sappho@SRI-NIC.ARPA (08/05/86)
Several comments on the discussion of libertarianism, in no particular order: 1. I think most of the people who receive government assistance only do so for short periods of time while they are down on their luck. But it is not only people who are not "fundamentally dishonest" and who want to "sit around watching TV all day" who won't want to get a job if the government pays more for welfare than they can make at a job. I would have to value self-sufficiency very highly indeed to leave my (hypothetical) children to be cared for by someone else in order to go out and make money so that they can be less well fed and clothed and lose the free medical care they are getting. I also think that, whether a government or a private organization is assisting people who are down and out, there are ways of helping that are more likely to encourage independence and ways which encourage dependence, so it is not just a choice between giving people a handout and encouraging them to work. 2. Saying that "society" is to some extent responsible for crime means that "society" can somehow alter its behavior to make crime less frequent, and that it ought to do so. I can think of many social policies, some of them contradictory and some of them not worth the cost in personal freedom, which people justify on grounds that they reduce crime, so I don't think this idea implies any particular government policy. It just means that I should think about how my actions (including the laws I support and the policies I support in the organizations I join) encourage or discourage crime, even if I am not myself a criminal. If there are ways of reducing crime which are more effective than heavy punishments for the criminals, then we should try them (provided the cost in personal liberty is not too high). 3. Based on my experience three years ago trying to find a way to live on $350 a month (doable even in the Bay Area if you find a good share, but lots of competition for those shares), I do not believe that it is possible to live indoors and buy food (let alone medical care) for $200 a month, even with shared housing and cheap food. 4. I would also like to hold people who take drugs and alcohol fully responsible for their actions while intoxicated without punishing them for just getting drunk or high, but I don't find Keith's analogy about dropping bricks very persuasive. I think people should be punished for doing things which are sufficiently dangerous to other people (such as drinking and driving or reckless driving), even if they have not actually hurt someone. If they are not, then a lot of people will do these things thinking that they won't be the ones to have an accident, and they will kill and maim a certain number of other people. I do not think they have the right to risk my life in this way, and so I would like to give them a consistent punishment whenever they threaten people, because that is more likely to stop them than a punishment which only affects some of them. 5. What was the difference between the crashes that occurred every 10 to 20 years before the Great Depression and the several recessions we have had since? 6. Anyone who gives up looking for work after applying to 100 companies and getting one interview has unrealistic expectations of the job market and is not persistent enough. I sent out hundreds of resumes and cover letters, asked every friend I could think of about openings at their companies, called companies, went to several employment agencies, and had several interviews before I found the job I have now. It took a year. I am sure it isn't unusual for people to have to apply for over a hundred jobs to find one. It is useful to have some safety net to support people while they are looking, but I don't approve of someone's giving up that easily. 7. I don't agree that taxes are "largely voluntary" just because people who are sufficiently dishonest and are willing to risk the penalty if they are caught can avoid paying them. If Steve thinks they are OK because they are "largely voluntary", then he should support making them completely voluntary. If not, then he shouldn't use that argument to support the current system. 8. Keith, what would you do about people who are needy because of past injustices of the government. Is it wrong for the government to compensate them, since it has to take money from everyone to do so? 9. What ought the government to do in the way of protecting children? They should not be completely at the mercy of their parents, but all kinds of excessive restrictions on people's freedom are justified in the name of protecting children. 10. Keith, not everyone agrees that government interference caused the Great Depression. So, if you want to use that as an argument, could you either sum up why you think this is so or give a pointer to some explanation. I think I remember having read an argument to that effect in The Incredible Bread Machine, but I don't remember it and have misplaced my copy. Am I remembering the right book, or do you have a better book to suggest? I have some disagreement with Keith in my general principles, but I will discuss that in another message. Lynn Gazis sappho@sri-nic ------- -------