Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!ima!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Comments on the Libertarian Platform Message-ID: <1804@inmet.UUCP> Date: Sat, 10-Nov-84 01:58:30 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.1804 Posted: Sat Nov 10 01:58:30 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 11-Nov-84 19:50:32 EST Lines: 223 Nf-ID: #R:ucbcad:-277300:inmet:7800170:000:10554 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Nov 8 15:15:00 1984 >***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 3:33 pm Nov 7, 1984 >A few things about this document are notable: first, the reliance on >a few ideas, which are taken to be absolutely and unconditionally true. >The main one is that the rights of the individual are the most important >consideration involved in political theory. This is really a matter of >faith, so I'm not going to argue against it, Promise? >but if you look at some >of the conclusions that follow from it, it is not at all obvious that the >best possible society results from this sort of application of individual >rights. Second, the utopian nature of the goals of Libertarianism. Perhaps you should read "Utopia is Not an Option", by David Bergland (I haven't (yet)). Various libertarians have at various times pointed out that the adoption of libertarians principles does NOT mean utopia. >I think >that it can be safely said that any system that promises wonderful things >if just a few simple principles are applied can't be trusted. You're right -- hey, harry! Junk Maxwell's equations, okay? Oh yeah, get rid of the bill of rights, while you're at it.... yeah, and Aristotelian logic and plane geometry's five postulates.... What? Yes, and "you cut and I'll choose"..... :-) I think you're reaching a little here -- it is not at all uncommon for a "few simple principles" to result in lots of good things. The law of supply and demand and the concept of "money" are both fairly simple ideas, and yet they result in the various complexities that attend a large marketplace. Remember, libertarians aren't saying that "if you follow these rules, the Millennium will ensue" -- they're merely arguing that maximal individual liberty will allow the greatest freedom of choice -- and that given freedom of choice, people will make the best decisions they can. Is it so unreasonable to think that people will (by and large -- we are NOT talking utopia, here) make choices that benefit them? >In this >respect Libertarianism resembles such social failures as religon and >communism. Hooo! You want to make LOTS of friends, do you? :-) This criticism reminds me of one that someone posted comparing laissez-faire to "neural nets". Neural nets were a failure, this person said, implying that laissez faire would work no better. He was, of course, slapped down from several directions. I think the comparison is germane -- libertarianism is a call for freedom, a cry, if you will, to "let us alone", or as one character put it "Get the HELL out of my way". It's no wonder it sounds simple, but of course a fully-realized libertarian society would doubtless be (and this is a frequent complaint AGAINST it) more complex than our own to live in. Why? More choices, more opportunities. >Maybe eventually I will write up a similar platform as a possible >alternative to both Libertarianism and what we have now, but for now >I will say that I believe that the guiding principle of politics should >be the good of society, and not the good of the individual. I suspect that the "good of society" will always be measured by those who control society. I don't mind the ideal, but the way it's likely to work in practice chills my blood. One mild example -- Ronald Reagan re-defining the cost-of-living index. One harsh example -- Hitler exterminating the German Jews. Please don't take offense -- I do not mean here to compare you with Hitler, or suggest you're in his "camp", but merely to point out that the "good of society" is likely to be measured by those who administer it, whereas the good of an individual is measured (really) by that individual. Ask a German Nazi if the "good of society" is served by the extermination of the Jews, and the answer would have been, (were he a good Nazi) yes, of course -- a great thing for the nation. Ask a German Jew of the same time, and his answer would be different. The people IN CHARGE of that society had been given the power to act for the good of society -- and they did, as they measured the good of society. To sum up, I don't argue that "the good of society" is a bad goal, merely that it has one horrible practical problem -- given such a goal, "society" will be controlled and its good measured by men and women with interests that may have little do do with the good of society in any "real" sense. Worse yet, they may sincerly believe that they are doing good -- but be incorrect. In a society where they've been given control, how do you stop them? It's not enough to say, that in MY version of society acting for the good of society, there would be controls -- Hitler, you may recall, was democratically elected. >> The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their >> own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any >> authoritarian power. > > The world we have now is pretty much like this, unless your dreams > involve lots of money. (And taxes aren't an insuperable obstacle > to becoming a millionare, if that's what you want.) I can do pretty > much what I want to do, in most cases, and that's what I would call > freedom... > Oh? Ever smoke dope in public? Ever try opening a business? Ever go nude on a beach? Ever try to play roulette for real money (outside of New Jersey & Las Vegas)? Ever do anything that might require an "environmental impact statement"? Has anyone you know and like ever had an abortion? Ever try NOT paying social security tax? Ever hire a prostitute? Ever fire someone for incompetence? Ever try opening your own mail service to compete with the post office? Ever try publishing an encipherment technique that the NSA couldn't crack? Ever try selling a new children's toy? Ever try NOT registering for the draft? Ever write "I take the fifth" on your form 1040? Or not sending it in? Ever live in the woods with lots of chickens and been friendly (in an absolutely harmless way) with neighboring children? All of these activities are illegal, heavily regulated, blocked or hindered by "national security" types, or the objects of attempts to make them illegal, or possibly just activities people have been thrown in jail or mental institutions for. It's not so much that you would want to do some or all of these things as that various people have tried them all, and have been sent to jail or otherwise persecuted -- for the good of society. >> We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent >> state and defend the rights of individuals. > > WHAT cult of omnipotent state? > You know -- the cult that holds that the state can decide better than individuals what the individuals should do or have (the "cult of the Omniscient state") and the one that holds that the state can do things like lower the poverty rate (Somebody (simard? milo?) was pointing out that half a trillion had been spent on poverty, with no measurable lowering of the poverty level in this country) Remember the "Great Society"? That was an example of the Cult of the Omnipotent state. >> Even within the United States, all political >> parties other that our own grant to government the right to regulate the >> lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their >> consent. > > Correction: with the consent of the majority. > An incorrect quibble -- "their" clearly refers to the individuals, so "their consent" refers to the consent of the individuals concerned. >> We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and >> hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any >> individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support >> prohibition of the initiation of physical force against other; > > How often does the government kill people? Certainly you don't > get killed if you don't pay taxes. You just get dragged to jail > and locked up, at worst. > I think you missed the point of this one -- they support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force. This includes having the tax collectors (armed with guns) coming knock-knock-knocking at your door with the intent to seize your property or person. >> People should not be forced >> to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should >> be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the >> resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of >> individual rights, is the free market. > > But does an absolutely free market work as well as one with some > government interference? (The answer is no...) They are not saying here that the free market DOES work better than one with some government interference. They are merely saying that the free market is the only type compatible with, well, freedom. As for your statement that it DOESN'T work as well, naturally I expect you to back it up. > As for being forced > to sacrifice their lives for others, if it is a situation like > war, drafting people into the army is justified. > That's nice -- you first. By a "situation like war" did you mean to include, (say) the Vietnam war? The Korean conflict? >> We applaud the >> trend toward private protection services and voluntary community crime >> control groups. > > You mean private armies-for-hire? > Oh, lighten up, will you? They mean what they say! >> e. the repeal of all laws interfering with the right to commit suicide >> as infringements of the ultimate right of an individual to his >> or her own life. > > It is pretty silly to make it illegal, but I'll bet that almost > all people who try to commit suicide and are prevented from > doing it are glad that they were when they come back to their > senses. That's nice. I'll bet everyone who is BRAINWASHED is also grateful to the brainwasher, but I sort of doubt that justifies anything. > Preventing suicides is generally a socially useful > function of police forces, and doesn't cause much trouble for > people other than the suicide, so it should be continued. Why that's MIGHTY generous of you to be willing to spend my money in a way I find morally abhorrent. MIGHTY generous. > Besides, > if the person REALLY wants to commit suicide, he will sooner > or later. Now that IS a socially useful function for the police -- making it TOUGH to commit suicide. Yes sir! We wouldn't want it to be something that works quickly or easily. The good of society dictates that you should have to try REAL HARD, and maybe SEVERAL TIMES.