Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!ima!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Libertarianism as ideology (repl Message-ID: <2042@inmet.UUCP> Date: Sat, 16-Mar-85 02:05:01 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.2042 Posted: Sat Mar 16 02:05:01 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 17-Mar-85 23:41:44 EST Lines: 68 Nf-ID: #R:dciem:-145000:inmet:28200006:000:3627 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Mar 13 13:25:00 1985 >***** inmet:net.politics.t / dciem!mmt / 5:40 am Mar 13, 1985 > >It is of practical benefit that people should control much of the fruits >of their labour. It is more practical that they be given a token in >exchange for those fruits, a token that they can exchange for something >else they want. It is more practical because that way the labour of >many people can be combined effectively and substantial things produced >that could not be produced by individuals. But never could these things >be done without the assistance, visible or ignored, of a huge range of >other people (society). You take the benefit of their labour whether >you want to or not. You have no right to keep for yourself all the >benefits of your labour, and if you are so selfish as to wish to do >so, society has the right to trample you until you squeal. That, too, >is practical. >-- > >Martin Taylor Personally, I find the "trample you until you squeal" philosophy more objectionable than the "grab, grab, hold, hold" philosophy that Martin dislikes. Like many socialists, Martin seems to me to be looking at the world in a rather static way. Of the benefits I receive from "society", only a few result from people who particularly wanted to benefit me. THEY thought they were in business for themselves -- to sell food, to make compilers, to amuse, whatever. There are, to be sure, people (parents and friends) who try to benefit me directly, and I do not minimize their contribution. I merely point out that it is given VOLUNTARILY, and that any obligation I feel to them is a personal matter, not for the State or "society" to adjudicate. Now we come to the assertion about "static" viewpoints. Consider: Just as those people selling meat, building compilers, and trying to amuse and inform, were not trying to benefit me, but themselves, so will I (and JoSH) wind up benefiting people who I do not particularly wish to benefit. "Society" would indeed trample you if you tried, somehow, not to benefit others (if, for example, you refused to pay for your food at the marketplace), but it would be silly for you to do this -- you get more benefit from paying than from not paying. In other words, to treat the accumulated benefits of the past as a fixed lump that JoSH will not contribute to in the future (and therefore "owes" something to) is a static sort of view, ignoring as it does the unintended contributions JoSH has made and will make to the welfare of others. Further, the logic seems to me suspect because it ignores the variation between people's contributions to "society". In particular, if JoSH were a tremendous contributor (say he found a way to make it impossible to torture people) would that mean that his right to property was absolute? Closer to absolute than before? Suppose he were a person society had trampled on for no good reason (such as a concentration camp victim) Would that make his right to property absolute? Why not? What would he owe to "society"? We commonly treat criminals as having lost some of their rights, I agree, but what about downtrodden, law-abiding citizens? "Society" is not the same as "government". Questions about what "society" should be owed probably belong here, but they should be carefully delineated from "government" should be owed, or, if one believes they are the same thing, this should be stated explicitly. Martin points out (rightly, as I see it), that one benefits greatly from society, and many take this as a signal that government may therefore collect on the debt. Perhaps, (that's another debate) but the two words are not synonyms.