eyal@wisdom.BITNET (08/16/86)
>I am not sure how to argue with libertarianism, because my difference >with libertarians seems to me to be not so much a matter of facts as >a matter of different values. I think Keith's position is reasonably >consistent if you accept his moral premises, but I don't consider his >position moral, and I don't think he would consider mine moral. Yes, that's definitely a big problem with libertarianism. Libertarians take as a basic assumption that government intervention is evil. They can't (and don't want to) use reason and morality to support this assumption, since that would require advocating absolute truth and absolute values, and that's anathema to libertarianism; so, instead, they try to present "freedom" as compatible with (or even as a pre-requisite for) ANY values. The result is that they have no answer to those who say "I don't regard your position as moral". Libertarianism really has a lot in common with socialism - in their fundamental approach of making basic assumptions about politics or morality without trying to defend them rationally, and also, ironically, in the concrete conclusions they lead to; if you read, for example, Murray Rothbard, who is widely regarded as the intellectual leader of libertarianism, you can see that most of the views he holds on concrete issues - such as his praise for the PLO, his sympathetic evaluation of soviet foreign policy, and his view of the USA as the world's "main danger to peace and freedom" - are totally incompatible with genuine advocacy of individual rights, and identical with the views of most socialists. The correct approach to political theory is the one diametrically opposed to libertarianism's; political theory must be based on a sound and detailed theory of morality, and a sound theory of morality must be defended by rational arguments and based on reality - on correct observation and identification of the facts of reality and of man's nature. If you recognize that morality is an objective necessity for man, and that arbitrary whims are not a proper standard of morality, then this is the only correct approach, and then saying "I don't regard your position as moral" will not be a valid answer without presenting rational counter-arguments. Ayn Rand was the only one to fully and consistently take such an approach, and, as a result, she gave the only full, consistent rational and moral defense of individual rights; her writings (particularly "Atlas Shrugged", "The Virtue of Selfishness" and "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal") are the only antidote both to libertarianism and to socialism, and are a must read for anyone seriously interested in political theory. Eyal Mozes BITNET: eyal@wisdom CSNET and ARPA: eyal%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA UUCP: ...!ihnp4!talcott!WISDOM!eyal -------
SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA (08/22/86)
I think I can see Keith's point about wrong things being wrong even if they are done for a good cause, because I believe the same thing about war and killing. Many times people pose pacifists the question of whether they would not kill in this or that extreme case. And perhaps in one or another of those cases I would change my mind. It is hard to continue to believe in nonviolence when it is met, as it often is, with violence, and when there doesn't seem to be a practical nonviolent alternative. But I see that a mentality of violence, war, and terrorism is perpetuating itself in this world, and that people who start out killing for the best of reasons can wind up killing for the worst, and so I believe that all wars and killing are wrong, even those in a good cause. But I have a few questions. Keith, when you say that something which is wrong is always wrong do you mean that the only moral rules are absolute ones? Are there no actions you would consider moral or immoral that depend on the situation? And where do you derive your beliefs about right and wrong to begin with? I think I understand why, given your set of values, you consider libertarianism to be the most moral form of government, but I still don't understand what is going to make someone who isn't libertarian become libertarian. You seem to be saying that these beliefs are not just your own whim or personal value judgment, but are somehow inherently true. Why are they inherently true? Lynn Gazis sappho@sri-nic ------- -------
hibbert.pa@xerox.com (08/25/86)
To: power.Wbst@Xerox.COM
"Two - I don't seperate people's talk from their actions, or
rather I feel that what people say is only meaningful when one
also knows how they act. The few libertarians I know are
racist, although they talk a good non-racist argument."
It's hard to refute personal experience. Few of the many libertarians
I know are racist. It seems similar to the proportion of the
population at large. All of the libertarians I know defend people's
right to be racist, which is unlike the proportion at large.
"The basic tone of the libertarian philosophy has strong
elements of social darwinism in it, long used as a scientific
veneer for racist thinking. (I'm perfectly willing to defend
this assesment of social darwinism if anyone wants to debate
it.)"
As far social darwinism goes, I'd argue that a better approach to
defeating racism is to let the market act. Racism is an inefficient
business practice, and is self-defeating.
"Three ... To me [liberttarianism] has a very fundamental flaw
in its premise; the same flaw as in true Marxism, ... among
others. It's a very simple flaw: ... In libertarianism the
false picture is to deny the existance of society as a sum
greater than the whole of its parts (people) ... "
This is an interesting argument. I don't claim that individuals don't
gain anything from society, but I do believe that groups of
individuals have no rights they aren't ceded by their members. I'd be
interested to see a further explanation of what rights groups should
have over their members and why.
Someone else asked about the applicability of libertarian principles
to "the community of nations". My response to that is that nations
aren't rational creatures, and that's the root from which I draw human
rights.
Chris
-------power.Wbst@XEROX.COM (08/25/86)
To: Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM
"This is an interesting argument. I don't claim that individuals
don't gain anything from society, but I do believe that groups of
individuals have no rights they aren't ceded by their members.
I'd be interested to see a further explanation of what rights
groups should have over their members and why."
I've found it very hard to explain this position, yet it seems very
obvious to me. I think it's because the things which I take for
granted are slightly different from the things that other people take
for granted. One of these things is that there are no such things as
rights, and individuals can't cede to groups what never existed in the
first place. What is a right? Freedom of speech? It doesn't exist.
People are murdered every day for saying the wrong thing. If your
tongue is cut out, you can't talk. Freedom from oppressors? Supply
your own list of 100 counter examples. Rights don't really exist. It
seems fundamental to me, so I don't know how to explain it any better.
When we talk about the way to make a society better (having defined
better), we have to start from the way humans act and interact, not
the way they 'should'. And because of the type of animal that a human
being is, his life is dominated by the groups around him. People
behave very differently when they are in groups. The bigger the
group, the more the difference. People are still individuals in a
group, but they perform different functions - leader, conscience,
facilitator, worker. The human animal is very flexible and can
perform more than one of these at a time, or even be one for a given
group and another for a different group. Human beings fall into this
interactive pattern very naturally, because this is the way we are
made. Society is the natural way for people, perhaps inevitable.
Individuals only rarely, extremely rarely, remove themselves
completely from society (small s: a group of people larger than the
immediate family). To say that this society, which forms naturally,
is a figment while contending that only people acting on their own
means anything, is just wrong. Society does force individuals to do
things, it always has and it probable always will. Arguing against it
is like argruing that people shouldn't fall in love, or shouldn't be
sad if someone they do love dies. Valid arguments can be made given a
set of values, but it doesn't change the facts.
As I said, this seems obvious to me. Libertarians seem to deny this.
The system of a powerful central governing body (Government, church,
employer) is a central part of most peoples lives. The exceptions
tend to be the leaders of these governing bodies (I guess it can be
argued that they are more dominated than anyone else. . .) or the
people that serve to fill the cracks between groupings - the wheeler
dealers, eccentrics, etc. The system of a strong central Government,
with the heads democratically elected, has evolved because people,
even the workers, want to be hassled as little as possible, pure and
simple. But they also don't want to concern themselves day in and day
out with the running of the society (because they're not leader or
conscience or facilitator). The removal of power from the immediate
(employer, parish priest) to the far away (Washington) does a lot to
realize this ideal. If you weaken the government enough, this system
falls apart. The libertarians think they can weaken the government to
an amazing degree, but still have it be able to control the
corporations, the Mafia bosses. I contend that if you weaken the
government this much, it will be unable to enforce due process, unable
to enforce the right of property, etc.
I guess if I had to sum it all up, I'ld say that libertarians are
reductionists, and see only the individuals. I say that people behave
differently in groups, and society actually forms a meta-being. This
isn't some subtle philosophical point, but (to me) an obvious truth.
Society (groups of people) has mores and values, habits and methods
that may or may not be similar to what individuals think or do. -Jim
-------Hibbert.pa@xerox.com (08/27/86)
To: power.Wbst@Xerox.COM
Jim Power said the following, in reply to something I wrote:
"When we talk about the way to make a society better (having defined
better), we have to start from the way humans act and interact, not
the way they 'should'. And because of the type of animal that a human
being is, his life is dominated by the groups around him. People
behave very differently when they are in groups. ... To say that this
society, which forms naturally, is a figment while contending that
only people acting on their own means anything, is just wrong.
Society does force individuals to do things, it always has and it
probable always will.
... Valid arguments can be made given a set of values, but it doesn't
change the facts.
I guess if I had to sum it all up, I'ld say that libertarians are
reductionists, and see only the individuals. I say that people behave
differently in groups, and society actually forms a meta-being. This
isn't some subtle philosophical point, but (to me) an obvious truth.
Society (groups of people) has mores and values, habits and methods
that may or may not be similar to what individuals think or do.
-Jim"
I don't argue that society is non-existent or unimportant. My claim
is that it is not a useful concept in the current context. By that I
mean that societies can't be said to have goals and values. These are
attributes of individuals, and ascribing the goals of a majority or a
plurality to the whole group is not true to the concept of a goal.
At a very low level, the goal I'm trying to argue should be uppermost
is that individuals should be free to pursue their own ends as long as
they don't interfere with the similar freedom of other individuals. I
claim this is important because of the nature of individuals. The
system of government I argue in favor of is intended to further this
goal. I am willing to discuss either whether a libertarian government
is a good way of serving this goal, or whether this is a good goal.
If you can express your goal in terms of groups and societies and
their attributes, then it will make sense for you to argue about
systems of government in terms of how they serve that goal. If you
have to appeal to the notion of a majority in order to talk about the
needs, decisions, desires, mores, etc. of a group, then I think you
should say why they are important to your explanation. I can see no
way to describe the values of a society without appealing to the
values of the individual. In the end the values of a society can be
no more precisely specified than as the values of a majority of their
members. I can see no argument for lending moral weight to the
concept of majority.
Chris
-------