Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!seismo!ll-xn!adelie!mirror!gabriel!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarianism & selfishness
Message-ID: <7802403@inmet>
Date: Sun, 14-Sep-86 00:09:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.7802403
Posted: Sun Sep 14 00:09:00 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 16-Sep-86 05:30:51 EDT
References: <1103@princeton.UUCP>
Lines: 59
Nf-ID: #R:princeton.UUCP:-110300:inmet:7802403:000:3007
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!nrh    Sep 14 00:09:00 1986


>/* Written 10:20 am  Sep 10, 1986 by gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP in inmet:net.politics */
>--
>> Mr. Keller, whether I believe a worker at McD's "deserves" a living
>> wage is irrelevant. I am willing to pay a certain amount for my
>> cheeseburger, and if it rises above a certain amount, I am going to
>> look elsewhere. I fail to see how I "owe" anything other than the
>> $1.69 that my burger costs. If you wish to augment the earnings of
>> poor persons by charitable means, by all means do so, but please
>> refrain from confiscating the earnings of others in order to so do...
>> 
>> Michael C. Berch
>
>Ahh!!!  You've gotten to the heart of the matter.  The question is,
>"Do you have obligations to people you don't even know?" and if so,
>"Is it a proper function of society to deal with those obligations?"
>By most ethical philosophies, the answers "no" and "no"--which I
>suspect most libertarians would give--are repugnant.  The proper
>argument against such libertarianism is not against its logic, which
>is sound, but against its morals, which are bankrupt.

Must the statists make the *SAME* mistake over and over again?

Re-read what he said, please.  He didn't mention "society", 
he merely asked that Keller not confiscate the earnings of others
for his own ends.  He didn't say that he didn't ever feel charitably
inclined (for one may do so without feeling one "owes" the poor something
as an enforceable obligation).

And yet, Ken Perlow starts talking about "society" enforcing the "obligation".

"Society" isn't what the statists want to enforce these obligations: they
invariably opt for "government" (often blurring the sharp distinction 
between the two).  Perlow repeats the error here.

If Perlow were really advocating that "society" urge people to be charitable,
he would be arguing for boycotts, for social pressure, but *NOT* for 
State action.  From his context, I gather he *is* arguing for state
action (he is responding, after all, to a note asking that confiscation
be eschewed).

If you *MEAN* that such "obligations" exist, and that government should
enforce them, then you should refer to GOVERNMENT enforcement, not 
that of society.  The difference is vast.  Blurring of it by
making the government force all good things to happen leads to 
an "anything not required is forbidden" situation.  

Just for example, the notion of "obligation" is one thing, that of
"legal obligation" another.    I feel no LEGAL obligation to give to 
the Salvation Army, but I give nonetheless.  Why?  Because I 
"wish to augment the earnings of poor persons".

By the way, if government is the proper organ for such "obligations",
then once I've paid my taxes, THAT'S IT!  Under government (which
clearly DOES act as if it had the right to enforce these "obligations)
I needn't feel the slightest obligation to help the poor further,
because my "obligation" has clearly been discharged, right Ken?  I'm
told that private charity in the Soviet Union is illegal, and now I
understand why...