Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: the problem with libertarianism - (nf)
Message-ID: <1060@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Sep-84 14:12:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.1060
Posted: Wed Sep 12 14:12:14 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Sep-84 07:11:22 EDT
References: <8135@umcp-cs.UUCP> <9800033@ea.UUCP> <558@denelcor.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 63

I always thought the "problem with libertarianism" is that, in their
quest for ultimate personal freedoms, they ignore/deny/nullify any
implicit and/or explicit agreements they have made as human beings
with the rest of society.

Example:  Some libertarians feel restricted by what they consider to
be unfair traffic laws (speeding regulations).  The rules have been
made as to how roads that were constructed using public monies should
be used, yet these people don't like them.  So much so that they'll
violate them at will (instead of or just possibly in addition to lobbying
for changes in the rules).  The rational solution for libertarians who
dislike the rules of the road (or any societal rules concerning some
common societal element) is for them not to use the roads at all (or to
build roads of their own, though that's unlikely since it would involve
a cooperative effort among libertarians, and *that* might result in rules
and other infringements on their personal freedoms).

Since we're discussing money, let's bring up the subject of taxes, which
many libertarians feel is a form of enslavement.  But let's look at it
rationally.  Taxes pay for public services, common societal functions,
like the roads described above, police/military protection, etc.  Thus,
logically, anyone who doesn't pay taxes is not entitled to any of these
services/functions (unless other societal rules deem them as hardship cases
or exemptions).  If one is only to allow those who pay their defined share
to make use of the desired facilities, then some mechanism is necessary to
administer and regulate and prevent those who haven't paid from doing the same.
Since it's their choice not to pay, shouldn't they then pay for at least the
cost of administering the system?  (Point being:  either way, you lose.)

The typical libertarian response to all of this revolves around "the dangers
of bureaucracy and government".  Obviously, too much government and bureaucracy
is counterproductive (and quite possibly dangerous).  But does this imply that
they should be eliminated almost entirely?  If this country should "go
libertarian"  (e.g., the government as we know it falls after a nuclear war,
and "everybody is on their own"), how long do you think it would take for
even the strongest-minded libertarians to wind up having to form some set of
societal agreements, followed by a government to administer these agreements,
followed by a bureaucracy to maintain that government?  ("Remember, we're
against bureaucracy and government in our new society!  That's why we have the
Bureaucracy and Government Prevention Agency to make sure that the minimal
government we agree upon doesn't get out of hand!")

Lest you jump in and remark:  "If you honestly think that what you described
is how this country operates (re: taxes, services, government), then you're
un poco loco, senor."  I never said that the US (or any country) operates in
the ideal fashion I describe.  Mainly because ideals don't often work in
real life situations to the degree expected.  The rules, in many cases, are
fouled up.  And so are the implementations of some of the meta-rules (the
rules/methods for making rules).  But the foundations laid by the meta-rules
(if people work to make best rational use of them) are sound, and have great
potential for rational society.  

In summary, it would appear that libertarians want the benefits of cooperative
societal efforts without being "forced by governmental or any other kind of
authority to participate in such efforts" (i.e., without participating in them
for whatever reason).

I do hope to hear what libertarians have to say about my perceptions of
libertarianism, hopefully beyond the "that's a load of crap and you're an
asshole" style of argument.
-- 
Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought.
			Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr