Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!ncr-sd!ncrcae!ncsu!mcnc!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!flink From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V Torek) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Pollution: no libertarian soluti Message-ID: <2664@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Tue, 31-Dec-85 15:17:01 EST Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2664 Posted: Tue Dec 31 15:17:01 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 3-Jan-86 05:39:36 EST References: <374@umich.UUCP> <28200442@inmet.UUCP> Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V Torek) Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 75 In article <28200442@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: >>First, a significant number of people sincerely feel that the value >>of their lives is INFINITE. If you don't believe me, ask around. >Oh, *I* agree - the *courts* don't, though [...] >. The idea above does not change that at all - it just pro- >rates an existing estimate to a statistical expectation. Yes, but it seems to me that the current practice of the courts in this respect is very un-libertarian. That is, I would think that a libertarian regards an individual as the best authority on the value of his own life. >>Second, it's going to be hard to determine who is put at risk by >>how much, and the likely solution will be to overestimate the >>risk in most cases -- i.e. compensate most people by much larger >>amounts than is really required, just to be on the safe side [...] >Wonderful! The proposal seems ready to be sponsored by Sierra Club. >What you're saying is that it overshoots the mark. However the exis- >ting regulatory and legal mechanisms are subject to the same emotio- >nal pressures (human life vs. profits) - and, on the other hand, >counter-pressures by industries. Is it obvious to you which comes >nearer to hitting the mark, and by how much ? Good point. Not obvious, but if I had to bet I'd put my money on the current system. > I don't need to prove this one works *better*: just that it *works*. Well, I still think the question of which works better is important. >>Third, and worst, what about the ETHICAL problem for libertarians -- do I >>have a right to impose ANY risks on anyone without their consent? It would >>seem that the only principled libertarian answer is NO!, and that this >>prohibits me from pissing in the toilet, because SOMEONE somewhere would be >>unwilling to accept compensation only for *statistical risk*. > >You seem to attribute to all libertarians the unity of principle >for the lack of which Bob Stubblefield recently criticised them. >Probably the only way for you to convict libertarianism on an >inconsistency charge is to concentrate on one person - someone >you think is representative. If you succeed, others will either >have to share the guilt or to show how they are different. Indeed. Well, the only libertarians I know of with well-developed ethical positions are Nozick and Rand, and I don't know Rand's very well. I do think I could convict Nozick of inconsistency, if anyone's interested. >As I see it, for most libertarians, your right to metabolize with >your own body and on your own premises would be among the most >indubitable. What you are really saying is that their principles >are contradictory because every act of one person affects every >other person in some infinitesimal way. That my right to wave my >hands stops well short of your nose because all noses and all >arms are, in some QM sense, of indeterminate length. :-> Not just QM indeterminacy, but yes, that's the general thrust of my point. >Note that this argument applies equally well (or badly) to *any* concept of >inalienable rights. There is nothing specifically anti- >libertarian in it. True, if you mean what I think you mean by "inalienable rights". I would argue that rights in such a strong sense are not credible, for precisely this reason. >Why should a libertarian ethic be more strict about your harming >someone indirectly than a non-libertarian one ? Maybe what we need is a definition (or exposition) of "libertarianism". > Jan Wasilewsky --Paul V. Torek, soon at umich!torek, now at umcp-cs!flink