sappho@SRI-NIC.ARPA (08/05/86)
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. 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. Some of our programs of government assistance may not be helpful as they stand. Some kinds of assistance may be better done by private organizations than by the government, and some may be better off under more local control. And many times the unjust economic arrangements that oppress the poor to make the rich richer are maintained by government violence on behalf of the rich. But I don't believe that we have an absolute right to do what we like with our property no matter who else is suffering, and I don't believe that the only kind of coercion is that which is done with a gun. I don't think that any tyranny you want can be justified as soon as you reject that premise. I have some principles which limit the amount of power I am willing to allow the government: 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. I could think of others, but that is the general idea. I think it is important that the government's power be limited, and that we should not accept every extension of government that can be supported by some argument of benefit for most people. I think that our government now has some power which I do not want it to have. But I don't believe that government should be as limited as Keith believes it should be. Lynn Gazis sappho@sri-nic ------- -------