Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site wucs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mgnetp!we53!busch!wuphys!wucs!esk From: esk@wucs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Still more holes in libertarianism Message-ID: <505@wucs.UUCP> Date: Sun, 25-Nov-84 14:41:50 EST Article-I.D.: wucs.505 Posted: Sun Nov 25 14:41:50 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 26-Nov-84 07:54:14 EST Distribution: net Organization: Washington U. in St. Louis, CS Dept. Lines: 68 [] From: inmet!nrh (- Nat Howard) >>***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 3:33 pm Nov 7, 1984 >> 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. ... 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. I don't recall; why don't you describe it for us. I suspect your state- ment is highly dubious. There is more to democracy than just elections (the USSR has elections) -- as you no doubt refuse to acknowledge. In any case, to repeat the old saw: you're right, democracy is absolutely the worst system of government -- except for all the others. AND, as Wayne has been trying to get you to realize, the question arises of how stable YOUR version of government is against overthrow or internal tyranny. (I can just imagine how a nation will defend itself when taxes are abolished! What a JOKE!) >> 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. Well, what kind of freedom? Libertarians seem to have a not-too-popular definition. What makes your definition better than others? As for backing for Wayne's answer, I suggest you read "Four Types of Market Failure" in Griffin and Steele, *Energy Economics*. >> 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. Besides, if the >> person REALLY wants to commit suicide, he will sooner or later. > ... Yes sir! ... The good of society dictates that you should > have to try REAL HARD, and maybe SEVERAL TIMES. Not just the good of society but -- to leave a really bad taste in your mouth -- for the good of the individual concerned. >***** inmet:net.politics / talcott!gjk / 10:30 pm Nov 13, 1984 >> Suppose I own some piece of land, and while I'm on it my >> neighbour buys all the surrounding land and tells me that >> I am not allowed to pass over it. He certainly isn't initi- >> ating force, nor does he impose an active duty upon me. Ne- >> vertheless he can starve me to death in this way. > ... >2. NOT forseeing this possibility, you sneak out over his land one dark >night. ... Yes, by sneaking out over his land you've broken the law. ... But isn't that solution *wrong* in your view? Looks like you're stuck! Thanks, gjk, for pointing out this problem. Of course, as nrh points out, such situations would probably rarely happen because they're for- seeable. Nevertheless, the problem of "imperfect competition" (there I go again, trying to talk economics with libertarians) still arises. Even though (odds are -- is it worth risking it?) nobody could surround you entirely, they still might own the only really practical route from your land. They could then charge semi-monopoly prices, and as anyone who understands economics knows, that lowers efficiency. --The aspiring iconoclast, Paul V. Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's.