Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!caip!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!AI.AI.MIT.EDU!kfl From: kfl@AI.AI.MIT.EDU Newsgroups: mod.politics Subject: Personal liberty Message-ID: <12226107202.23.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Sun, 27-Jul-86 17:32:42 EDT Article-I.D.: RED.12226107202.23.MCGREW Posted: Sun Jul 27 17:32:42 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 27-Jul-86 21:14:04 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 72 Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu Return-Path: Date: Sat, 5 Jul 86 17:10:04 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Personal liberty To: DPH.SWF@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU cc: KIN@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU From: "Scott Frazier" 1. Why does the government feel it has the right to interfere with the sexual practices of two consenting adults? ... 2. Why does the government feel obligated to protect people from themselves? (Ie: Why do laws like the "seatbelt law" exist?) I think this is because the government is frequently the one to pay for the consequences, so they feel that they should have some say in reducing the costs. If I was paying for all your food, I might object to what foods you choose to eat, and attempt to choose for you. There are three solutions to this dilemma: 1) The liberal solution: The taxpayers should pay, and pay, and pay more. There should be no limit on taxes even if it drives us into another great depression. The taxpayers should have no say in the behavior of the recipients. Problems: a) It is very unfair to those of us who have lived prudently, believing that each individual must bear responsibility for his actions. We feel motivated to say 'The hell with it, I too will live for today and let the taxpayers bail me out tomorrow'. b) It is unfair to everyone to tax them more than absolutely necessary, even if the tax money is to be used for a good cause. In fact, it is nothing more or less than theft. c) It will demolish the economy, rewarding imprudent and disease causing behavior, and punishing savings, investment, moderation, and hard work. Everyone will end up beneath the poverty line except a few government bureaucrats and lobbyists. d) By moving money from the private to the public sphere, individuals have much less control over how money is spent. For instance, if all medical spending and medical research spending was private, each individual would decide for himself whether he thought AIDS research and/or cancer research was worthwhile. Instead, we find that AIDS research has become a political football. Either underfunded due to government bureaucrats and legistlators prejudice against gays, or overfunded, as is sickle cell anemia, since a very vehement group contains most of the victims. I don't think it should be up to random lobbyists to decide how my money is to be spent. Not that there would be as much of it if more of it was taken away from me in taxes, since I would be less motivated to make money knowing it is to be stolen from me. Not that my employer would pay me as much even if I were to continue to work as hard as I do now, since he too would be subject to higher taxes. 2) The conservative solution: We must control people's behavior, for their own good. Problems: None, unless you value personal freedom. As I very strongly do and as most of the people on this list obviously do. 3) The libertarian solution: People can do what they want, so long as they do not infringe another person's rights. But they must take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. If someone fails to use a seatbelt, and gets badly injured, taxpayer money will not be used for medical treatment. Problems: None. ...Keith -------