Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ptsfa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!ptsfa!bdp
From: bdp@ptsfa.UUCP (J. Bashinski)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Comments on Libertarianism
Message-ID: <375@ptsfa.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 15:13:32 EST
Article-I.D.: ptsfa.375
Posted: Mon Nov 19 15:13:32 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Nov-84 06:16:55 EST
References: <47@cbsck.UUCP> <2773@ucbcad.UUCP> <2597@ihldt.UUCP> <272@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: a friend's account
Lines: 166


     This letter is a response to Rich Rosen's anti-libertarian
posting of November 15. I myself have just gotten direct access to the
contents of this newsgroup, so please excuse any ignorance I may show of
the contents of past postings.

     Anyone reading this should bear in mind that libertarians are a
diverse group; even within the organized Libertarian party there is
considerable political heterogeneity. I think that most libertarians
would agree with most of what I'll be writing here, but you should
bear in mind that when I say "libertarians believe x", what I really
mean is something on the order of "I think most libertarians would
substantially agree with the statement that x".

     In his posting, Mr. Rosen says that "... [Libertarians] claim that
they have no responsibility to the society that they live in.". He
proceeds to debunk the claim that "'I get no benefits from society'".
Obviously, the concepts of society and of its benefits are paramount
to Mr. Rosen's argument; it would therefore seem desirable to discuss
those concepts, and a logical place to begin would be with a definition
of "society".

     Society is an aggregate of individuals, bound together by trade,
by the basic need for social intercourse, by shared goals and interests.
"Society", as the word is commonly meant, does not refer simply to an
individual, nor even to a collection of individuals, but to a whole with
its own structure, independent of those who make it up.

     The structure of society is created by the interactions of individuals
with one another. Not all members of the same society need interact directly
with one another; they can be bound together by nearly endless chains of
indirection. Two people may engage in no trade, be unaware of each other's
existence, and share no common goal... and yet be parts of the same society.

     It is certainly true that people gain many benefits from the existence
of this complex web of interactions. Libertarians do not deny this fact.
As far as I know, no serious libertarian thinker has ever claimed that it
is possible or desirable for a person to live without interacting with
others.

     A key point, however, is that individuals interact, not with society
as a whole, but with other individuals. They may interact with many
large numbers of others, even with enormous organized groups- but they
never interact with the whole. If I incur a debt to every other person
alive, one may rightfully say that I owe everyone something, but not
that I owe SOCIETY anything.

     Individuals create society by interacting for their benefit.
The shape of society reflects all the patterns of those interactions-
how they take place and how they are organized.

     There is a difference between society, on the one hand, and
government, on the other. Society exists whenever there is human
interaction. Government, on the other hand, is an attempt by some
group of individuals to control what interaction may occur.
Government seeks to change the patterns that form society; if it
succeeds, it will alter the form of society as a whole.

     For all that, government, like all human activities, is an activity
of individuals (even though they may act in concert). It is an attempt
by a group of people to shape society as they would have it shaped, to
bend the pattern to their will- and to dictate to other individuals the
ways in which they may interact, no matter how much they might wish to
do otherwise.

     Many people, apparently including Mr. Rosen, say that government
is the voice and representative of society as a whole, and that it
may exercise prerogatives that that whole possesses. They believe that
one owes the benefits one has accrued in interacting with others to
create society to that creation itself, and that government, as its
representative, is entitled to collect on that debt.

     People do not interact with the aggregate that forms society.
How then can they owe it a debt? Even more importantly, if they do
owe it a debt, how can government claim payment of that debt in
the name of the whole?

     Mr. Rosen himself says "Democracy provides for majority rule...".
If a government rules in the name of a group of individuals (the
"majority"), then how can it claim also to rule in the name of society
as a whole? Is it even likely that society, taken as a whole, has
goals or desires from which to derive the decrees of government?

     Indeed, not only can government not truthfully claim to rule on
behalf of society as a whole; it cannot even truthfully claim to
represent "all the people". People have conflicting beliefs and desires.
For any decision made by a government, many of the governed can be
found who disagree; if no such could be found, there would be no need
for a government decree. These people are forced to accept the decision
and to act accordingly. This necessary coercive element in the operation
of government should alone lead anyone interested in individual liberties
to wish to severely restrict government involvement in human life.

     Mr. Rosen says that "Democracy... sets up rules governing how the
benefits a society is supposed to provide get distributed...". But
clearly the benefits of interacting with others are self-distributing;
they accrue to those who interact beneficially. In fact, these benefits
are no in essence provided by society at all; the interacting parties
provide them to each other. By doing so, they CREATE society. All the
government can hope to do is to decide who is to interact with whom
and how (with or without the consent of the interacting parties), or
to confiscate and possibly redistribute any material gain from the
interaction.

     He also says "Democracy... sets up rules governing... how each
person is to be responsible for contributing (monetarily or otherwise)
to the sustenance of society and its benefits". Baloney. Democracy
(like any form of government) sets up rules for the sustenance of the
GOVERNMENT and of its benefits (however small they may be). People
create society independent of government; as long as there is human
interaction, society is self-sustaining. Of all the benefits of
human interaction Mr. Rosen mentions in his letter (housing, computers,
market pricing, telephone service), NONE is substantially provided
by government in this country, ALL could be entirely provided by
private means, and NONE would be eliminated under a libertarian
system.

     What libertarians want to do is to sharply reduce or eliminate
government's control over human action and interaction. They believe that
coercion is undesirable, and seek to eliminate as much of it as
possible. They believe that whatever useful services government
provides can be moved mostly or entirely into the private sector,
and that its attempts to dictate to mutually consenting human
beings the ways in which they may interact (or even sometimes what
they can do *without* interacting) can be dispensed with entirely.

     Libertarians are no more starry-eyed idealists than are members
of any other political movement. They have proposed many workable
schemes for private provision of services now provided by government;
some of those ideas are in the books listed at the end of this letter.
If anyone on the net wishes to name a useful service, not involving
interference with people's rights to self-determination, now provided
by government, I'll be glad to propose a private alternative, either
of my own or from the libertarian literature.

     Mr. Rosen ends his posting with a question:

	"Why does the libertarian standpoint sound like the rantings
   of a child who wants something but doesn't want to have to do
   what is required (e.g., work, interact sociably with other people)
   to get it?"

Although I'll ignore the appalling rudeness of this question, I'm afraid
that I can't answer it directly, since the state of affairs it mentions
does not exist. Mr. Rosen will have to look to his own perception of
libertarianism to see why it sounds that way TO HIM. Unlike many of their
political opponents, libertarians have never asked for a free lunch (i.e.,
not having to work or interact sociably...) from government or any other
system. Libertarianism stresses self-reliance, with the rights and
responsibilities of free citizens given to all. It is the very antithesis
of childishness.

     For those who would like to gain a general knowledge of libertarianism,
with a complete development of its political philosophy, I recommend reading
FOR A NEW LIBERTY: THE LIBERTARIAN MANIFESTO, by Murray N. Rothbard. To
see a completely worked out and coherent scheme for private sector replacement
of ALL government services, try THE MACHINERY OF FREEDOM, by David Friedman.

                                       J. Bashinski
                                       ...ucbvax!bashinsk%ucbcory

				       Please respond to the above address
				       rather than to the originator of
				       this posting.