Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site l5.uucp Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!ptsfa!l5!laura From: laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: (micromotives & macrobehavior & microcephali) Message-ID: <108@l5.uucp> Date: Thu, 12-Sep-85 02:52:01 EDT Article-I.D.: l5.108 Posted: Thu Sep 12 02:52:01 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 14-Sep-85 06:35:01 EDT References: <535@brl-tgr.ARPA> <987@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Reply-To: laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton) Organization: Ell-Five [Consultants], San Francisco Lines: 120 In article <508@spar.UUCP> baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) writes: >> Q: There are two men in a desert and they have two identical glasses, one >> empty and one full of water. How are they to divide the water exactly >> equally between them? >> >> A: They use the Socialist solution: throw the water away and each has >> exactly none. >> >> --JoSH > >Oh ha ha ha. Ho ho. Such a funny joke. And so instructive too. >Those Socialists are *so* stupid, they make even you look real smart. > > Baba > >P.S. As near as I can tell, the Libertarian solution to your puzzle is > that the rightful owner or discoverer drinks both glasses, unless the > other man can meet the (arbitrary) market price for water. If no > rightful ownership can be claimed, both men voluntarily die of thirst > rather than violate property rights. At least, that seems the most > natural solution that can be derived from the first principles of > non-coercion and the sanctity of property. Would anyone actually > conversant in political philosophy care to comment? Hello there. I am conversant in political philosophy. I am *more* conversant in moral philosophy, but that is okay, I am going to turn this into a discussion of morality anyway. Political philosophy is always derived from moral philosophy. This is necessarily the case. Political philosophy is an attempt to describe an ideal arrangement whereby large groups of people can live together. A good political system is also usually expected to promote virtue. This means that before anything can be argued, the basic moral premises must be agreed upon. In net.politics it is common to assume that everybody agrees as to what is moral, but this is not aften the case. At a very basic level it is highly debateable whether moral axioms (such as ``man is basically evil'' or ``coercion is wrong'') are self-evident, true by observation, or religious or religious-like beliefs which cannot be substantiated. However, it is possible to see that certain patterns of behaviour follows inevitably from certain beliefs and to criticise a moral philosophy because it leads to certain behaviour that is deemed undersirable by the proponents of the philosophy. As a case in point, take socialism-as-implemented-in-the-USSR. One of its basic axioms is that ``equality is a good thing''. However, as it is implemented what you have is a very clear inequality between ``those in political power'' and ``everybody else''. So, the general consensus is that socialism in the USSR has not lived up to the ideals of those who fought for it. It also raises grave doubts as to whether equality is possible in the same society that nationalises the sources of wealth. It may be that equality is impossible, in any society, anywhere. It may be that it is possible. But, if one is to go off thinking about an ideal society which values equality where national assets are made the property of the state, one must go to extremem lengths to demonstrate how teh state will not end up being the new superior class. Okay. Libertarians share certain axioms, but (surprisingly enough) do not all share the same moral beliefs. Certain moral beliefs seem not to be held by many (or any) libertarians, but there is great variation between them. This means that some of the best arguments against libertarianism come from other libertarians who favour another type of libertarianism (which is one reason why people interested in discrediting libertarianism wouyld find reading libertarian writing instructive). It also means that when you get to strict moral questions (including the one about the glass of water) you will find a great many answers. I think Barry Fagin is on record as believing in the absoluteness of the non-coercion principle. I am not. I believe in the absoluteness of the value of human life. Therfore, for me,the non-coercion principle is a derived principle -- it is wrong to coerce people because people are of value. It is interesting that Tony Wuersch and I (who have argued a fair bit by mail) appear to have virtually identical moral axioms. The conclusions we draw from them are radically different, though. So, to get back to Baba, what you have outlined is possibly a libertarian solution (in that there may be some people who call themselves libertarians who would advocate it) but not one that any libertarian I know of would advocate. However, to view this problem correctly what is needed is more information. in the field of moral philosophy, intention counts for a great deal. Even if one advocates a legal system which is ``impartial'' (in this case meaning: does not consider intentions in pronouncing judgement), on a personal level in making judgements, the intentions of the people involved is required. Moreover, the most common trick in sloppy thinking (and entrapment) is to view events as distinct from their causes. So, for a libertarian solution to teh problem it would be necessary to know why those people are thirsty in the desert. Are they fugitives? Is one the kidnapped hostage of the other? Is one a religious ascetic who values personal suffering? Moreover, it is also necessary to consider whether a moral question is actually posed. It has long been argued in courts and in philosophies that situations of emergencies transcend moral laws. If this is the case, then any action taken by men who need water to survive is by definition not immoral, since morality only applies in cases where there are a plurality of choices (typically non-emergency situations). Most ethical egoists I know who are also libertarians would argue this way. I can outline the argument clearly if you are interested -- it will take a while to do it justice. Of course, libertarians who are utilitarians will have to consider how to do teh greatest good (a tough prospect -- care to take it up, anyone) and libertarians who are Kantians will have to see where their duty lies and... There is not going to be one libertarian solution. If you want my opinion, the time to have been thinking clearly was when those two guys were packing water. It adversity and calamity have caused them to be in dire straights they then each should consider how to preserve their valuable human lives. But if all they have is a glass of water, I think that they are both probably dead... -- Laura Creighton (note new address!) sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa