mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/27/85)
Summary of preceding dispute (in which I had no part):
Somebody claimed that the (presumed) superiority of Libertaria would
cause it to survive in free competition of societies. Cliff argues
that this is not so, in particular because of "ignorant and apathetic
citizens" who allow "myopic politicians" to pull "clever stunts" to
fix problems.
Elsewhere, Cliff has likened Libertaria to a society in which the best
will thrive, it being a version of evolution in action. In yet another
argument, the society of Nations has been argued to follow libertarian
principles in that there is NO supranational regulatory enforcement.
In this trans-national Libertaria, nations play the parts of individuals.
If we allow these claims, we seem to land up with a contradiction:
In the normal course of social change, Libertaria should have occurred
by chance, if not by design, and probably more than once. According to
the libertarian argument, it should then have thrived and grown quickly
strong, being better than its neighbours on both economic and ethical
grounds. We should now see several Libertarias, if not a world full of
them. But we see none, and no evidence that any ever existed.
The contradiction can be resolved by eliminating any one of several
assumptions: (1) No Libertaria has yet existed, and therefore none
has had the chance to show its quality; (2) The best does not necessarily
survive, which implies that the arguments usually proposed in favour
of Libertaria are faulty; (3) Libertaria would not work the way its
supporters claim. (2) implies (3), and my personal belief is that
all 3 statements are true.
If an approach to libertarian principles would make a society stronger
than a retreat from them, we would expect an inevitable drift toward
Libertaria, rather than just an expansion of it when it occurred by
chance. This also renders suspect the grandiose claims of the libertarians.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmtcliff@unmvax.UUCP (03/03/85)
> In the normal course of social change, Libertaria should have occurred > by chance, if not by design, and probably more than once. I don't see any reason why Libertaria would have occurred by chance. The country that is most likely to benefit from Libertarian ideology is, in my opinion, the U.S. U.S. citizens still seem to have some respect for "freedom" even if everyone has their own definition. However, currently we are ruled by elected (and appointed by elected) officials. For some period, "Laverne and Shirley" was the number one ranked television show in this country... I am not surprised that Libertaria didn't occur by chance in this country, nor that Libertaria didn't occur in countries where they population is less concerned with freedom. > According to > the libertarian argument, it should then have thrived and grown quickly > strong, being better than its neighbours on both economic and ethical > grounds. We should now see several Libertarias, if not a world full of > them. But we see none, and no evidence that any ever existed. The above paragraph is correct. > The contradiction can be resolved by eliminating any one of several > assumptions: (1) No Libertaria has yet existed, and therefore none > has had the chance to show its quality; OK, if you think (1) *isn't* the assumption to eliminate, please point to the time and country that were Libertaria. > (2) The best does not necessarily > survive, which implies that the arguments usually proposed in favour > of Libertaria are faulty; "The best" is much to vague to allow this assumption to slip by. If you are talking about "the best ideas" being presented to a legislative body that is ruled by special interest groups, then there is no reason for "the best" ideas to survive (actually I should say be implemented, for ideas are immortal). Libertaria's successful government depends on the inability to change significant parts of the government without overthrow. A govern- ment that might start out very good, but is too easy to modify will not have the stability that Libertaria would. > (3) Libertaria would not work the way its > supporters claim. (2) implies (3), and my personal belief is that > all 3 statements are true. > > If an approach to libertarian principles would make a society stronger > than a retreat from them, we would expect an inevitable drift toward > Libertaria, rather than just an expansion of it when it occurred by > chance. The approach to libertarian principles that makes a society stronger is removing certain power that the government has over people/transactions. There is a big difference between the government not taking someone's land through eminient domain, and the inability of the government to take anyone's land through eminent domain. To approach libertarian ideals, the government would have to be losing power...this does not happen "by chance." > This also renders suspect the grandiose claims of the libertarians. It was nice to see such an unbiased presentation :-) It is good to see people make up their minds after rational thought, rather than ignorance and prejudice :-). > Martin Taylor > {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt > {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt In favor of a tolerant government, --Cliff
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (03/04/85)
> > Martin Taylor > In the normal course of social change, Libertaria should have occurred > by chance, if not by design, and probably more than once. According to > the libertarian argument, it should then have thrived and grown quickly > strong, being better than its neighbours on both economic and ethical > grounds. We should now see several Libertarias, if not a world full of > them. But we see none, and no evidence that any ever existed. > "In the normal course of technological change, fusion reactors should have occurred by chance, if not by design, and probably more than once. According to the physicsts' arguments, it should then have thrived and grown quickly strong, being cleaner, more efficient, and economical than competing methods of power generation. We should now see several fusion reactors, if not a world full of them. But we see none, and no evidence that any ever existed." > If an approach to libertarian principles would make a society stronger > than a retreat from them... I think that the whole rise of western civilization can be seen as the slow, unsteady, but hopeful progress toward libertarian principles. I would hold up the US and Switzerland as examples that show the progress--although we've still got probably a millenium or so to go before the slave mentality dies completely out. --JoSH