Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: A couple of fariy tales
Message-ID: <2047@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 17-Mar-85 01:15:37 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.2047
Posted: Sun Mar 17 01:15:37 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Mar-85 08:15:16 EST
Lines: 106
Nf-ID: #R:u1100s:-19200:inmet:7800326:000:5143
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Mar 15 17:00:00 1985

>***** inmet:net.politics / u1100s!whu /  4:54 am  Mar 14, 1985
>But seriously, what's the difference between:
>  1)  Paying taxes.
>  2)  Paying for loads of "social insurance."
>  3)  Paying for protection from the mob.

If you pay taxes or pay "protection" to the mob, you're dealing with
people who have relatively little incentive to make you a satisfied
customer.  If you deal with competing social insurance agencies, they
have to make you happy, or at least make you think you're better off
dealing with them than trying someone else, or going on your own, or
they go out of business.

>Another question:
>  The concept that "the Law is the injured party" is a very useful one,
>  and one which we tend to forget.  Ask Joseph K. what it is like without
>  a codified system of Law.  (See Franz Kafka: _The_Castle_, _The_Trial_)
>  Exactly how does a court make its decisions without a system of Law?

I refer you to "The Machinery of Freedom", by David Friedman.  There's a
chapter called (from memory here) "Police and Courts -- in the Market"
that explains this sort of thing.  In essence, courts reach verdicts
according to what system(s) of justice they choose to represent, just as
gas stations vend gas according to what brand(s) they represent.  You
subscribe to a court, or justice system, according to what principles
strike you as important:  "Do they believe capital punishment is a valid
punishment?" for example.  In their own interest, such outfits form
agreements to adjudicate among themselves (if, for example, you believe
in capital punishment and someone (subscribing to a justice system that
does not) killed you, the case of your murderer might be tried in a
third court that the two justice providers had agreed, in general, to
use in such cases.


>Another question:
>  Do libertarian dictionaries contain the word "corruption?"

Sure!  In fact, one of the (many) reasons people become libertarians
is that they see the effect of artificially large amounts of power
in the hands of government officials, and realize that no private form
of power is so great, so public, and so corrupting.

>Still another question:
>...
>  The current U.S. system is not
>  perfect, and it is getting worse and worse as time goes by. 
>  I fully expect to see a MAJOR change in our system of government
>  within my lifetime (if I live that long :-).  But the Libertarians
>  seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath-water.  Somewhere
>  between "Big Brother" and "Law of the jungle" there has to be a
>  middle ground.  Why can't anyone understand that?
>

I don't think all libertarians would strike you this way.  For example,
David Friedman, the author of the book mentioned above, has argued that
the sensible thing to do is to deregulated clusters of things that
are among the MOST obvious, let people get used to that, and then go 
on to deregulate more and more AS IT BECOMES CLEAR that deregulation
is, in itself, a good thing.

We aren't really suggesting the "Law of the jungle".  Private police
in a society with much more opportunity for the poor than we have now
would hardly strike people as the "Law of the jungle". 

>Yet still another question:
>  People WILL organize.  Period.  It might be well nigh impossible to
>  avoid being a member of such an organization.  Indeed, the local
>  "organization" might look _highly_unfavorably_ on those who do not
>  support them.  I really do not see the situation as being different
>  from that in international affairs (or the "Families," for that matter),
>  and can easily see Liberteria degenerate into a feudal system of
>  fiefdoms.  How do we get around the basic human weakness
>  of "us or them?"

Certainly people will organize.  The idea is to put in place a society
which prevents any organization from getting the ultimate upper hand.
At the moment, the government pretty much has the ultimate upper hand,
or haven't you ever dealt with the IRS.

>Really the problem is just this:
>  A free society cannot operate well unless people are willing and
>  able to treat others as good neighbors.  This means among other
>  things:
>
>  1) People have to be willing to help each other out in a pinch.
>
>  2) People have to be able to work for the common good, where such,
>     in fact, exists.  Public works are an obvious example.  I think
>     that police might be another good example.  The common defense
>     is also another good example.
>
>  3) People have to be able to mind their own business.
>
>This, too, is perhaps a fairy tale, but it is the truth nonetheless.
>In the rare cases where a group of people can follow this set of guidelines
>they can be truly free.  In all other cases, there are compromises.
>
>A final question:
>  Which compromises are you willing to make?

In the framework of your question, there's one REALLY big compromise
that is asked a person "immigrating" to Libertaria -- he or she has to
give up the right to force others to live as they wish.  This is a right
we have (and exercise) now, via electing representatives who tell
us how to spend our money, whom we may sleep with, and how to treat
each other.