Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ubvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!hpda!fortune!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
From: tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Risk vs. Reward
Message-ID: <152@ubvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Apr-85 16:20:07 EST
Article-I.D.: ubvax.152
Posted: Wed Apr  3 16:20:07 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Apr-85 01:00:56 EST
References: <792@utcsri.UUCP> <1184@amdahl.UUCP> <458@ssc-vax.UUCP> <118@ubvax.UUCP> <507@ssc-vax.UUCP> <129@ubRe: Risk vs. Re <136@ubvax.
Organization: Ungermann-Bass, Inc., Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 58

> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) writes:
> >My state also wouldn't be so stupid as to believe that it can't ever know what
> >anyone wants.  One of its primary activities would be to keep in close touch
> >with what people want via polling, censuses, market analyses, and the
> >advice of popular organizations, all of which should be made public to help
> >people coordinate their own productive activities.  Using this information
> >and other expertise or referenda, the state would organize planning to aid
> >the achievement of social goals. 
> 
> Instead of going through all the overhead, how about making the
> state-owned facilities available to whoever wants to use them? Given a
> fully automated production system in an economy of abundance, any
> "social goals" that anyone feels needs to be achieved, they can do
> themselves. If nobody feels a goal is worth working on, then it has no
> business being a social goal anyway.
> (mike>) 

This possibility fails because of a tragedy of the commons overuse problem.
The state can't just give, give, give.  Giving private citizens the right
to rape the public authority is not what I would call a social goal.  And
few social goals have the unanimous consent of the population.  My state
wouldn't require unanimity to act within reasonable bounds; a majority
would do on most questions.  Decisions should be made at a public level
about what is important and what is moral, even though on most questions
individuals should have free choice, where there are many good ways to live
and be happy.  But questions like "Should some people be permitted to starve?"
are what a state is there to answer, "No!".  If solving moral problems
requires inflicting hardship on some (forcing illiterates to go to school,
forcing property owners to pay extra taxes), so be it.

> >I think it's a problem with
> >Libertaria, that most interesting moral questions become irrelevant and
> >nonsensical.  I don't believe that the evisceration of morality amounts
> >to progress.
> 
> But the nice thing about Libertaria is that it leaves all of the
> interesting (= unsolved) moral questions up to the citizens, as opposed
> to dictating an answer from above.

The ugly thing about Libertaria is that it leaves all of the important
moral questions up to the propertied individuals.  If Libertaria were
hit by a plague, the propertied individuals would live in quarantine
units and anyone unwilling to be their stooge could die.  If Libertaria had
a vast illiteracy rate, the propertied individuals would build schools for
themselves (and their stooges).

The facts of personal power are nakedly plain in Libertaria.  If I have lots
of property and I don't like you, I can make your life unrelievedly miserable.
No one should have such power; part of guaranteeing freedom should be to limit
power so that vindictive injury is made difficult and costly.

One can't grow to be generous and kind and gentle when one has to guard against
the most extreme threats to one's livelihood and dignity.  Only a state can
limit the power of individuals.  Only a state can guarantee to most citizens
the life space to be gentle and kind.

Tony Wuersch
{amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw