haste@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (10/03/86)
Libertarians (if I may oversimplify) call for the virtual
elimination of the coercive powers which government currently enjoys,
except for some of those which guard us from unwelcome violence. In
the postings which I have recently been reading, two kinds of
arguments for such a program appear.
1) It is often stated that such coercion violates our rights.
(To interact noncoercively with others; to mind your own business; to
enjoy the fruits of your efforts...the list is consistent but varies
from poster to poster.)
2) Many instances are given (in various contexts) of how
things would be better in a libertarian society. Such a society is
portrayed as being not only freer than our own but also safer, more
prosperous and, in many senses of the word, healthier. Of course, in
the absence of a libertarian society, most of these assertions are, at
best, not proven. (Some of them are not provable.)
I have a question about the relationship between the arguments
in the first group and those in the second. How fundamental are the
rights which libertarians cite? Are they first principles? Or are
they espoused because they are expected to lead to the benefits listed
in the second group?
Let me make the question more concrete in this way: Suppose
(suppose) we KNEW beyond doubt that the elimination of such coercive
powers as the power to tax and the power to forbid victimless crimes
would result in a society characterized by misery, poverty and danger.
(We receive a message from an archangel, or a telegram from Hari
Seldon.) Which would be a libertarian's reaction:
a) That's too bad, but at least people are free, and in
possession of their rights. (The rights in question constitute first
principles.)
b) The current situation is preferable to that, but it's a
pity we have to make such compromises. (Those rights are fundamental,
but they are not as important as the benefits we hoped they'd bring.)
c) The principle of noncoercion must be wrong. (Those rights
are supported because they are perceived as promising us a better
life. If they can't deliver we can abandon them with equanimity.)
-------