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).