king@KESTREL.ARPA (08/10/86)
Return-path: <SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA> Date: Tue 29 Jul 86 01:24:03-PDT From: Lynn Gazis <SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA> Subject: more on libertarianism 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. I have some degree of sympathy for libertarianism for the following reasons: 1. I believe in nonviolence, and government action seems to inherently involve some degree of use of force or threat of force. 2. I mistrust too much concentrated power. I think that if too much power is given to a government for some good purpose, it is likely to be abused later. 3. I think that government at its worst probably does more harm than anarchy at its worst, so it is probably better to err in the direction of too little government than too much. 4. A government can do some things well, but it is too blunt an instrument for many purposes. But I can't agree with the premise that I have no obligation to anyone unless I have contracted it or have injured that person. I certainly think we have an obligation to feed the hungry, heal the sick, and so on. Maybe you do, and maybe you don't. What you seem to be claiming, however, is that you have the right and obligation to COMPEL ME to do this. By the way, a "social safety net" would not be inconsistent with libertatian society. It would be as possible for a voluntary group to agree to transfer money to those in the group who happen to run into certain types of hardship as it is now possible for a group to agree to transfer money to those members who die, or whose houses burn down. The word is "insurance". There are xxx main problems with private unemployment insurance: adverse selection (more poor risks than good risks buy insurance) and behavior modification (the knowledge that you have unemployment insurance might cause you to behave in ways that make payment more likely). This last problem is indeed a problem with unemployment insurance as it now stands. The former problem, adverse selection, is not faced by government* programs. It is, however, faced by existing insurance companies, who have developed ways to deal with it. Most life insurance is sold on the basis of a physical examination, and if you make certain claims (such as "non-smoker") there may be a two-year period during which a benefit can be contested if it looks like a claim was fraudulent. Insurance companies seek information concerning the applicant on which to base a risk judgement (and liberals continually tighten the noose by trying to prevent the insurance companies from taking such factors, such as age of the driver for auto insurance, into account; but this is another story). An unemployment insurance company would probably need to look at a customer's resume and interview the customer before setting a rate, and there may be a 1-year elimination period for certain types of terminations, but this is not terrible. In summary, if you really believe that a large number of people want a social safety net but will only help pay for one if every other or most other participants also do so, start an unemployment insurance company. 1. It isn't the government's purpose to make us more moral people (which it can't do anyway), but to try to prevent some of the worse harm which could come to people in its absence. So it should be limited to preventing force and fraud and providing some services which people couldn't provide as well for themselves. 2. We have to remain free to change the government. So the government should not be able to harass its opponents. 3. Avoid giving the government power to control vague things. 4. It is dangerous for the government to be doing things secretly. 5. It is usually better to err on the side of too little government than too much. Name one government that fits your five criteria! Lynn Gazis sappho@sri-nic -dick *all generalizations, including this, are false. Different states have different levels of unemployment insurance payment and I know personally two people who chose to live in states where payments were higher because they expected to drift in and out of the labor market. -------