Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/7/84; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!fagin
From: fagin@ucbvax.ARPA (Barry Steven Fagin)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Libertarianism as ideology (reply to Richard C.)
Message-ID: <5308@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 7-Mar-85 12:26:35 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.5308
Posted: Thu Mar  7 12:26:35 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 8-Mar-85 05:04:24 EST
References: <342@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Reply-To: fagin@ucbvax.UUCP (Barry Steven Fagin)
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 110
Summary: 

In article <342@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes:
>
>... the motivation [of libertarians] is to justify the existing order 
>of society,

Richard, if we're so interested in justifying the existing order of
society, why do libertarians advocate (among other things):
	The legalization of prostitution?
	The legalization of narcotics consumption by adults?
	The abolition of all government subsidies to industry?
	The repeal of Social Security?
	USA withdrawal from NATO?
	The privatization of government services?
	The abolition of the Federal Reserve Board?
These and numerous other reforms proposed by libertarians would mean
deep, painful changes in our society; hardly the sort of thing consistent
with your perception of us.

>characterized by class domination.  The power of government to tax is
>a threat to this social order, since it threatens its basis, the
>"rights" (really privileges) of property.  

Why is property a "privilege", but free speech and freedom of thought a
right?  The state (or the people, or society) does not bestow upon its
citizens the "privilege" of prperty any more than it bestows upon them
the "privilege" of ownership of their minds and bodies.  What's the
difference?  To the libertarian, none.

>Hence libertarians attempt
>to establish property rights as sacred and absolute, and from this it
>follows that taxation is an unjust violation of property rights, or
>"theft."  
>
>This also answers Wayne's question as to why coercion, or more
>precisely the initiation of coercion, is an absolute evil for
>libertarians, since this principle also defends property.  

It also defends the rights of human beings to express themselves, to
think independently, to worship in any manner of their own choosing,
to be free ...  it is the backbone of all principles of justice that
place any value on the individual.

>It ignores
>the fact that the existing distribution of wealth was arrived at via
>a colossal amount of coercion in the past ...

No it does not!  Libertarians have cited numerous examples of unjustly
acquired wealth, and claim that such distribution should be rectified.

>Another way of seeing the ideological character of libertarianism is
>to consider the fact that libertarians nowhere give a clear
>demarcation of the proper limits of legitimate state action.  The
>closest Nozick comes, as far as I know, is to say that the state is
>properly limited "to the functions of protecting all its citizens
>against violence, theft, and fraud, and to the enforcement of
>contracts, and so on."  But a mere list followed by "and so on" does
>not give us a principle by which we can determine if a given action
>by the state is justifiable.  

In other words, just because we can't write a program that can tell
exactly which actions by the state are justifiable and which are not, we're
hiding something.  Such a program does not exist.  I still claim that
libertarians have a pretty good idea of what the state should and
should not do.  As a matter of fact, libertarian demarcation of state
action is much more clear-cut than socialist demarcation, who justify
state action in the name of "social justice".  Which phrase is more
ambiguous: "the initiation of force", or "social justice"?  Seems
obvious to me.

>Many libertarians say that national
>defense, the protection of national security, is one of the few
>legitimate functions of the state.  Sounds good until you try to
>determine whether a given policy fits under the heading of "national
>defense."  

Libertarians often point out how stupid claims of "national security"
are.  A December Reason piece chewed out the shoe industry for claiming
that cheap imported shoes were rendering it impossible for our armed
forces to be shod with American footwear.  The shipbuilding industry
also justifies its multibillion dollar subsidy in the name of national
security, a claim that the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank
in D.C., refuted in a recent study.  


>... And this shows why they have
>to fudge when it comes to defining the proper limits of state action:
>the real principle to which they adhere is a hidden one, namely, the
>actions which are forbidden to the state are THOSE TAKEN IN THE NAME
>OF SOCIAL JUSTICE.

>Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes

Wrong, Richard, but you'll just have to take my word for it.  The reason
I may make this somewhat unscientific claim is that I am a libertarian
and you are not; I am better acquainted with how I think than you are.
Of course, I could be lying.  I might actually be thinking just the
way you say, and am covering up to put on a good front so that the truth
about libertarians will never be known.  I will leave it to our audience 
to decide that for themselves.

I'm apalled at the arrogance of someone who attempts to explain to others 
why a group of people think the way they do.  I do not attempt to
explain to other people why Richard thinks the way he does; I simply
take his word for it as an honest man and ask him to explain his
thoughts, so that I may better understand and refute them.  Why does
Richard refuse to extend the same respect to me?

--Barry
-- 
Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley