Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site ea.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!mwm
From: mwm@ea.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Re: the problem with libertarianism
Message-ID: <9800034@ea.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Sep-84 03:13:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ea.9800034
Posted: Mon Sep 17 03:13:00 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 08:29:03 EDT
References: <1060@pyuxn.UUCP>
Lines: 123
Nf-ID: #R:pyuxn:-106000:ea:9800034:000:6868
Nf-From: ea!mwm    Sep 17 02:13:00 1984

/***** ea:net.philosophy / pyuxn!rlr /  7:47 pm  Sep 13, 1984 */
> I always thought the "problem with libertarianism" is that, in their
> quest for ultimate personal freedoms, they ignore/deny/nullify any
> implicit and/or explicit agreements they have made as human beings
> with the rest of society.

No, we only deny implicit agreements that the rest of society has forced on
us (usually at gunpoint).

> Example:  Some libertarians feel restricted by what they consider to
> be unfair traffic laws (speeding regulations).  The rules have been
> made as to how roads that were constructed using public monies should
> be used, yet these people don't like them.  So much so that they'll
> violate them at will (instead of or just possibly in addition to lobbying
> for changes in the rules). The rational solution for libertarians who
> dislike the rules of the road (or any societal rules concerning some
> common societal element) is for them not to use the roads at all

I don't know any libertarians who are willing to violate traffic laws at
will; at least any more so than everybody else who is ignoring the 55 mph
limit. You are correct in that breaking the laws because you don't agree
with them isn't a rational solution. However, not using the roads at all
*isn't* a rational solution. You still have to pay to support them, and
there isn't an alternative road system available. My solution was to not
use cars, and thus avoid the high tax on gasoline (but not the high sales
tax).

> (or to
> build roads of their own, though that's unlikely since it would involve
> a cooperative effort among libertarians, and *that* might result in rules
> and other infringements on their personal freedoms).

Ah, yes, but those infringement are entered into with complete knowledge
that it would happen. I, for one, had absolutely *nothing* to do with the
current system of public roads, and make negligible use of them. However, I
still have to pay taxes to keep those roads up (and poorly, at that) for
people who do use them. If they can afford a car, why can't they afford to
support the roads without my help?

> Since we're discussing money, let's bring up the subject of taxes, which
> many libertarians feel is a form of enslavement.  But let's look at it
> rationally.  Taxes pay for public services, common societal functions,
> like the roads described above, police/military protection, etc.  Thus,
> logically, anyone who doesn't pay taxes is not entitled to any of these
> services/functions (unless other societal rules deem them as hardship cases
> or exemptions).  If one is only to allow those who pay their defined share
> to make use of the desired facilities, then some mechanism is necessary to
> administer and regulate and prevent those who haven't paid from doing the same.
> Since it's their choice not to pay, shouldn't they then pay for at least the
> cost of administering the system?  (Point being:  either way, you lose.)

You have the idea right, but have totally mangled the implementation. You
don't keep track of who has & hasn't paid, you keep track of who is and
isn't willing to pay, and bill them at the time of service (or shortly
thereafter). The cost of keeping track (if you need to) is part of the
overhead of the service, and shows up in a higher cost of service.  Using
your roads example again, what you wind up with is a system of toll roads.
The ones we have seem to be working fine.

At this point, someone is sure to throw up the straw man "but you use these
services even if you don't use them explicitly, in that other services you
do use use them." The reply is that use of such services is part of the
overhead for the services I use. As such, I expect to help pay for it by
paying slightly higher prices than I would if the service in question
doesn't use the service I don't use (gack, what a mouthful! :-).

> The typical libertarian response to all of this revolves around "the dangers
> of bureaucracy and government".  Obviously, too much government and bureaucracy
> is counterproductive (and quite possibly dangerous).  But does this imply that
> they should be eliminated almost entirely?

No, no, no, it's not "the dangers of bureaucracy and government," but "the
dangers of government interference in private lifes." Not quite the same
thing - and the results are different. One gives you no or little
government, the other gives you no or little *noticeable* government. BTW,
don't confuse libertarianism with anarchism. Anarchists advocate no
government at all; I'm not sure why (any anarchists want to speak up?).

> Lest you jump in and remark:  "If you honestly think that what you described
> is how this country operates (re: taxes, services, government), then you're
> un poco loco, senor."  I never said that the US (or any country) operates in
> the ideal fashion I describe.  Mainly because ideals don't often work in
> real life situations to the degree expected.  The rules, in many cases, are
> fouled up.  And so are the implementations of some of the meta-rules (the
> rules/methods for making rules).  But the foundations laid by the meta-rules
> (if people work to make best rational use of them) are sound, and have great
> potential for rational society.  

All very true. The question is, what goal should the 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.

> In summary, it would appear that libertarians want the benefits of cooperative
> societal efforts without being "forced by governmental or any other kind of
> authority to participate in such efforts" (i.e., without participating in them
> for whatever reason).

You have it almost right. I don't want to be "forced by governmental or any
other kind of authority" to participate in such 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.

> I do hope to hear what libertarians have to say about my perceptions of
> libertarianism, hopefully beyond the "that's a load of crap and you're an
> asshole" style of argument.

Well, I most certainly didn't call you an asshole. I tried to correct some
of your misconceptions about libertarianism (at least my brand of it. There
are many different flavors - that's what you get from what a philosophy
that esteems individualism.)

> -- 
> Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought.
> 			Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr

Need to borrow a bus token? :-)