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!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!faustus From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics,net.philosophy Subject: Re: Re: Libertarianism Message-ID: <32@ucbcad.UUCP> Date: Sat, 22-Dec-84 15:20:19 EST Article-I.D.: ucbcad.32 Posted: Sat Dec 22 15:20:19 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 23-Dec-84 08:36:11 EST References: <395@ptsfa.UUCP> <12@ucbcad.UUCP> <2585@sdcc3.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group, Berkeley, CA Lines: 94 > > > 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... > > > > What is good for society as a whole is what is good for most of the members. > > I think you should be careful about this. Killing welfare > recepients (instead of feeding them) could be construed as being > good for most of "society's" members. And again, who determines > what is "good" for whom? Government? Killing welfare recipients can be considered good for most people only in the most limited and short-sighted analyses. Probably the only way to decide what is good for most people is to see what most people think is good for most people, or at least what most people want. (Of course, in fields like international politics, this wouldn't work very well.) > > 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. > > Should these people be forced to be educated? Should I be forced to > provide their education (thru taxes, etc.)? The idea that the > initial use of force should be utilized to solve problems is exactly > what libertarians are arguing against. Force should only be used to > respond to attempts to infringe on an individuals rights to life, > liberty, and property. The origonal question was abot whether the children of people who value ignorance as a virtue should be taught. Since children are not, and cannot be expected to be, responsible for themselves (see below), it is justifiable to force them to do what is good for them. > > > 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. > > Say what?!! Government should decide what is best for me? Because > I *CAN'T* ?! The final judge of what is good for an individual IS > THAT INDIVIDUAL. I especially resent this argument that my liberty > is being infringed upon "for my own good". No, not YOU, I'm talking about other people. :-) > > > 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. > > Yes, parents would be free to neglect their children's education, > just like it is now. Your solution to this problem is to use force > to coerce children into schools. The solution proposed by > libertarians is to realize that individuals do and should have the > ultimate responsibility to act in their own interest, and if this > includes not going to school (or not sending your children to > school) then it is nobody else's business. > > As for the rights of children to an education, you might note that > libertarians believe that human rights also extend to children, and > we make no distinction between "people" and "children". Hence, the > ultimate responsibility for a person's educations rests with that > person, not with his or her parents. The fact is that children are not capable of understanding their responsibilities and excercising their rights. If a child ran away from home and his parents tried to stop him, would you say that they are violating his basic rights? This is a major fallacy of libertarianism -- that every individual, no matter who he is or what he is like, has a basic right to do whatever he wants to do. If that individual is incapable of understanding what he is doing, I think that you can't give him this responsibility. Under your system, if you were consistent, the best thing that a parent could do with his child is to abandon it soon after birth, because he has no right to force it to stay with him when he does not know for sure that it wants to. In the case of such people, small children and insane people, for instance, who is to be responsible for them if they cannot be responsible for themselves? I think that the system we have now works reasonably well -- the parents of a child are responsible for him until he reaches a certain age, but if they do not do a good enough job the government becomes responsible for him. Wayne