biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) (01/31/85)
This is an extended extract of an article I posted some time ago. Since I didn't get any responses, and since I really would like to know what liber- tarianism is like, I'm reposting. Please answer in net.politics.theory *only*. This double posting is only to carry the discussion to there. == == == : : : == == == == == == : : : == == == Ok, I feel I just am missing too many facts on Libertarianism to be able to judge it. Here are some questions: - Where does the go[u]vernment in Libertaria (generic name for a Libertarian country) come from. Is it elected? If so, what about the minority that voted against? If not, how then? Where does the power of the go[u]vernment come from? From paid policemen/soldiers? If so, where does the money come from? - Is it the go[u]vernment that decides when something is reasonable (my neigbo[u]r is infesting my land with sound waves. I am a physicist and for my experiments I need *silence*, and my neighbo[u]r keeps whispering all the time)? If so, where does it get its authority from? And where does one complain if the go[u]vernmental decision seems unjust? If not, who does? - Do legal persons (non-natural ones) exist in Libertaria? May I start a charity company which will survive me? (Something like Nobel, for instance, is that allowed?) Must there be natural persons to be held responsible in case something goes wrong? - Is there some sort of "higher court", to rely upon when one thinks the (private?) arbitration didn't do justice? >Ah, but saying "this is my land" isn't sufficient to give you control over >it in Libertaria. You have to *use* it. > <mike But what exactly is *using* land? A person who owns a lot of land and has other people living on it, doesn't he *need* spare land to provide relax possibilities, and to secure a future for new-born children? Can the physi- cist of above claim to need lots of land around him "since it has to be silent here"? -- Biep. {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep I utterly disagree with everything you are saying, but I am prepared to fight to the death for your right to say it. --Voltaire
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (01/31/85)
> Ok, I feel I just am missing too many facts on Libertarianism to be able to > judge it. Here are some questions: Facts? You picked the wrong net bub, (er biep) :-) btw, a capital L is usually used when discussing the Libertarian Party, the third largest political party in the good ol' U.S. of A. I am assuming you wanted to know about libertarianism in general rather than the LP. > - Where does the go[u]vernment in Libertaria (generic name for a > Libertarian country) come from. Is it elected? If so, what > about the minority that voted against? If not, how then? > Where does the power of the go[u]vernment come from? > From paid policemen/soldiers? If so, where does the money > come from? Libertarianism is theory that can be applied to any existing government or be used to create a new government. Currently there is no Libertaria, so it is all speculation...maybe some powerful extraterrestrials will force it down our throat, like Cod Liver oil. Since it is a minimalist government the people who vote against it can easily create another government underneath it (something that can't be done under the U.S. Constitution). In fact I would anticipate extended covenants pulling up much of the slack between a libertarian kernel and some of the functions that people currently expect out of governments (of course the covenents would be voluntary, but contrary to what some people will try to tell you, volunteer programs do work). With a sufficiently small kernel as the actual government itself, it would be possible to finance the entire government proper through private donations and user fees (i.e. a convicted criminal can either cough up sufficient money to pay for his trial incarceration, etc. or face deportation) > - Is it the go[u]vernment that decides when something is reasonable > (my neigbo[u]r is infesting my land with sound waves. I am > a physicist and for my experiments I need *silence*, and > my neighbo[u]r keeps whispering all the time)? If so, where > does it get its authority from? And where does one complain > if the go[u]vernmental decision seems unjust? If not, who > does? There are easily as many answers to this question as there are flavors of UNIX. > - Do legal persons (non-natural ones) exist in Libertaria? May I > start a charity company which will survive me? (Something > like Nobel, for instance, is that allowed?) Must there be > natural persons to be held responsible in case something > goes wrong? Again, as I understand libertarianism there is nothing inherent in the philosophy that mandates the legality of corporations. Most libertarians are strongly pro corporate law...I am not sure that I like it. > - Is there some sort of "higher court", to rely upon when one thinks > the (private?) arbitration didn't do justice? Many libertarians that I know of believe their should always be a final arbitrator tied into the government. That is my belief. > >Ah, but saying "this is my land" isn't sufficient to give you control over > >it in Libertaria. You have to *use* it. > > <mike > > But what exactly is *using* land? A person who owns a lot of land and has > other people living on it, doesn't he *need* spare land to provide relax > possibilities, and to secure a future for new-born children? Can the physi- > cist of above claim to need lots of land around him "since it has to be > silent here"? Again, this is another point of contention. There are all sorts of schemes related to land use. I do not favor the homesteading of land already claimed by the private sector. I believe that our National Parks should be in private hands, but that would be hard to do if the homesteading laws allowed someone to claim the grand canyon. In summary, libertarianism is a starting point. It is a minimalist government that attempts to allow people the freedom to live life as they see fit. The free market has to be preserved in order to allow people freedom. The Libertarian party suggests ways in which the U.S. government can be brought closer to the libertarian ideal. Libertarianism is the UNIX of governmental philosophies. I have an idea of a world government that would be the VM (without the inefficiencies) of governments allowing UNIX (libertarianism) to run under it concurrent with socialism (VMS) and fascism (take your pick). --Cliff
jack@boring.UUCP (02/02/85)
In article <627@unmvax.UUCP> cliff@unmvax.UUCP writes: >With a sufficiently small >kernel as the actual government itself, it would be possible to finance the >entire government proper through private donations and user fees Which would make it *highly* vulnerable, and depending on it's financers. Do you think that such a government would do *anything* about the noise that is bothering Biep's scientist if it was caused by one of it's biggest sponsors? >convicted criminal can either cough up sufficient money to pay for his trial >incarceration, etc. or face deportation) First law of Libertaria: It is illegal to murder, rape, steal or cheat, unless you have enough money to bribe the government. In my opinion, all articles defending libertarianism fail in one point: IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DEFEND THE EXISTENCE OF MONEY IN AN EGALITARIAN SOCIETY. In an Anarchist society, both of the problems above would not exist. If there is anything that resembles a government, it has *no* authority whatsoever, and can only *advise* people what to do. There are no criminals in the legal sense of the word (people who are *convicted* of a crime). Of course, there will be people who act unsocially, but they will be simply cast out of their community, or perhaps even locked up or killed, but this is completely up to the community in which the "criminal" lives. -- Jack Jansen, {decvax|philabs|seismo}!mcvax!jack Notice new, improved, faster address ^^^^^
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/04/85)
In article <627@unmvax.UUCP> cliff@unmvax.UUCP writes: > With a sufficiently small >kernel as the actual government itself, it would be possible to finance the >entire government proper through private donations and user fees (i.e. a >convicted criminal can either cough up sufficient money to pay for his trial >incarceration, etc. or face deportation) > What is this! You would inflict our crazies, murderers, and just plain anti-socials on the rest of the world if they do not have enough money to pay for the trial??? This is hardly fair to our neighbors! >Again, this is another point of contention. There are all sorts of schemes >related to land use. I do not favor the homesteading of land already claimed >by the private sector. I believe that our National Parks should be in private >hands, but that would be hard to do if the homesteading laws allowed someone >to claim the grand canyon. > Another problem with this is: private individuals will only maintainf their private parks as long as it is convient to do so, thus in a few generations all our wilderness land will be done forever. There is already to little of it! The purpose of *goverment* parks is to remove the land from economic considerations and preserve it *unconditionally*. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or quad1!psivax!friesen
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (02/05/85)
In article <6306@boring.UUCP> jack@boring.UUCP (Jack Jansen) writes: >In article <627@unmvax.UUCP> cliff@unmvax.UUCP writes: >>convicted criminal can either cough up sufficient money to pay for his trial >>incarceration, etc. or face deportation) >First law of Libertaria: It is illegal to murder, rape, steal or cheat, >unless you have enough money to bribe the government. Such utter bull. I'll concede that cliff chose a poor phrasing, but that's about it. Look under the "etc.". You should find money to pay the victims for their losses hiding under it. Thus, the first law is: if you don't behave socially, you either wind up paying for, or get thrown out of the society. Unlike an anarchy, there is something to judge what "socially" means, and you can't get shot for not being aesethically pleasing. >In my opinion, all articles defending libertarianism fail in one point: > IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DEFEND THE EXISTENCE OF MONEY > IN AN EGALITARIAN SOCIETY. I won't talk about the utter bilge that gets pushed around under the name "Egalitarian Society," as you may have something reasonable in mind. However, I'll agree that "money," as we're used to thinking of it these days, doesn't belong in society. The government has no business controlling the banking industry to such an extent that it's promisary notes (promisary of what, you might ask) wind up being treated as things of intrinsic value. Maybe you had something else in mind when you said money. If so, let me know, and I'll either agree that it doesn't belong in society, or try and explain why it does. <mike
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (02/07/85)
> In article <627@unmvax.UUCP> cliff@unmvax.UUCP writes: > > With a sufficiently small > >kernel as the actual government itself, it would be possible to finance the > >entire government proper through private donations and user fees (i.e. a > >convicted criminal can either cough up sufficient money to pay for his trial > >incarceration, etc. or face deportation) > > > What is this! You would inflict our crazies, murderers, and > just plain anti-socials on the rest of the world if they do not have > enough money to pay for the trial??? This is hardly fair to our > neighbors! If another country doesn't want them, then they don't get moved, but what if for some reason, there were laws in Libertaria that the people in GSR (Generic Socialist Republic) thought were foolish, and the people in GSR were willing to accept criminals of that nature. Ship them over and be rid of them. Remember, in general, being a convict says very little about your willingness to comit murder or even be anti-social. In the USSR (the leader in prison population per capita) they lock up political dissidents, in South Africa (number 2 in prison population per capita) they lock up political dissidents and in the U.S. (We're Number 3! We're Number 3!) we lock up the poor (through victimless crime laws)... There is nothing inherently anti-social about being a political dissident or being poor. In general, if there is another country willing to accept a convict, let him go, with the knowledge that he will never be allowed to set foot in this country again. > >Again, this is another point of contention. There are all sorts of schemes > >related to land use. I do not favor the homesteading of land already claimed > >by the private sector. I believe that our National Parks should be in private > >hands, but that would be hard to do if the homesteading laws allowed someone > >to claim the grand canyon. > > > Another problem with this is: private individuals will only > maintainf their private parks as long as it is convient to do so, > thus in a few generations all our wilderness land will be done > forever. Hmm... How long has the Sierra club been around? Do you anticipate their demise in a few generations. If they owned the land do you think it would be misused. On the other hand, how many years has Reagan been in office, as long as he has his handss on the land do you think it will be misused? Get my point? > There is already to little of it! How much is too little? You might be surprised to find out how much land is owned by the government. I don't have the exact numbers at my fingertips so I will eschew quotes off the top of my head... does anyone have the figures? > The purpose of *goverment* > parks is to remove the land from economic considerations and preserve > it *unconditionally*. The purpose of the U.S. government is: "to secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity", but don't hold your breath. This is not kindergarten governments don't get little happy faces for having good intentions or trying hard. At any time the land is in the government's hand, Uncle Sam can decide we have a need for a new Cobolt Testing range. > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) --Cliff
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/10/85)
In this "theoretical" newsgroup, can I ask a question about libertarian
ideas? This one has bothered me a bit, but net.politics didn't seem
the right place for it:
How is it possible to reconcile the ownership of property with maximizing
freedom? I would have though that the availability of the property was
what counted, not the ability to exclude other people from its use.
This was at least one part of the cultural clash that occured when
Europeans started to "own" parts of N. America. Previously, no-one
(except perhaps tribes/nations) had "owned" territory, and thus all
could use it. That seems to me to be a more free situation (perhaps
not preferable, but at least more free).
Personally, I like to own some property, in order to be sure it is
available when I want it. But I don't find it logical to argue that
I am more free when I can't use something owned by someone else.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtcliff@unmvax.UUCP (02/11/85)
>In article <6306@boring.UUCP> jack@boring.UUCP (Jack Jansen) writes: >>In article <627@unmvax.UUCP> cliff@unmvax.UUCP writes: >>>convicted criminal can either cough up sufficient money to pay for his trial >>>incarceration, etc. or face deportation) >>First law of Libertaria: It is illegal to murder, rape, steal or cheat, >>unless you have enough money to bribe the government. > >Such utter bull. I'll concede that cliff chose a poor phrasing, but that's >about it. What is the problem? I said that [a] CONVICTED criminal can either cough up sufficient money to pay for his trial[,] incarceration, etc. What does that have to do with bribery? If the government were to be crooked it would make more sense to convict more people to get them to pay court costs, although that has nothing to do with paying for the expense of a trial. Are you saying that in Libertaria they have crooked courts since it is possible to bribe judges and then explaining that the reason you know Liberaria allows judges to be bribed is because of their crooked courts? If you want to talk about what some of the differences between the conviction of suspects in the U.S. and in Libertaria, then go ahead, but don't say that because convicted criminals would be require to pay for the cost they inflicted to the government that bribery is implied. --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
ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (02/12/85)
> ...You should find money to pay the victims >for their losses hiding under it. Thus, the first law is: if you don't >behave socially, you either wind up paying for, or get thrown out of the >society. Is murder punishable by a fine, then, the profit from which goes to the family of the victim? Presuming that no other country wants the murderer, that is. And presuming that you meant nothing more sinister when you said 'thrown out of th society' than deportation. Honest enquiry. -Nigel Gale
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/14/85)
In article <645@unmvax.UUCP> cliff@unmvax.UUCP writes: >> In article <627@unmvax.UUCP> cliff@unmvax.UUCP writes: >> > With a sufficiently small >> >kernel as the actual government itself, it would be possible to finance the >> >entire government proper through private donations and user fees (i.e. a >> >convicted criminal can either cough up sufficient money to pay for his trial >> >incarceration, etc. or face deportation) >> > >> What is this! You would inflict our crazies, murderers, and >> just plain anti-socials on the rest of the world if they do not have >> enough money to pay for the trial??? This is hardly fair to our >> neighbors! > >If another country doesn't want them, then they don't get moved, but what if >for some reason, there were laws in Libertaria that the people in GSR (Generic >Socialist Republic) thought were foolish, and the people in GSR were willing >to accept criminals of that nature. Ship them over and be rid of them. >Remember, in general, being a convict says very little about your willingness >to comit murder or even be anti-social. In the USSR (the leader in prison >population per capita) they lock up political dissidents, in South Africa >(number 2 in prison population per capita) they lock up political dissidents >and in the U.S. (We're Number 3! We're Number 3!) we lock up the poor (through >victimless crime laws)... There is nothing inherently anti-social about being >a political dissident or being poor. In general, if there is another country >willing to accept a convict, let him go, with the knowledge that he will never >be allowed to set foot in this country again. > This is a *partial* answer, but your original(above) said that *everyone* who refuses to or cannot pay gets deported. If this is *not* what you had in mind, then what *do* you propose doing with the non-payers who are unacceptable to all other societies? Or if the original statement is what you meant, then my statement stands, you will be inflicting crazies on the rest of the world, I have a hard time seeing a mass murderer agreeing to pay for his incarceration! I would rather see such people locked up *at public expense* than let them go *anywhere* else. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or quad1!psivax!friesen
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (02/19/85)
> > ...You should find money to pay the victims > >for their losses hiding under it. Thus, the first law is: if you don't > >behave socially, you either wind up paying for, or get thrown out of the > >society. > > > Is murder punishable by a fine, then, the profit from which goes to > the family of the victim? My view is that the victim would have to have to agree to sufficient re-imbursement, making murder one crime that a criminal could not "pay for." Deportation is one possibility, prison another. --Cliff