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