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!linus!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!mgnetp!we53!busch!wucs!esk
From: esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Reparations -- the issues
Message-ID: <909@wucs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Apr-85 18:50:09 EST
Article-I.D.: wucs.909
Posted: Fri Apr 19 18:50:09 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Apr-85 06:22:12 EST
Reply-To: pvt1047@wucec2.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Organization: Washington U. in St. Louis, CS Dept.
Lines: 73

Odd # of >'s = mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan), even = me

> > "there are some important consequences of libertarian principles 
> > which (most) libertarians have failed to note."
> That's true of almost any ideology.  So what?

Ah, but some of these are fatal (or so I argue).

> No complex ideology has been as fully discussed on the net as we might like;
> which proves nothing about the virtues of any.

Of course--but it probably does indicate the types of issues that the netters
think about.

> >                                                    To return to the
> > Indian who says "my father told me he would have given the land to me",
> > but can't prove this -- perhaps one should take his word for it.
> That would depend on the quality of his word.  If I knew that he never lied
> and was never mistaken about such things, you'd be right.

> > now consider it from the Indian's point of view -- suppose he *knows*
> > his father would have given it -- it would seem that, by lib. std's, he
> > has a right to take it.
> Yes.  Which is simply to say that ignorance can create conflicts.

But it seems to me that such conflicts present bigger problems from a
libertarian viewpoint than from most non-libertarian viewpoints.  For
example, if you forcibly resist his attempt to take it, and harm him,
wouldn't you then owe him (probably huge) compensation?  (And worse yet,
what if you killed him?)  On the other hand, conventional morality/politics
would say that while he has a right to the land, he doesn't have a right
to take it by stealth or force, at least not without a court decision in
his favor.  Admittedly, that doesn't seem fair either, but I think conven-
tional morality gives a less implausible answer here than libertarian...
Or have I gotten something wrong here?

I've thought harder about the reparations issue, and the absurdity doesn't
follow from the libertarian view as easily as I thought.  Suppose we knew
the history of every object which anyone claimed to own, and we could
trace every incident where the object was coercively taken from someone.
We could then determine the proper owner of every object, and for most
wealth, that very well might not be the same as the current possessor.
But it would be disastrous to switch possessions -- I might find out that
I own land in Russia, while the land I was using is owned by someone else,
but I don't want to move...  Fortunately, there IS a simple solution:  we
could determine how much compensation each person owed each other due to
the injustices that figured into his coming to possess the objects he now
does.  Everybody could then settle his debts, which would be hectic but
not absurd.

But here's another problem:  suppose most people didn't want to go along.
Suppose, as is the case today, most people weren't libertarians, and they
didn't see why they had to make all these compensations.  Now Joe
Libertarian looks at the situation and realizes that the land he was using
is properly owned by a particular Indian, whereas the land Joe properly
owns is being used by some non-libertarian Moe who tells Joe to f--- off,
when Joe explains to him the coercive history of that land.  It looks like 
Joe is stuck.  He can't tell the Indian "Look, Moe owes me that land or
$40,000 (whichever Moe chooses), I owe you my land or $40,000; so let's
simplify things -- you go bother Moe."  "Sorry Joe," says the Indian, "I
think you're a nice guy and all, and I don't like to see you sweat, but
Moe is YOUR problem.   I want my land."

Of course, we *don't* know the history of all objects, we *can't* tabulate
all the injustices and calculate everyone's debt to each other; we don't
have 1/10th the information.  But before any libertarian breathes a sigh
of relief, he should consider that by his lights WE SHOULD BE UPSET, NOT
RELIEVED that the info isn't available.  So, I think I have found an
implausible consequence of libertarian theory.  And now it's everybody
else's turn to explain why I'm wrong.
--
"We're number two -- we think harder" --Paul V. Torek, Iconbuster-In-Chief