice several problems arise. Suppose I am a believer in the Volcano God and in a fit of religious frenzy I rob all of my neighbours of goods and toss them into the volcano. Next morning my neighbours wake up. All of the goods which they now have they have obtained fairly. All of the goods which I now have I have obtained fairly. According to Nozick, following his definitions, this distribution is just. This does not square with my definition of justice. Worse, suppose I steal your vegetables and trade it to another man for a chicken. Following Nozick, I find that the robber is entitled to what he has and that the chicken seller has to give the chicken back, since the chicken seller is not entitled to the vegetables. There is something wrong here as well. Somebody (Jeffery Paul? Ellen Frankel Paul) has reformulated Nozick's entitlement theory to avoid these problems. But other libertarians think that to worry about entitlement is foolish -- you just prevent injustices (like robbery and murder) and then whatever is left over is just, since it was not as a result of injust actions. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (04/01/85)
> Well, I stand to some extent corrected. However, I challenge you to come > up with a discussion of this issue by the libertarians on the net > (besides yourself, but you were *responding* to *my* *initiation* of the > issue, which is a very different story!). In my several years on the net > I've seen no such thing. And such explanation has often been called for, > because (I'll bet) most non-libertarian netters would be surprised to > learn that libertarians support many "left"-sounding causes (like restoring > land to Amer. Indians, to blacks, etc.). Gosh golly... I'm getting out of this Libertarian mess once and for all. Next thing you know they will be asking for the repeal of victimless crime laws (those commie-pinkos!) ... Of course you have a good point. No matter how many libertarians try to stress libertarian beliefs that map to the left side of the political spectrum, there are always the on going discussions of taxation to make people think we are ultra-conservatives. When we admit that we believe government handouts are not the solution to poverty we are further pigeon- holed. --Cliff [Matthews] {purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff {csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff 4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143