Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek
From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Logic, fact, preference, and social
Message-ID: <268@umich.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 11-Oct-85 11:47:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: umich.268
Posted: Fri Oct 11 11:47:43 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 14-Oct-85 04:40:35 EDT
References: <234@umich.UUCP> <28200162@inmet.UUCP>
Reply-To: torek@eecs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 28
Summary: Yes, but... 

In article <28200162@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
>...The fact  that
>following  a  principle  (in  this  case  non-coercion) sometimes
>yields a sub-optimal solution in particular situations does *not*
>make  that  principle  unacceptable to any rational person. A ra-
>tional person would  consider  the  alternatives:  (1)  following
>another  principle - which might sometimes yield even worse solu-
>tions or (2)  calculating  benefits  case  by  case  -  which  is
>uneconomical,  and also (very important) makes one susceptible to
>irrational biases and temptations of the moment; a principle  em-
>bodied in habit is a safeguard.

That's a fair point, but it only applies to "low-level" principles,
the criteria directly used in acting, and not to "high-level" ones
like SOME libertarians say the principle of non-coercion is.  Some
libertarians would argue that (2) should not even be considered, and
it was them I was concerned to argue against.

In any case, (2) is the superior choice in this case because the
benefits to be gotten by abandoning the non-coercion principle in
free rider situations are enormous.  But also, on a more abstract level,
the problems that libertarian principles generate in free-rider situations
are *symptomatic* of a deeper flaw, namely that they are divorced from
considerations of human benefit and harm in an unhealthy way.  (I know
that's vague, but I think anyone not firmly in the grip of an ideology
will see what I'm getting at.)

--Iconbusters, Inc. "We make flames the old-fashioned way -- we EARN it"