[talk.politics.misc] When to steal food.

radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) (09/08/86)

In article <15514@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) writes:

>    For God's sake.  You are simply lying if you say you would do nothing
> if one family had 50 kids and consumed all of the available food, so that
> you were starving.
>
>    Here is a real simple scenario.  One person has all of the food.  50 of
> you are starving, and he won't give you any.  Are you going to choose (A)
> take food by force, or (B) starve to death?  Be serious.  You are going to
> violate his supposed right to do as he wants with his possessions.  In
> essence, you are going to pass a law depriving him of his goods.
> 
>    If the libertarians are just willing to admit this obvious fact, then
> we can get on with the business of discussing the serious question of
> *when* such infringement is justified.
> 
>    -- David desJardins

I'm a libertarian, and I'll admit the obvious fact that people, including
me, will steal food to keep from starving to death. 

Now, on to the serious question of when this is justified:

     ** Almost never **

Libertarianism generally is based on the view that this sort of situation
is not typical of social interactions. Life very seldom comes down to
a question of either I live or he lives. Nor is it usual for one person
to own enough food to feed all but refuse to give or trade it to others.
Theories of politics based on the assumption that this *is* the normal
situation have little relevance to reality.

(Aside: Some libertarians won't agree with me on this, advocating the view
that property rights are "absolute", even in the most extreme circumstances.
I think such libertarians haven't adequately thought of what they 
would actually do if starving, or they must consider it acceptable to say 
that something is wrong, but that they would do it anyway...)

The purpose of your query is apparently to justify limits on family size.
There is no reason to think current world population is anywhere near 
that required to invoke extreme measures superceding all normal standard
of social behaviour. 

Where are people starving today? Africa - which is not one of the more 
heavily populated continents. The problem of starvation today is a problem of 
oppressive and incompetent government, not of limited resources.

    Radford Neal

mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/12/86)

Radford Neal writes:

>I'm a libertarian, and I'll admit the obvious fact that people, including
>me, will steal food to keep from starving to death. 

>Now, on to the serious question of when this is justified:

>     ** Almost never **

>Libertarianism generally is based on the view that this sort of situation
>is not typical of social interactions. Life very seldom comes down to
>a question of either I live or he lives. Nor is it usual for one person
>to own enough food to feed all but refuse to give or trade it to others.
>Theories of politics based on the assumption that this *is* the normal
>situation have little relevance to reality.

What follows indicates that this is not meant as a universal principle, but
rather is relevant to a particular society.  I would therefore ask, what
happens when you take away the governmental programs whose purpose is to
prevent starvation in this country?  THen will it be rare?

I'm pleased to see, by the way, that SOME libertarian or objectivist has
finally admitted that political principles must fit reality, rather than the
reverse...

C. Wingate