Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.RUTGERS.EDU Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!columbia!topaz!josh From: josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Newsflash! [Subsidized Education] Message-ID: <3278@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Wed, 14-Aug-85 17:05:44 EDT Article-I.D.: topaz.3278 Posted: Wed Aug 14 17:05:44 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 17-Aug-85 05:22:57 EDT References: <955@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1110@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1680@psuvax1.UUCP> <292@ubvax.UUCP> <3257@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> <145@gargoyle.UUCP> Reply-To: josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) Distribution: na Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 101 In article <145@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >JoSH sez: >> Statists like yourself, who want to >>reduce everybody to a kind of slavery to a massive bureaucracy, would >>naturally have a hard time understanding this. [etc.] > >JoSH, this kind of comment is out of line. If you ever stopped >sneering at socialists long enough to understand what we are saying, >you might discover that we don't by any means deserve your contempt. This kind of comment is the meat and potatoes of netland rhetoric, and it is remarkably selective of you to pipe up when a libertarian does it but remain silent while yammerheads like sevener slop their copious rantings across the net. Besides, I was talking about Wuersch, a considerably less perspicuous fellow than yourself. >Robert Nozick, at least, takes the writings of socialists seriously >-- so should you. On the other hand, if we really don't have >anything worthwhile to say, perhaps you should stick to moderating >fa.poli-sci, a.k.a. *Libertarian Review*. I that particular message, I was trying to give you an insight into the moral and emotional underpinnings of libertarian thought--which had just been badly and somewhat maliciously misrepresented by Mr. Berman. (Why didn't you call Berman to task?) The basic justice of the libertarian ideas, our insistence that people be treated as human beings individually and not a collective mass, is a point that as far as I can tell is completely missed by socialists who attempt to grapple with libertarian thought. >Now that I am very old and wise, I understand that the best way to >win people to my point of view is to try, as sympathetically as >possible, to understand *their* point of view, and even to take into >account the (extremely remote but conceivable) possibility that I may >have something to learn from them, rather than to attribute to them >disreputable motives. >Richard Carnes This may come as a shock to you, but I flatter myself that I *do* understand the socialist point of view, and I can even tell you what is wrong with it in a very few words. Socialists view the people of the world, and their economic interactions, as a great machine or system, and see things that are wrong, and want to fix them. (Please note that I'm assuming here that the socialists are both well-intentioned *and* competent!) Now when you go to fix a machine, there are two points to the process that I must point out. First, you change parts or modify the design of the machine without any consideration for the well-being of the parts in and of themselves, but only to make sure they properly serve the function they were intended for. If they are misshapen you throw them away. (Consider the purges that are a hallmark of the nations that embrace Marxism thoroughgoingly.) Libertarians believe that consideration of the individual is foremost, that the rights of people are primary and those of groups only derivative. Secondly, consider the relationship between the mechanic and the machine. The mechanic has the say; the machine just sits there and gets operated on. The socialist has his ideas as to what the other people in society should be like, and believes that force should be used to make them that way. After all, mechanics often have to use force, especially on old, rusty machines. After the great social machine is all fixed up and oiled properly, very little force will be necessary to keep it running smoothly... The libertarian believes that the other people have as much right to decide what they want to do, or to be like, as he does--indeed, they have the right, and he doesn't. The libertarian does not visualize himself as something outside society, shaping it into his bright vision of utopia. He believes that every person in society should be free to work toward his *own* idea of the good life. Can we help it if many of the real people out there want cars and TVs and children and vacations and all the bourgeois values that socialists disdain so much? We just don't have the itch to change them the socialists do. Take away the portion of the socialist rhetoric that has been used to further special interest over the past century, and what you are left with is a vision of a utopia (e.g. some of Marx's writings quoted by Carnes right here, or Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy). Everybody is caring, everybody chips in, each works for the good of all. But people aren't like that. People work for themselves, for their families, and to a lesser extent for friends and strangers where they can see the good effect they're having. The problem with the socialist utopia is that an average, ordinary person from the real world would be considered a perverted, selfish criminal there. So the socialist looks at the real, self- interested people of the world around him, with a jaundiced eye. I don't buy that vision. A world fit only for saints is no world for me. My idea of a utopia is a lot closer to the real world, a bustling garish place where anything can be had for a price--but with pockets and hinterlands of calm and nature, where peace and serenity can be had--for a price. A responsible society cannot be made of irresponsible people, and responsible people cannot be had by treating everyone like children. The socialist prescription -- if it worked as planned -- would put food in every stomach; but I believe that self-responsibility is a better thing in the long run than food. Responsibility is not taught by making people immune from the consequences of their actions. --JoSH