Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!xerox.com!Hibbert.pa
From: Hibbert.pa@xerox.com
Newsgroups: mod.politics
Subject: Re: libertarianism
Message-ID: <12234057432.49.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Wed, 27-Aug-86 01:24:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: RED.12234057432.49.MCGREW
Posted: Wed Aug 27 01:24:37 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Aug-86 21:14:03 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: Hibbert.pa@xerox.com
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 53
Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu


To: power.Wbst@Xerox.COM

Jim Power said the following, in reply to something I wrote:

"When we talk about the way to make a society better (having defined
better), we have to start from the way humans act and interact, not
the way they 'should'.  And because of the type of animal that a human
being is, his life is dominated by the groups around him.  People
behave very differently when they are in groups. ...  To say that this
society, which forms naturally, is a figment while contending that
only people acting on their own means anything, is just wrong.
Society does force individuals to do things, it always has and it
probable always will.
...  Valid arguments can be made given a set of values, but it doesn't
change the facts.

I guess if I had to sum it all up, I'ld say that libertarians are
reductionists, and see only the individuals.  I say that people behave
differently in groups, and society actually forms a meta-being.  This
isn't some subtle philosophical point, but (to me) an obvious truth.
Society (groups of people) has mores and values, habits and methods
that may or may not be similar to what individuals think or do.
                -Jim"

I don't argue that society is non-existent or unimportant.  My claim
is that it is not a useful concept in the current context.  By that I
mean that societies can't be said to have goals and values.  These are
attributes of individuals, and ascribing the goals of a majority or a
plurality to the whole group is not true to the concept of a goal.

At a very low level, the goal I'm trying to argue should be uppermost
is that individuals should be free to pursue their own ends as long as
they don't interfere with the similar freedom of other individuals.  I
claim this is important because of the nature of individuals.  The
system of government I argue in favor of is intended to further this
goal.  I am willing to discuss either whether a libertarian government
is a good way of serving this goal, or whether this is a good goal.

If you can express your goal in terms of groups and societies and
their attributes, then it will make sense for you to argue about
systems of government in terms of how they serve that goal.  If you
have to appeal to the notion of a majority in order to talk about the
needs, decisions, desires, mores, etc. of a group, then I think you
should say why they are important to your explanation.  I can see no
way to describe the values of a society without appealing to the
values of the individual.  In the end the values of a society can be
no more precisely specified than as the values of a majority of their
members.  I can see no argument for lending moral weight to the
concept of majority.

Chris
-------