Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site wucs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!mgnetp!we53!busch!wuphys!wucs!esk
From: esk@wucs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.politics
Subject: libertarianism
Message-ID: <375@wucs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Sep-84 14:30:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: wucs.375
Posted: Thu Sep 27 14:30:30 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Sep-84 07:15:03 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Washington U. in St. Louis, CS Dept.
Lines: 45

[]

> From: ea!mwm    Sep 17 02:13:00 1984
>From me, Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047

> The question is, what goal should the [social] meta-rules be set up
> to achieve? I maintain that they should give as much freedom to individuals
> as possible. Other people think other goals are appropriate, which is a
> good thing. Using threats of physical force to make others agree with them
> is *not* a good thing, just the usual thing.

I maintain that they should promote people's welfare as much as possible.
I also have my doubts about the way you state your goal for the meta-rules.
What kinds of freedom do you really support?  The freedom to amass large
quantities of wealth, backed by the claim that since one's ancestors and/or
trading partners gave it to one, one therfore "owns" it?  But where did 
THOSE people get it from (or from whom did they take it?)  And let there be 
no doubt that LIBERTARIANS ARE QUITE WILLING TO USE PHYSICAL FORCE to 
protect "their" "property" (translation: to protect the status quo)!

> I don't want to be "forced by governmental or any other kind of authority" 
> to participate in [cooperative societal] efforts. However, if I
> don't participate, I don't expect (or necessarily want) the benefits of
> said efforts. My objection isn't to the existence of the effort, or to my
> getting the benefits if I choose to participate, my objection is to being
> *forced* to participate, whether I want the benefits or not.

A generous-sounding offer.  Problem is, he INEVITABLY receives the
benefits of such public goods as:  scientific research, education (of other
people), air pollution control, national defense ... I could go on for 
pages.  Now if we don't force anyone to contribute, many people are going
to say to themselves "hey, I can get a free ride by letting other people
contribute; whereas I'd receive only a puny fraction of the benefits that
would be created by my contribution ... ".  Even though you may not be one
such person, we can't make an exception just for you; and we can't make an
exception for "all honest people" because we don't know who they all are.
What we have here is "the problem of public goods", a concept from 
economics -- a subject that libertarians could use to study.

				--The return of the Aspiring Iconoclast
				Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047
P.S.  Please send any mail to this address, NOT the address of the sender
      (a friend who's helping me out).