Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!yale!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Explorations of "social-interest
Message-ID: <28200021@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Jun-85 18:31:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200021
Posted: Thu Jun 27 18:31:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 1-Jul-85 06:50:24 EDT
References: <657@whuxl.UUCP>
Lines: 87
Nf-ID: #R:whuxl:-65700:inmet:28200021:000:4597
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Jun 27 18:31:00 1985


>/**** inmet:net.politics.t / whuxl!orb / 10:13 am  Jun 24, 1985 ****/
>The abhorrence to democracy of most Libertarians is made explicit here by
>JoSH.  All will be solved by the "market" and competition.
>Yet I would contend that this is precisely what we wish to *avoid*.
>Let us take "competition" in traffic, to continue my mundane example of
>social interaction.  

We have here a really remarkable example either of Tim's inability
to understand libertarian ideas (whether he agrees with them or not)
or of Tim's penchant for straw men -- take your pick.

In particular, a traffic situation on a public road is a very good
example of a government influenced situation.  The state has established
road safety laws, determined who will drive and what routes the roads
will be on, what safety criteria are sufficient, what sorts of road signs
will be enough, what traffic laws will be followed, what the road will
be made of, how many people will be allowed on the road, and what they
will pay (or not pay) for the privilege.  Given all this, Sevener
regales us with how terrible is the "libertarian" situation we have on the
roads in New Jersey.

Gosh, Thanks Tim!  'Sa good thing you labeled this "libertarian",
or I never would have noticed it.

Chalk one up for "Straw Man Sevener".

>Essentially that is to some degree the system that
>prevails in New Jersey - people go for their own self-interests with
>little regulation of competition.  I have seen a number of people go
>right through a red light, after sitting stopped for it for at least
>a minute.  It was not then a case of having momentum and failing to stop,
>but sheer disregard for the law and *others* in pursuit of their
>own self-interest.  In such a competitive situation those who win out
>will be those with the biggest cars and those with the least qualms about
>hurting their own car or *others*.  Those who wish to consider others
>rights will be left behind as well as those with special care for their
>passengers such as those with children in the car.
>A *democracy* ruled by law implies the opposite situation.
>All will be treated equally by the law *regardless* of the size of their
>car, their racing prowess, or their reckless disregard for others
>safety.  Such regulations not only protect *everyone* but also,
>in fact, allow faster traffic than rampant and unregulated competition.

Indeed, even-handed regulation protects people, provided it's
balanced against the self-interest of road-owners.  If, for example, 
a particular private road were unsafe, revenue would be lost, and an incentive
would be there to fix the problem.  On the other hand, there is a much less
direct path to the legislator's self-interest by which these things get
fixed in a democracy (or a republic).  Much less direct, than, say, 
the offer of campaign funds from a second-rate concrete company.

>"In a market, the collective result is often completely different than
>the (self-interested) intents of all the actors therein." says JoSH.
>The result of a totally free "competition" in traffic would be the
>evolution from bigger and bigger cars to monstrously expensive tanks.

Tsk!  Once again, you're failing to think how people in a libertarian
society would think -- the options open to them include outlawing
(for specific roads) these "tanks", by flexible and continuously
adjusted criteria that have tangible results on the regulator's 
self interest.  Just to give the most obvious example of this, the
private road-owner would probably outlaw "tanks" to prevent his
road from wearing out fast.

>Certainly it is true that this collective result is completely different
>than the self-interests of all actors in daily traffic.
>After all, who can afford a tank?  Only the rich.
>But even they would actually find less expense in a smaller-sized car
>allowed by some reasonable regulation of commuter interactions.

After all, who can afford traffic tickets?  Only the rich.  Of course,
a DEMOCRACY would never allow such an unequal thing as "traffic tickets"
to happen, eh Tim?

>
>Which is why there has *never been* and never will be a completely 
>competitive system of economics or social interaction.
>Because such a system harms the self-interests of *all*.

Excuse me, but I don't recall any libertarian proposing a COMPLETELY 
competitive system of economics or social interaction.  Citation please,
or perhaps an apology for yet another straw man.

For those interested, about 3 months back, I posted Murray Rothbard's
excellent refutation of the accusation that individualists would eschew
cooperation.