Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!decvax!cca!ima!ism780b!jim From: jim@ism780b.UUCP Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Re: whither... libertarianism & tec - (nf) Message-ID: <26@ism780b.UUCP> Date: Fri, 27-Jul-84 00:39:06 EDT Article-I.D.: ism780b.26 Posted: Fri Jul 27 00:39:06 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 27-Jul-84 05:22:59 EDT Lines: 59 #R:pyuxn:-82800:ism780b:27500019:000:3110 ism780b!jim Jul 19 00:35:00 1984 > Jim, the statement "I do NOT have the right to abuse any other person" makes > for a reasonable set of laws against murder, assault, etc. These keep people > from doing harm. The "morality laws" (like drug abuse laws, sex laws, etc.) > are intended to keep me from doing harm to myself. That is where I want to > claim responsibility for myself. Now if some irresponsible person chooses to > abuse himself with drugs and die from it, that's his responsibility. I'm sorry, but the subject *was* about laws preventing people from abusing others, *not* about "victimless" crimes. I don't understand why you introduce this strawman here. From your statement you support laws enforcing "moral responsibility", and so you would not make the libertarian argument against gun control, since owning a gun has a much different effect on the saftey of others from shooting heroin. Or would you make that argument? Bringing in this bit about self-abuse, which no one was arguing about, seems like a rhetorical dodge. Let me remind you that you were arguing against the 55 mile an hour speed limit, on the basis that it was arbitrary. But I don't believe you; I think you are trying to argue that you are responsible enough to judge traffic conditions, despite statistical evidence that the 55 limit reduces traffic fatalities and fuel consumption. Now, if society as whole favors dissolution of that speed limit, then I don't think the government should retain it, because I believe in *representative* government, which we certainly do not have now. And of course you only want a reasonable set of laws against murder, assault, etc., because those are the crimes of the powerless. Libertarians refuse to see the criminal and immoral and irresponsible acts of the empowered as crimes. > Property laws enable people to keep what they have earned. Most of them > are of the "you are not allowed to steal from me" genre. Oh, come on. There is little in property laws in our society that refers to the way that property was obtained. Property laws allow people to keep things they didn't earn just as much as things they did. The industrialist owns far more than he earned, and the worker far less, in my opinion. You may dispute my opinion, but you certainly can't validate your property laws *despite* that opinion. > I was using these > laws as a given in my argument about abolishing inheritance being government > interference. Society defines the government and with what it is allowed to interfere. Once you allow a single law, you must give up the "government interference" red flag and argue about individual laws on their own merits in terms of their effects. > If we are indeed restructuring society, then those laws would > not be given. But I imagine they would be recreated damn fast! I would retain laws regarding forceful removal of property, but there would also be governance of the acquistion of power. And in designing a society, I would aim for social structures, institutions, and priorities that do not focus on the acquisition of property and power. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)