Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!inmet!janw From: janw@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Pollution: no libertarian soluti Message-ID: <28200489@inmet.UUCP> Date: Wed, 1-Jan-86 19:13:00 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.28200489 Posted: Wed Jan 1 19:13:00 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 4-Jan-86 22:12:55 EST References: <374@umich.UUCP> Lines: 117 Nf-ID: #R:umich:-37400:inmet:28200489:000:5774 Nf-From: inmet!janw Jan 1 19:13:00 1986 [--Paul V. Torek, soon at umich!torek, now at umcp-cs!flink] >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. >>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. There are *two* individuals involved. For each of them, some part of their infinitely-valuable life is at stake (one can prolong or expand one's life with money). A finite estimate is the only practical thing to do, not libertarian or unlibertarian. Substi- tute, for court, a regulatory agency or vendetta justice or some bargaining method - anything at all - a finite estimate will be implicitly present. Courts cannot deal with infinities any more than markets or governments: so render to Caesar what is Caesar's. >>>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. Allow some margin for improvement and fine-tuning of my raw proposal by better informed people. >> 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. Very important. But not for a *theorem of existence*. >>>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. I am just reading Nozick; probably he would do, though he seems over-complicated to me (but he does invent some useful con- cepts). Perhaps you would simplify him in the process. Rand's books I've read (all of them) but only half-agree (she would have resented that; but I like her). They are very readable. But you seem to insist on seeing libertarianism as a theory where a com- plete social order is deduced from a few ethical axioms. I would distrust any theory like that, whatever the axioms. Like it says in Faust, theory is gray, but the tree of life is evergreen. Which is not to argue against ethical principles, just against rampant deductivism. Leave room for empirical data and common sense. >>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. [...] >>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. So, weaken the sense by using common-sense approximations. *Don't* weaken it (if you are libertarian) by making exceptions for *public good* and its delegates. Also, take cognizance of *intention*. When your neighbor barbecues, his intention is prob- ably not to smoke you out. If it *is*, the situation changes. When the government exercises eminent domain, it *is*. >>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". Amen. Meanwhile, it helps to think of it as an extension of old- fashioned liberalism and individualism. It is very much in the mainstream of Western tradition. Somewhere near the middle of the 19th century, the British government was deciding which language to teach in Indian schools. English finally won, but there were strong objections, and the strongest was that *you cannot raise a caste of adminis- trators on a literature of revolt*. There is the rub: not an *ethical theory* is at the core, but an *ethical position*, a world-view. It can be expanded into theories that will be as logical or illogical as their authors. You are looking for a libertarian ethicist ? Try Thoreau ! Jan Wasilewsky