Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ubvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!greipa!pesnta!amd!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!tonyw From: tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Explorations of "social-interest": Back to Basics Message-ID: <225@ubvax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 21-Jun-85 13:34:48 EDT Article-I.D.: ubvax.225 Posted: Fri Jun 21 13:34:48 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Jun-85 06:20:55 EDT References: <298@spar.UUCP> <2380037@acf4.UUCP> <657@whuxl.UUCP> Organization: Ungermann-Bass, Inc., Santa Clara, CA Lines: 51 In article <657@whuxl.UUCP>, orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > By continuing endless debate about *self* interest, nonLibertarians > are failing to address the fundamental questions of politics of > *social* interests. > tim sevener whuxl!orb My own stance on society and institutions is what is called "methodological individualist", that is, I distrust statements about groups which cannot be justified by analysis of the motivations and choices of members of groups, and ultimately individuals. The "mi" stance makes a determination of what is *social*, that is, what is beneficial to society as a whole, very much a question of what is beneficial to the individual. If a social order cannot justify itself by its benefits to individuals, or if it cannot explain why individuals should be loyal to it beyond threats of raw coercion, then to me that social order is questionable on its face and one's stance to it should likely be very opportunistic. I only agree that questions of *self* interest are stupid in the sense that the *self* in most such discussions is usually an abstract rational being lacking ethical and moral dispositions which I think most people do possess and which they have to take into account. Also the question of what is the subject of *self* interest -- the individual, group, set of friends, nation, etc -- is almost never dealt with in most discussions of *self* interest because most participants on this net conceive of the self's orientation almost entirely in terms of individuals or family units. Still, social cohesion has to be explained in terms of the needs and choices of individuals before *social* interests can be constructed and acted upon. Questions about individuals are prior to questions of *social* interest. So I don't apologize for attempting to explain why individuals might want to follow a social system that doesn't always assume they know what's best for themselves. It's an important question. Where nonLibertarians likely differ from libertarians (at least those I've read) is that the nons think that there are many answers that can justify many different kinds of social systems. Libertarians think the number and diversity of justifyable types of social systems are few and narrow in dimension. Hence to my mind talking about individual motivations to follow social systems can only help the nonLibertarians, since every new social system that can be justified by reference to individual needs and choices represents another viable alternative to Libertaria. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw