Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1exp 11/4/83; site iwlc8.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!iwlc8!klw
From: klw@iwlc8.UUCP (kin wong)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: re:replies to ??? on libertarianism
Message-ID: <113@iwlc8.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Oct-84 18:16:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: iwlc8.113
Posted: Wed Oct 24 18:16:06 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Oct-84 03:24:05 EDT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, Il
Lines: 52


 
I want to reply to those who have written on libertarianism in reply
to my earlier article.
I disagree with someone who said that discussion on libertarianism
should be totally removed from this group. After all there is some
philosophy in libertarianism, although in my view a bankrupt one.

Libertarianism has been described by its supporters to be a philosophy
that "respects the sanctity of the individual". So far so good, however
for unexplained reasons, it is also held that "property rights" is
part of this "sanctity", and this "property rights" was further extended 
to mean "you can do whatever you want with your property".

Some would argue that the later point is not included in their philosophy,
in that case I have no quarrel; but in reply to my statement that 
the government can pass laws regulating their use of property (e.g. 
ensuring non discrimination based on race, sex, etc in renting or selling 
a house), the replies from libertarians were "no, government have no
right to do such things, but they do it anyway", and answer yes to my
query that do they really mean they want the rights of " you can do
whatever you want with your property" . Such a view, if carried to
its logical conclusion, would give us the following:
An employer can discriminate, ban unions, provide no safety standards if
he/she so choose; someone who bought a piece of jungle can poisoned all
the wildlife, pollute it with radioactive waste or toxic chemicals, rendering
it uninhabitable for generations to come. Anyone who manage to somehow
build an atom bomb would have the right to keep it, regardless of its
dangers. Someone who owns a piece of land
including a major tributary of an important river have the right to divert
all its water to someplace else with total disregard to the people down
stream, etc, etc.  Libertarians want roads and highways to be built  and
owned by private enterprise, so if my company own and built the
highway from town A to town B, I have the right to refuse access to 
anyone that displeases me; imagine the power of the corporation that 
manage to have monopoly of highways!
It is desirable that the power of the government over individuals be
limited, but to grant individuals the right to own anything (howabout the
sea and the airspace-- if I put a floating fence surrounding several 
thousands of acres of an ocean, does that make the sea area mine?) and
the right to do anything to his/her property is ridiculous. It is
nice to think that we are "respecting" individual rights, but fact is
there is no guarantee that individuals would act in a responsible manner;
in fact, with all the prejudice, hatred, homicidal maniacs, megalomaniacs
that we have, giving such rights to individuals is sure to invite conflicts
and injustice.

Finally, on those who want to pay zero taxes: they want criminals to be
caught, prosecuted, and locked up, but don't want to pay a cent for it!
But perhaps I am mistaken, perhaps they like to live behind barbed wire
fence, and dream about standing heroically in front of their homes 
shouting to some presumably hostile stranger the famous words " get off
my land, Boy"