Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/23/84; site ucbcad.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!faustus From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics,net.philosophy Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism Message-ID: <12@ucbcad.UUCP> Date: Mon, 10-Dec-84 02:09:06 EST Article-I.D.: ucbcad.12 Posted: Mon Dec 10 02:09:06 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 12-Dec-84 04:40:09 EST References: <395@ptsfa.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group, Berkeley, CA Lines: 136 Xref: watmath net.politics:6252 net.philosophy:1297 > I'm a bit confused by the phrase "collective goods". I can't see > defining a collective good as something that's good for society as a > whole. I've already discussed the problems with considering the desires > of society. Those same problems apply to its "good". Who is to decide > what's good for society, if we can't ask society itself? If we know > what's good for society, why should we care? While we have plenty of > debts due each other, we owe society nothing. What is good for society as a whole is what is good for most of the members. I guess that this isn't always a useful definition, but I am not trying to claim that society has any sort of existence apart from its members. You could say that society is a set of epiphenomena of social interactions, properties that cannot be said to belong to any of the members but belong to the whole. It is pretty easy, in theory, to decide what is good for society -- whatever leads to the greatest good, in the long run, for the most individuals. > The only alternative I can see to defining a "collective good" as > something that is good for society as a whole is defining it as something > that is good for all individuals. Education definitely doesn't pass this > test. Is education good for someone whose religion values ignorance as > a virtue? For someone who just plain doesn't believe what's being taught? People who value ignorance as a virtue are, fortunately, a minority. If you don't believe what's being taught, that's no reason to say that you shouldn't be taught anything. I think that having other people educated tends to benefit everybody, not only the people being educated. For one thing, it makes them less jealous of those who can afford good educations... > I can't think of a single example of something that would be good for > EVERYBODY, at least not if each person were permitted to decide for > him/herself what's good for her/him. Well, neither can I, but just because people don't always know what's good for them doesn't mean that they are right. > > Society without government is a probably better than no society at all > > (no interaction between people). But when government is working > > properly, it makes it much easier for individuals to interact in > > productive ways. Some of this rests on the assumption that government > > intervention in economics is sometimes good, which I don't want to > > argue about any more, but such things as public education and the > > judicial system are clearly cases of productive government regulation. > > Now I AM confused. A couple of paragraphs ago you said that society > couldn't exist without government. Now you say that a society without > government is probably better than none at all. Isn't this a contradiction? Ok, I'll admit that I was being a bit liberal with the word 'society'. I should have said that any reasonable level of society (what we consider society today) wouldn't be possible without government. > National defense: > > I can think of at least three private solutions to the problem of > national defense. The first is to ignore it entirely. A nation without > armed forces would present no threat to other nations. It would therefore > be a less tempting target for attack. If the citizens of that nation > were known to be well-armed as individuals, an attack would still threaten > heavy losses for the attacking force. Since traditional techniques of > military conquest involve taking over the government apparatus already > in place, a libertarian nation would be difficult to take and still more > difficult to hold. A nation with a large military is a temping target for attack? I don't understand that one. A threat, maybe, but I think that a rich economy is a much better motivation to try to take over a country than a big army. > The second possible solution would be an all-volunteer army > supported by voluntary contributions. Such an organization could even > maintain a minimal strategic nuclear capability, if such were desired. > In the event of an attack by another nation, this already-existing > force could provide organization for a strong resistance. > > A third idea (due to David Friedman) would be to have one or more > profit-making "defense companies", which would rely on citizen's honor > to induce them to pay what the services were worth to them. Such companies > might well be recognized by other nations as the "governments" of the > areas they defended, and could therefore augment their income by charging > for the issuance of passports. Rely on the citizen's honor? Not that reliable a basis... I have made arguments against private "defense companies" in other postings, so I won't repeat them again, but I think they should be pretty obvious. > It is interesting to note that in a libertarian WORLD, the question > of NATIONAL defense would not arise. World peace would have been achieved > without the unnecessary repression of world government. And in the land of Oz nobody ever dies. Wouldn't that be wonderful? > Education: > > The private alternative to publically supported education already > exists; it's called the private school. Under a libertarian system, all > schools would be private schools. Parents would be free to send their > children to the school of their choice. The children of the poor would go > to schools operated by private charities, or would be taught by their > parents. Parents would also be free no completely neglect their children's educations, which I think would be more common. Do you think that a poor unmaried mother would have the time and motivation (not to mention education) to teach her children herself? You have to consider the rights of the children to an education also, not only the rights of the parents to do whatever they want with their children. > > Another interesting point about libertarianism that I have noticed is > > that it seems to be very anachronistic. In the 19th century, when > > lassez-faire was the prevailing system, libertarianism would have > > been right at home. But in the 20th century, every trend seems to be > > away from this sort of philosophy. Communism is its absolute antithesis, > > and it dominates half of the world, and the rest of the world is either > > dictatorships or welfare states of varying degrees (I think that as > > welfare states go, the US is about the most libertarian nation in the > > world). And yet, libertarianism still exists and seems to be growing > > in the US. Is its day really past, in the modern world of communist > > dictatatorships and welfare states, or will we experience a swing back > > to small government? > > I don't know whether libertarianism is an anachronism or not. On > even days, I think it's got a good chance; on odd days, I think the entire > world is sinking into a repressive mire. We're not arguing about whether > libertarianism is in tune with the times, but about whether it's RIGHT. I thought I was making points about both. I think that most of the people who have been defending libertarianism are really defending anarchism, including Mr. Bashinsk. As I understand it, libertarians (real Libertarians, that is) don't believe in a society with no government at all, but rather one with a minimal government. If people want to argue that all government is evil, they should identify themselves as anarchists, not libertarians. Wayne