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!decvax!mcnc!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!tonyw From: tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Newsflash! [Subsidized Education] Message-ID: <292@ubvax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 9-Aug-85 13:38:29 EDT Article-I.D.: ubvax.292 Posted: Fri Aug 9 13:38:29 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 13-Aug-85 21:09:54 EDT References: <955@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1110@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1680@psuvax1.UUCP> <3168@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Reply-To: tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) Distribution: na Organization: Ungermann-Bass, Inc., Santa Clara, Ca. Lines: 100 In article <3168@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: >In article <1680@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: >> I find here very appealing vision: unemployed starve or hire themselves >>for pennys, ... [litany of Dickensian horrors] > >Why do you think that the centralized organization of illegitimate >coercion, which is all that we're advocating the removal of, is the >motive force behind social concern and compassion? I don't believe it. > >I believe that the amount of compassion is relatively orthogonal to >these political questions, but that the wealth of a society determines >the amount of activity and physical aid this compassion enables them >actually to give. Thus a rich society is a better place to live, >even if you are poor. It's nice to know what you believe, Josh. But is it true that the poor and down-and-out do better from private charity than from the modern welfare state? Why should the abolition of "coercion" make people any more generous? Why should the absence of any health standards, for instance, which poor people should fulfill (food in the right quantities, minimum shelter, etc.) aid the poor in meeting these standards? These aren't questions of belief; the burden's on libertarians to prove these things (chuckle), not on the rest of us to take them for granted. >> First problem: who enforces the law? Private agency? How about the >>competition? > >The competition keeps the prices low, the laws fair, and the cops on the >job. Unlike the present situation. > >>... Perhaps hire another agency to shoot out the first one. > >War is extremely expensive; it is almost never practiced except by >those organizations who obtain their incomes by theft, such as >governments and criminal gangs. Not in Mad Max's world. Isn't libertaria more like that? Nobody regulating the gangs? In Mad Max's world, everybody knows how to use a gun ('cept for those helpless good folk...). Poor women who can't afford an agency had better watch out. And even then, they'd probably could only afford a crime deductable (i.e. the agency pledges to protect only after the first ten crimes ...). They would learn to adjust their expectations and live with this. >>Now, assume that law enforcement is public. ... >> Who, in absence of democracy should decide? > >I don't advocate this, but you'll find that the decisions in a >"democracy" are made by a small group of bosses in a political hierarchy. >The difference between a two-party "democracy" (USA) and a one-party >"democracy" (USSR) is that here there are two sets of bosses who are >chosen from more or less at random. There are other differences. Are none of these significant ones? > >>Conclusion: Libertaria is a police state governed by the rich. [etc] > >If I have two dollars and you have one dollar, I get two lollipops and >you get one. If I have two votes and you have one, I get everything, >and you get nothing. Sorry! > Show me a democracy like this, and I might believe you, Josh. At least I'd stop and think. >> It occurred to me that this is exactly what our net free-marketeers >>(and/or libertarians) have in mind. ... > >If you actually think this, you are remarkably close-minded. If, as >I rather suspect, you really understand that we believe that everyone >would be better off with the rights and principles we advocate, and >you are merly throwing "cute" insults, shame on you. > >>Piotr Berman > >--JoSH Josh! Give Piotr the benefit of the doubt, please. He had a problem. On the one hand, if he liked libertaria, what he suggests is precisely what he would have in mind -- that wow, he's rich, and nobody can tell him what to do. He thinks that if you were realistic and liked liber- taria, you would be as happy as he would be. Maybe he thinks that having a glowing, peaceful view of libertaria and being realistic are contradictory states, and he wants to retain his belief in your realism. I agree with Piotr. I'd rather believe in people than believe in libertaria anytime. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw "And if you don't believe all the things I say, I'm certified prime by the USDA!"