Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site ea.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!mwm
From: mwm@ea.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Libertarianism - (nf)
Message-ID: <9800011@ea.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 14-Jul-84 00:15:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ea.9800011
Posted: Sat Jul 14 00:15:00 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Jul-84 00:23:12 EDT
References: <192@qusavx.UUCP>
Lines: 43
Nf-ID: #R:qusavx:-19200:ea:9800011:000:2207
Nf-From: ea!mwm    Jul  7 23:15:00 1984

#R:qusavx:-19200:ea:9800011:000:2207
ea!mwm    Jul  7 23:15:00 1984

/***** ea:net.philosophy / qusavx!carmine /  2:43 am  Jul  4, 1984 */
>I think I would be much less critical of Libertarianism if it could
>address two problems I have:
>
>How can we expect that all people are actually created equal and that
>they all compete on an equal level when each is born with an 
>accumulation of inherited wealth?  If libertarians believed that all
>wealth accumulated within one's lifetime was forfeited upon death, I
>might actually think they BELIEVED in equal competition, etc.
>
>How can each of us individuals be expected to compete (on an equal
>basis) with the mythical 'individuals' called corporations?  If I
>were to sue General Motors, IBM or even (horrors) AT&T, I sure as
>hell would want the government on my side!!  A neutral government, 
>in such a situation, is one which is actually opposed, at all times,
>to the interests of the individual citizen and in favor, at all times,
>of the interests of the corporate citizen.
>
/* ---------- */

Neither of these concepts are implicit in libertarianism (note the small l)
per se. The first is something we do "because we've always done it."  Since
most libertarians assume that there must be a government to settle disputes
between individuals, this government will *of necessity* define what is and
isn't property, and the valid ways to obtain it. If you choose to decide
that inheritance isn't a valid way to obtain property, that's perfectly ok
to most libertarians (but not ok with most anarchists!).  BTW - the Analog
editorial dealt with the problem better, and even suggested a solution.

The second problem is a problem with an economic system, not with a
political system. The socialist solution is to have the means of production
controlled by the government (though they won't put it that way). This only
clashes with libertarianism in how you get people to go to work in the
silly things under those conditions. I personally have problems with it in
that I expect such a system to stifle creativity & progress. If you hack
things so that people can compete with the government-run production
systems, you don't have these problems. Of course, you now have to prevent
capitalism from re-emerging.

	<mike