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!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek
From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Pollution: no libertarian soluti
Message-ID: <379@umich.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Dec-85 13:57:01 EST
Article-I.D.: umich.379
Posted: Fri Dec 20 13:57:01 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Dec-85 05:45:17 EST
References: <365@umich.UUCP> <28200403@inmet.UUCP>
Reply-To: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 37

In article <28200403@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes:
>I offer one hopefully interesting observation about questions such
>as pollution and prisoner's dilemma problems.  Both of these can,
>in fact, be solved in principle (pollution by a nightmarishly complete
>enumeration and enforcement of property rights by impartial judges,
>and prisoners dilemma by stepping outside the "one-transaction-only"
>scenario and allowing repeated and enforceable contractual relationships).

The pollution "solution" wouldn't allow me to piss in the toilet.  As for
Prisoner's Dilemma, you're right about *2-person* PD, but things change
when the number of persons increases.

>In short, one can be a principled libertarian without knowing just
>exactly how much use constitutes enough when claiming land, or just
>how little constitutes giving it up.  (Just as one can be for 
>the income tax without being able to quote the IRS manuals at length).

Yes, as long as those "how much" questions are matters of *applying* your
principles, not questions that must be addressed by the principles themselves.
I'm awful curious how that could possibly be.

>I believe that there's lots of middle ground between the idea of
>libertarianism as a sort of social geometry -- invalid if any grey
>areas or conflicts can be shown to exist, and libertarianism as a sort
>of vague response to intuition.

Well, maybe.  But if the grey areas are greynesses of principles rather than
empirical gray areas about how to apply them, I think you slide down the
slippery slope to the "vague response to intuition" position.

>Paul -- if you've posted (as planned) the reasoned basis for your own
>value-weightings, I've missed the posting.

Not yet; it's going to be a many-part series of enormous size, which I'll have
time for soon, but not now.

--Paul V. Torek, knee-jerk ethical cognitivist			torek@umich