Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!columbia!topaz!josh
From: josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Libertarianism as ideology
Message-ID: <745@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 22-Feb-85 21:59:09 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.745
Posted: Fri Feb 22 21:59:09 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 05:00:00 EST
References: <342@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 111

Carnes writes, regarding the motives of libertarians:

> Rather, the motivation is to justify the existing order of society,
> characterized by class domination.  The power of government to tax is
> a threat to this social order, since it threatens its basis, the
> "rights" (really privileges) of property. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Socialists believed that
the Government was a tool of the capitalists (a recent quote from 
Kolko, the socialist historian, supports this view).  The power to 
tax is the central supporting feature of the fascist state.  Please
note that by Carnes' definition of Socialist, namely a state that was
once capitalist and is halfway to being communist, the US is socialist
to a T.

> Hence libertarians attempt
> to establish property rights as sacred and absolute, and from this it
> follows that taxation is an unjust violation of property rights, or
> "theft."  

You have grasped the essence of it.
 
> This also answers Wayne's question as to why coercion, or more
> precisely the initiation of coercion, is an absolute evil for
> libertarians, since this principle also defends property.  

Not necessarily right as far as the "since" is concerned.  Some
libertarians tend to be more concerned about the coercion in the
first place.

> It ignores
> the fact that the existing distribution of wealth was arrived at via
> a colossal amount of coercion in the past, and assumes that there is
> some way of knowing what counts as an "initiation" of coercion.  

From this am I to assume that a socialist is merely a libertarian
who wants everything divided out evenly in the first place?
Libertarians are perfectly aware that there has been a lot of coercion
in the past distribution of worldly goods--much of the coercion was
done by socialists.  

> Another way of seeing the ideological character of libertarianism is
> to consider the fact that libertarians nowhere give a clear
> demarcation of the proper limits of legitimate state action. 

Wrong.  Many libertarians and others with similar philosophies 
have given quite clear demarcations.  Study the various libertarians
more closely.  A good place to start is "Libertarianism" by Hospers.

>  Many libertarians say that national
> defense, the protection of national security, is one of the few
> legitimate functions of the state.  Sounds good until you try to
> determine whether a given policy fits under the heading of "national
> defense."

This is a red herring.  Most of the libertarians who have addressed
the issue seriously have put forth reasonably concrete proposals.
The fact that they are not all the same proposal is no good reason
not to study them.  The question of "what is justifiable to spend
on the national defense" is not easy--but it would have to be answered
by *any* government, not just a libertarian one.

>  In particular, I think that welfare state
> policies and government regulation of business may promote our
> national security in at least one way, by giving the lower classes a
> stake in the protection of our society. 

Our welfare state policies make the poor an underclass by 
institutionalizing the patronizing sneer of "here, take this, you're
not good enough to make it on your own."  Our welfare state policies
keep the poor poor by paying them not to work and save.  Our welfare
state policies make the poor expect a free ride, and unlikely to 
pay the ultimate price for freedom.

> the real principle to which they adhere is a hidden one, namely, the
> actions which are forbidden to the state are THOSE TAKEN IN THE NAME
> OF SOCIAL JUSTICE.

In the *name* of social justice?  "The Final Solution" was taken in 
the *name* of social justice.  The name of "Social Justice" is taken 
in vain often enough to qualify as a deity.  I can well admit that
most of the tyrannies that libertarians object to are taken in the 
*name* of social justice.

When it comes to *actual* social justice, however, you (and all 
socialists) don't have the faintest idea what the term means.
Justice is a matter of people getting their just deserts--it *does*
*not* mean everyone getting the same thing.  If we threw everyone
in jail for for six months, regardless of whether they had committed
a crime, would that be justice?  No.  We throw people in jail who
have committed a crime, and those who haven't, go free.  Wouldn't
it be more egalitarian to throw everybody in for the average amount
of time?  Sure; but it would be a grave injustice.

> Look at the Libertarian Party
> platform.  Whatever the social problem, the solution is the same:
> the government should stop trying to solve it, and everything will be
> fine.  
> Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes

The LP platform, to my knowlege, only addresses those problems in the
first place which were caused or exacerbated by government meddling.
The libertarian point of view, of which you appear to be ignorant,
is that problems are solved by *people*.  A government could only solve
problems, if it did, by facilitating their solution by individuals.
In the real world, governments do not primarily attract people 
interested in solving social problems; they attract people interested
in obtaining power.  Socialists live in a dream world because they
ignore this simple fact.

--JoSH