Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!husc6!seismo!ll-xn!adelie!mirror!gabriel!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc Subject: Re: Libertarianism & selfishness Message-ID: <7802375@inmet> Date: Fri, 12-Sep-86 01:30:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.7802375 Posted: Fri Sep 12 01:30:00 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 15-Sep-86 05:43:04 EDT References: <1103@princeton.UUCP> Lines: 219 Nf-ID: #R:princeton.UUCP:-110300:inmet:7802375:000:10730 Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!nrh Sep 12 01:30:00 1986 >/* Written 1:33 am Sep 7, 1986 by mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP in inmet:net.politics */ >>You [Charles] owe the libertarians on the net two apologies -- one for each >>clause of your last sentence. > >THis demanding of apologies for the statement of conclusions and opinions >has to stop. I do not demand apologies of libertarians, no matter how often >they offend me. Simple disagreement simply is not cause. Have you been taking straw man lessons from Sevener? "Simple disagreement" is one thing -- the misrepresentation of libertarian views is quite another. If we disagreed as to the likely outcome of repeal of rent control, that would be a "simple disagreement". If you and I disagree about what libertarians think or say, it's a little less symmetrical: I *am* a libertarian, hence more qualified to speak, at least for one libertarian. When I can furnish references to show your representation of our beliefs to be incorrect, your position is rather untenable, and I think an apology would be a simple act of grace on your part. Certainly if I were to say "Charles Wingate and those like him believe in raping babies", I would apologize to you, especially if you could show me the "Charles Wingate Reader" included specific injunctions against baby-raping. >> 1. Libertarians do not "bless" whatever distribution of wealth >> there happens to be. As discussions between myself and >> Richard Carnes have illustrated, we "bless" only those >> distributions NOT brought on by initiation of force or fraud. >> And we bless those only to the extent of saying that those are >> legitimate, not that they are holy. You have certainly seen >> such statements (for example, 6-8 months ago (or so) Richard >> gave the example of the slimy robber baron, asking if >> his fortune was legitimate, and I pointed out >> that his property claim was legitimate in the same sense that >> RICHARD'S property claims were valid: nobody had successfully >> challenged them in court). > >Well, my use of the word bless was metaphorical, and I must say that I did >not see this argument of half a year past. > >If you are really going to take this fraud business seriously, then you are >committing yourself to all sorts of wholesale confiscation of property. >There are few really large fortunes in this country that cannot be traced >back to the robbver barons, and fraud continues apace anyway. Fine -- let the defrauded (or their heirs) show a continuous claim, and take it to court. >> 2. Go to the back of the class in the case of Robin Hood. On >> page 101 of the Berkley paperback of libertarian* science >> fiction author F. Paul Wilson's "An Enemy of the State", we >> find: > >Frankly, I cannot imagine why a Libertarian work of fiction is being cited >as a historical source. Here we have what I hope is a simple misunderstanding. You assert that libertarians are quite against "Robin Hoods", and *I* quote a libertarian work eulogizing him. It doesn't matter that the work is fiction. It could be a *poem* for heavens sake, and the point would be won. You owe us (as I see it) an apology for misrepresenting our beliefs. >> As most of you remember, [Robin Hood] was a mythical >> do-gooder on Old Earth who supposedly robbed from the >> rich and gave to the poor. But that's the sanitized, >> government-approved version of the legend. Anyone >> reading between the lines will see that Robin Hood was >> the archetypical tax rebel. He robbed from the rich, >> yes -- but those rich happened to be King John's tax >> collectors. And he gave to the poor -- but his >> beneficiaries were those who had been looted by the >> tax collectors. He merely returned their own property.** > >Let us begin with reality rather than the fictional speculations of a >fictional character. How clear do I have to make this? You said: >Libertarians certainly bless whatever >distribution of wealth there happens to be, and they certainly are against >either public or private Robin Hoods. And I point out (by example) that Robin Hood is a character *admired* by Libertarians. I point out that the legend (as popularly known) is Robin Hood against the Normans, and go so far as to cite a desk encyclopedia (not a particularly libertarian reference) as reference for that. Your assertion that libertarians don't approve of "Robin Hoods" is thus *thoroughly* discredited. I go to this trouble, not from any great enthusiasm for making you look silly, but to make sure that the point is clear in *everyone's* mind, including yours. Just to make it a little clearer: in another book, "The Tomb", F. Paul Wilson has a rather libertarian Robin-Hood type called "Repairman Jack". Jack's emphasis is more on the dispensation of vigilante justice (although the legends of Robin Hood have him doing this too). It's clear, reading the book, that we are meant to admire Jack. It probably *is* true that libertarians don't often much care for PUBLIC Robin Hoods, but they so often turn out to be agents of the Sheriff of Nottingham. >(The following info is taken from _John Hopkins >Magazine_, Feb. 1984.) There is a fair amount of evidence that there was a >real Robin Hood who was a real outlaw. The earliest tales which survive, >however, contain nothing of the "stole from the rich..." material (in fact, >in some he was *collecting* taxes). Let's have no waffling, Charles. If I were to find tomorrow that the *real* Robin Hood was an alien from Mars, it wouldn't mean that libertarians approve of *Martians*, but rather that libertarians approved of Robin Hood as he had been popularly understood. That YOU are able to find obscure precursors of the legend has no bearing on what you certainly were understood to mean when you referred to Robin Hood, any more than the revelation that RH was a Martian would change what was meant. Both revelations were unavailable to the reader (99% of the readers, anyhow) at the time of the statement, so they are NOT relevant. To bring in the precursors of the modern legend is simply to blur the issue. Just to quibble, though: unless the original was named "Robin Hood", (which I *very* much doubt could be established) your point has no standing: you refer to a character related only tenuously (for all that he may have been the cause) of the modern term "Robin Hood", whereas the legend is welded to the name. >It must also be remembered that the economic climate of 15th century (which >is when the first tales describing R.H. as a good man and an instrument of >social justice appear) is radically unlike what we have now. THis was still >in the era where land was the only real wealth, and where land and the right >to govern were still synonymous (and indeed, the later persisted in this >country for years). THere was precious little distinction between rent and >taxes. Others have adequately refuted this point. To summarize: rent implies you may leave at will (certainly not the situation) or that you've agreed upon a price with the landlord (CERTAINLY not the situation). >>Were your initial charge true, libertarians (including, in >>the generic sense, F. Paul Wilson) would approve of the tax collectors >>KEEPING the money they had collected. Not so, of course. If you >>DON'T realize this, you haven't been paying attention, and if you DO >>realize this, you owe us an apology for misrepresenting our views. > >Well, Mr. Wilson makes the historical error of implying that the landowners >and the government were distinct, which is a development which is >considerably later (essentially, when there became societies in which >merchants became a really important source of wealth). In medieval ENgland, >no such distinction existed. Mr. Wilson's historical accuracy is completely unimportant -- he is dealing in legend, a well-known popular legend, and his historical accuracy or inaccuracy on this point is quite tangent to the notion of whether libertarians approve of "Robin Hoods". You're squirming, and you shouldn't. Why not concede the point? >>In any case, you CERTAINLY owe us an apology w.r.t. Robin Hood -- >>He was one of my childhood heroes, and your claim that we don't >>approve of those like him is clearly wrong -- a question of fact. > >Robin Hood was merely intended as a symbol of redistribution in the interest >of social justice. To the extent that I was obviously too obscure, I >apologize. Well thank you! >>Now on this matter of the apologies, I don't ask this to make you >>squirm, or to shame you, but merely because I believe you've >>willfully misrepresented our views (perhaps in a burst of zeal) and >>think you owe it to us to set the record straight. > >Well, this disagreement seems to be centered around the notions of >legitimate ownership and redistribution. Wrong, wrong, wrong! You made two false statements about libertarianism. You have apologized for being "obscure" on the matter of Robin Hood, but you have not yet set the record straight on the matter of "blessing" whatever property setup happens to exist. >We've been around the ownership >question enough times to where I think the views on both sides are well >known. Maybe, but not to you! Not until you admit (perhaps only to yourself?) that libertarians do NOT bless the current property setup. >I still am not convinced that there is not a discrepancy between >libertarian notions of legitimate ownership and the current distribution of >wealth-- and it must be remembered that even if a Libertarian government >were seated in Congress next week, there would still the current social >situation to contend with. Bah! Examples of libertarian disagreements with the current structure abound! Want some? From "Libertarian Party Position Paper #1": We equally oppose those welfare programs which enhance the power and wealth of a privileged minority at the expense of the poor and middle classes -- the subsidies to Lockheed, Penn Central, Pan Am, and other big businesses existing in cosy relationships with government power. Other examples: David Friedman suggests selling off the rights to the EM spectrum. The LP platform, at least at one point, suggests selling off federal lands to pay for the social-security boondoggle. >I also do not apologize to people who do not give their names out. Too late! You already apologized above, to the extent you were "obscure". I also asked for an apology to libertarians IN GENERAL, not me specifically. However, no mystery: my full name is Nathaniel Richardson Howard, III. You now have one less excuse. (Why do you suppose both Wingate and Sevener have taken me to task on this question of my name? Coincidence? Very likely).