Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: More on justice
Message-ID: <1880@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 04:01:28 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.1880
Posted: Mon Jan 14 04:01:28 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 16-Jan-85 15:49:32 EST
Lines: 222
Nf-ID: #R:gargoyle:-28300:inmet:7800266:000:11855
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Jan  9 21:17:00 1985

>***** inmet:net.politics / gargoyle!carnes /  9:17 pm  Jan  6, 1985
>From a recent posting by a libertarian:
>
>> Taxation is theft....
>
>Please give us a break from this type of rhetoric.  If you simply mean that
>taxation is the transfer of wealth by (the implied threat of) force, no one
>can disagree.  If you mean that taxation is UNJUST, you must present
>arguments in support of a theory of distributive justice on which such an
>assertion must be based.  And thereby hangs another tale....

Grr.  You seem to have missed this debate -- taxation is THEFT, because
the two words mean the same thing.  Taxation is UNJUST for the same
reason that theft is unjust.  That some may argue that tax money is 
used for "good" purposes later doesn't impress me much -- the act
of taking it by threat of force is inherently bad.  As for your attempt
to lure me into a false position by requiring a "theory of
distributive justice": Pfui!  The libertarian philosophy focuses on the
preemptive importance of "means" as opposed to "ends".  If I understand
you rightly, you're asking for a definition (by a libertarian) of a 
just "end" -- some description of how wealth "should" wind up 
distributed WITHOUT REGARD TO HOW it is distributed.  Sorry, no 
can do -- the method used to reach a given distribution determines
whether the distribution is just or not.  

This is, by the way, a little like demanding from the fellow who
came up with the scientific method a list of the outcomes
of the method, before you'll employ the method.  People who
do this tend to get trampled by history.

Of course, those who have some particular distribution figured out in
advance will sanction almost any degree of force in order to reach it
("End justifies the means" and all that), so of COURSE they must work
hard at justifying the OUTCOME -- they've NO moral justification for the
PROCESS, EXCEPT the outcome.  Libertarians point out that MEANS and not
ends are what are under the control of human beings -- thus it is
possible to define "good" means and stick to them, but NOT possible to
define good outcomes and guarantee one reaches them.  (I am aware that
"cleaving to good means" constitutes an "end", but for now let's just
remember that libertarians aren't promising a "perfect" society, and
that "cleaving to good means" is certainly easier to do than "erecting
the worker's paradise").

>In Libertaria, a future libertarian society, Jack inherits $1 zillion.  He
>spends his days playing tennis and polo, driving his Rolls, and sipping
>Courvoisier by the poolside with the many women who wish to share his
>wealth.  Whenever he gets into legal trouble (e.g., for paternity), he
>engages the top legal talents of Gouge & Swindle to get him off the hook.
>He attends church regularly to give thanks that he lives in a society where
>freedom prevails and he is not forced to sacrifice his values for the
>benefit of others, whether through paying taxes or compulsory military
>service (Libertaria has been fighting a war against totalitarian
>aggressors).  
>
>Across town lives Jill.  She works 12 hours a day, except when she's been
>laid off, in the Acme Asbestos plant which Jack owns.  She never gets very
>far ahead of poverty; her sons were killed in the war.  Since there is no
>OSHA or EPA, she must rely on the cheapest lawyers in town, Torts-R-Us, to
>represent her in her suit against Jack when she contracts cancer from
>working in the plant (their record against G&S is zip-500)....

I take it there are no outraged unions in this society?  
No clever, honest lawyers with a conscience? No fair judges? No charitable
societies for provision of decent protection to the indigent?  No news
media looking for a good sob story?  No socialists looking for a good
cause to rally around?  No competing companies unscrupulous enough to 
point out Jill and call for a boycott (and thus enlarge their own market
share)?  No other employees with whom Jill might make common cause? 
No Ralph Naders? No law firms out to make a fortune by suing Jack for
1/2 zillion on a contingency basis for Jill?

Quite a straw-man libertarian society you've proposed here, if you don't
have at least half of these.  By the way, in OUR society, things are
handled more along socialist lines: the main employer of asbestos workers
was the US government -- so now, years after WWII (a great deal of 
shipbuilding apparently used asbestos), when asbestos-caused
health conditions are beginning to be a real problem two things are happening:

1. It is ILLEGAL to sue the government (unless Congress accedes -- it hasn't)
   for anything, so the people falling ill are suing the asbestos 
   companies. (Ah yes, Government, a good instrument of justice).

2. Almost all of these suits are being handled  on a contingency basis --
   by lawyers who will get nothing if the client loses, and a percentage
   of the damages if the client wins. (So much for the theory that you must
   be rich to sue the Big Guys (even if you're forced to sue the wrong
   Big Guys)).
   [Source -- "60 Minutes"]

As for OSHA and the EPA, I've two words for you to ponder "agent orange".
Remember -- the government frequently exempts itself (and in a socialist
society this would have more widespread impact than it does now) from its
own regulations.  Congress, for example, is exempt from Equal Opportunity
guidelines.

>We see here how Jack's possession of property gives him dominance over Jill,

We see nothing of the kind -- If Jill is a subsistence worker, there'd
be other jobs available to her (so if she wishes, she may leave Jack's
employ at any time).  F. A. Hayek had a pretty good quote about this --
he said that a millionaire, even though he might be your neighbor or your
employer has less power over you than the least government functionary who
can interfere with your right to work.  In a libertarian society, there
are probably quite a few millionaires, but I don't think there'd be any
government functionary who (for example) could tell you that you don't
have a work permit, and so you can't work here, move along sonny....

>a situation that a socialist society would be designed to prevent (at least
>in my concept of socialism).  

You will not believe how little the notion that "your" socialist society
would be "designed to prevent" certain situations impresses me.  Have
you ever looked at the constitution of the USSR?  From what
I've seen (somebody reprinted part of it a while ago) this is a document
designed to guide a great, free, people.  Did this matter to Stalin?
Does it matter to the KGB?

Such societies fail to remain free because they concentrate enormous
power (enough, as they see it, to correct a bunch of bad things about
free market decisions) into the government -- which is promptly a more
desirable item for control by the power-hungry than any likely position
in a libertarian society.

>Libertarians say that if Jack's heart bleeds
>for Jill, he is free to donate some of his wealth to her or perhaps marry
>her.  This is true, but entirely beside the point:  libertarians believe
>that the distribution of wealth is just, WHETHER OR NOT Jack gives away any
>of his bucks.  

This is correct, as far as it goes.  Libertarians would not sanction the
initiation of force to redress what some would see as a badly-askew
distribution -- BUT -- there'd be nothing preventing (say) a boycott
of Jack's products by those who think him too wealthy, or other 
non-coercive, non-fraudulent ways of stripping him of his fortune.
After a while, Jack's fortune will tend to bleed away anyhow (if 
nothing else, his law firm and the ladies by the poolside are making
a fair bundle off of it).

To put a finer point on it, some libertarians would surely believe that
Jill (or the Jills of the world) got a raw deal, and would devote a 
portion of their resources to helping them out.  That they would do 
this doesn't mean that they consider Jill has a reason to demand (via
a government and initiation of force) compensation from Jack (although,
of course, she might if she could prove that Jack had told her that (say)
asbestos work had no health hazards associated with it).

>The ONLY criterion for justice, say they, is whether the
>distribution of wealth is the result of free-market transactions in the
>absence of force or fraud.  
>
>Such a view seems hard to beat for sheer moral turpitude.  

This is like saying that cutting your lawn with a hand mower rather
than a power mower is hard to beat for sheer moral turpitude.  If 
libertarians choose non-governmental ways of handling charity, are they
therefore less moral?  If their charity is relatively cost-efficient,
is the money saved by the givers (to ensure a given level of aid to the
indigent, they need give less) "dirty money"?

>Is this truly
>your idea of a decent society, libertarians?  The common moral sense of
>mankind holds that, in some sense, people should get what they deserve and
>deserve what they get.  

Oho! The "common moral sense of mankind"!  Well, I claim no such grandiose
backing, but merely point out that there's a difference between recognizing
a desirable end and deciding that it must be pursued by governmental means.
It is a difference you are blurring, to be sure, but a difference none the
less. Let's make it clear.  You argue:

1)	There are distributions of wealth that are "just" and others that
are "unjust".  

2)	Government must not tolerate an unjust distribution, and is therefore
free to initiate force, fraud, or threats against those who benefit from the 
unjust distribution.

Now let me advance a rather new idea -- "government" is not all that good
an instrument for "justice".  It is sometimes WORSE than nothing.

Let me advance another idea -- government control of everything
(the socialist plan) implies immense power for those in control of
the government.

Is government the best way to arrive at social justice?  Should high Soviet
military types get country houses while factory workers must live
with their parents in Moscow (if they're lucky?).  

>Not so, say (all, most, some) libertarians:
>considerations of desert are irrelevant to justice.  Well, perhaps the
>common moral belief of mankind is wrong.  

It certainly wouldn't be the first time that the popularity of an idea
had no impact on its validity.  It doesn't matter how many people
believe the earth is flat (or round, for that matter).  It doesn't matter
how sincere a physicist is when he sets up an experiment -- the universe
plays according to rules that render INTENT irrelevant to PERFORMANCE.

Socialists are fond of pointing out what they see as brutal consequences
of libertarianism, but tend to underplay the massive cruelties of those
engaged in socialist reform (in the USSR, for example), or to dismiss
those places as "not really socialist".  This is a natural tendency --
such a glaring counterexample to the notion that a powerful,
well-intentioned government will produce just results is difficult to
reconcile with their belief that "justice" is consistent with "the end
justifies the means".

>I am increasingly intrigued by the
>libertarian concept of distributive justice (and so should you be, as
>libertarianism is a growing political force in the US).  I await with great
>interest a libertarian explanation as to why we should accept Nozick's
>theory of DJ in preference to any alternative theory.  

In a nutshell then: any theory of DJ which focuses on ENDS focuses on 
something that human beings cannot control.  Human beings must employ
means to achieve ends, and while they may control the means, the ends
are not guaranteed.  Thus ANY system that leaves aside the morality
of the means is essentially ignoring the fundamental human 
moral question: "How to act?"  

This is not a bad reason to prefer Nozick's ideas to those of Marx.