Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response - (nf)
Message-ID: <1829@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 23-Nov-84 01:18:55 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.1829
Posted: Fri Nov 23 01:18:55 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Nov-84 05:43:27 EST
Lines: 69

#R:pyuxd:-27200:inmet:7800186:000:3290
inmet!nrh    Nov 21 16:53:00 1984

(I speak here for my own beliefs.  Libertarians in general may
vary quite a bit).

>***** inmet:net.politics / pyuxd!pyux / 12:11 am  Nov 15, 1984
>It boils down to this:  libertarians value individual freedom as paramount.
>(As, I admit, I do myself.)  Yet they claim that they have no responsibility
>to the society that they live in.  

Not at all.  We admit the requirement not to initiate force or fraud.
We admit responsibility for our own actions and our own choices.
We agree that property is a human right, and that therefore the property
of others is theirs, not subject to our theft.

>Democracy provides for majority rule and
>law, and sets up the rules governing how the benefits a society is supposed
>to provide get distributed, AND how each person is to be responsible for
>contributing (monetarily or otherwise) to the sustenance of society and its
>benefits.  

As do communism, totalitarianism, and the rest.  "From each according
to his abilities, to each according to his needs" -- remember?
That a government may define these things doesn't give them 
legitimacy (rather the opposite).  

>Those who choose to claim "I get no benefits from society" are
>clearly lying, unless they live in a cave, built their own domiciles with
>their hands and make no use of ANY societally provided facility.  

On the other hand, those who claim "I PAID for what I got from society"
and have a basis for this claim owe nothing to society.  This holds true
even if they had paid labor build them a mansion in Beverly Hills.
The notion that one can never pay enough for "society" is the notion
that society is the source of all wealth.  Not true.

The other aspect of this paragraph I find disturbing is the notion
that EVERYTHING must be paid for.  What do you do when someone
gives you a gift?  What do you do when someone accedes to your right
to walk on your own land?  Certainly in the first case you don't
whip out the checkbook or ask if they take VISA?  Certainly in the
second case you don't send them a check (at least, not for that reason).

>(Obviously
>anyone using this network doesn't qualify, since they are a priori using
>resources belong to other members of the society---even if they own their
>own computers, priced as they were by society's marketplace, they are using a
>public telephone network.
>

Oh I get it.  One can never pay enough to have paid one's phone bills.
Or is it:  one can never pay enough to those who've freely given you
use of their computer facilities?

Don't confuse "society" (which is a function of human interaction) with
"government" which is an attempt to dominate society.  People may owe
much to society, but little or nothing to government.  In particular,
the government tends to claim credit for anything that happens in 
a society, even though the society managed it IN SPITE of the government.

>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?

Too much wax in your ears?  Not enough listening?  Sub-standard mental
processing of the libertarian standpoint as you've heard it?  Why does
your paragraph sound like a churlish attempt to side-step the merits of
a philosophy?