Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!ucbcad!UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU!fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU
From: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
Newsgroups: mod.politics
Subject: Reply to Rich Cowan
Message-ID: <12263063217.2.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Mon, 15-Dec-86 15:58:10 EST
Article-I.D.: RED.12263063217.2.MCGREW
Posted: Mon Dec 15 15:58:10 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 16-Dec-86 21:45:47 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 125
Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu


Rich Cowan writes:

> I mention a few man-made needs:

> -The right to education.  (threatened by cutting funds for public
> schools, which sends people to private schools, further decreasing
> public school support)

(Is this a "right" or a "need"?  There's a difference.  For the sake
of argument, I'll assume you mean it's a "right".)

This so-called right is incompatible with another, more fundamental
right: the right to be free from having forced used against you
(having harmed noone, of course).  But, alas, I have to live in the
real world, where people tolerate such contradictory notions, so I'll
leave that line of argument alone for now.  Cutting funds for public
schools does indeed send people to private schools.  Why is this bad?
Doesn't this depend on how affordable private schools are?  If 90% of
the population could afford to send their children to private schools
in a free society, would coercively financed public education still be
a "man-made need".  How about 95%?  99%?

If we absolutely must have "public" education (a dubious conjecture
at best), the best way to do it is through a voucher system and
for-profit schools (though if public schools can compete effectively
for parent's vouchers that's OK).  The point is that there are
lots of alternatives to the current insanity of massively centralized
education financed through taxation.  The current system is *not*
essential to the well-being of America.

> -The right of women to walk city streets without fearing sexual
> assault.  (threatened by advertising which establishes rules for
> social relations which, among other things, cause men to view women,
> and women to view themselves, as sexual objects.)

I'm always reluctant to concede a right to freedom from fear.  After
all, some people are afraid of blacks; can laws be passed forbidding
blacks to walk the streets at night?  Or consider another more
realistic example: here in Berkeley, we have a well-known resident
with an extremely rare skin disease that has horribly disfigured his
face.  He is extremely frightening to look at; children often burst
out into tears, people cross the street to avoid him, and so forth.
And yet, to pass laws to address their concerns would violate some
very basic rights of this man.  So I guess I'm not sure about the
freedom from fear of sexual assault.  What are reasonable fears, and
what are irrational ones?

In any case, advertising doesn't establish rules for social relations,
though it may try.  Nor can it "cause" men to view women and women to
view themselves as sexual objects.  People are creatures of free will,
who can be influenced but who make the final decision themselves.
And, of course, if you're really as ticked off as you claim then
boycott the product!  Get enough people on your side, and we'll start
seeing the kind of ads you want to see.

> -The right to a job that can pay for affordable housing,
> transportation, and food.

There is simply no such right, or at least none that has a
basis in the real, actual nature of human beings.  Refering
to it as a 'right' is standard fare for liberals during an
election year, but it's just sheer nonsense.  What it really
is is an "entitlement", and what is actually being said is
"every able-bodied person in our society that is entitled
to exchange his or her labor for as much money as is necessary
for housing, transportation, and food".  This reasoning is
simply incompatible with the basic American notion of liberty.
Who decides what affordable is?  Who decides how much labor
is worth?  Who decides what should be produced?  Rich, if your
really so concerned about institutions, consider those necessary
to set up and guarantee the "right to a job that can pay for
affordable housing etc. etc.".  

The really ironic thing is that it is the free market that
makes the best decisions regarding what should be produced
and how much it is worth.  Of course no one person agrees
100% with the result, but at least such things are decided
among consenting adults, and not through the exercise of
political power.  It ain't perfect, its just the best system
we have, and the only one compatible with human liberty.

> whom their actions affect.  (Executives oppose full-employment
> legislation and tolerate high structural unemployment because it
> creates a favorable market for hiring people.)  ...

Do you actually believe that "full employment" in any meaningful
sense can be guaranteed by legislation?   In that case, why stop
there?  Why not legislate cheap food and housing, safe energy,
and healthy families?

> OK, Barry, now it's your turn to respond.  But I hope you'll do
>  more than just make quick assumptions about implications of my 
> views and describe how bad they are.  

I hope I did.

> I want to hear how your libertarian philosophy can
> solve the problems I mentioned above.  

I hope I showed this very thing.

To sum up, Rich's main point seems to be that large institutions 
insulated from the consequences of their actions have come to dominate
our lives, and that this is the central issue which we must address
in order to make a better world.  Rich believes that libertarian
ideas cannot address this effectively.  My reply is twofold:

1) The problems that Rich pointed out are in fact effectively
addressed through the libertarian concepts of private property
rights.  In particular, many modern environmental groups are
applying this strategy with great success.

2) Rich is in the curious position of preaching against the dangers of
large institutions, and yet cannot have the entitlements he holds so
dear (public education, "rights" to jobs, etc.) without some sort of
institution with the power to impose its will on those who disagree
with it.  The kind of society he envisions cannot be brought about
without a large, entrenched political body in charge of distributing
wealth.  Such institutions are far more destructive than the most
malevolent corporation.


--Barry
-------