Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:41:45 EST
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <4ebx6US00WCXE3Rks5@andrew.cmu.edu>, ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith) writes:
> 	<Btr6yr.H58@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
> jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:
>>Victor Yodaiken writes:
>>>And there is no claim that the mean-spiritedness and 
>>>intellectual poverty of "libertarianism" implies in any way that it is
>>>a "false" theory, merely that it is a repugnant one.
>>
>>How intriguing an epistemological position!  Yodaiken is claiming
>>that "libertarianism" suffers from 'intellectual poverty'.
>>
>>How can I best address this claim?  Well, the usual approach to addressing
>>such a claim would be to work through a point-by-point explanation
>>of the theory, showing how each step is true.  But notice that
>>Victor claims that his claim about intellectual poverty is does
>>not imply "in any way" that libertarianism is a false theory, only
>>that it is 'repugnant'.
>>
>>Once one takes claims of intellectual richness and disconnects them
>>from truth and falsehood... then where does one stand?
>>
>>Victor's statement can be translated as follows: "I don't care if
>>everything that the libertarians say is true.  I don't care if individual
>>rights give us the best possible mechanism for assuring peace and prosperity.
>>I don't care if socialism and interventionism simply don't work.  Who
>>cares which theory is true?  Libertarianism is repugnant."
>>
>>This, friends, is intellectual poverty.
>>
>>--Jimbo
> 
> Strange as it feels, I have to agree with Victor on this one.  Although
> Libertarianism possesses a strong argument logically, as a moral system,
> it is repugnant.  And it is this way for one simple reason.  All basic
> human rights become connected to wealth under Libertarianism.  If you're

	Not true.  Libertarians hold individual rights supreme.  Period.  No
ifs and buts or ors.

> rich, then you can buy whatever sets of rights and protections you want.

	But you can NOT infringe upon the rights of others.  Period.

>  However, if you are poor, you cannot purchase certain protections that
> are basic rights.  For example, Libertarians want to make people pay for
> private roads.  In theory, it sounds nice.  However, if you are poor and
> you need to get to a hospital in a hurry, this could be literally life
> and death.  

	Not at all.  Emergency service would have the same bypass mode that
they do now.  No stopping to pay tolls for ambulances.

> For that matter, in a Libertarian society, once you got to
> the hospital, you might be left to die in the lobby because you couldn't
> afford the money for a simple life saving procedure.

	Once again, people take today's society and attempt to overlay it onto
Libertarian philosphy.  Libertarians believe that the best way to ensure health
care is to make sure everyone has adequate opportunity to economic resources
(like jobs, markets, etc.)  Government can hand out fish and raise a generation
(or three) of dependants, or we can provide the tools and let people be taught
how to fish.

> Let me give a concrete example of how a theory can be perfectly logical,
> and yet morally repugnant.

	But you are assuming that the goal of Libertarianism is "me-ism". 
Which is not the case.  It's simply less "thout shall-ism" and more "do unto
others".

	Someone posted earlier about letting people starve.  I answered their
question, but have little hope that that will prevent them from in the future
stating
	"All libertarians would let people starve"
	When that is clearly not the case.

> Postulate: Killing all blacks in America would lower crime rates.

	Remove blacks and it's the same strawman.

> 1) Blacks have the highest crime rate of any ethnic group.
> 2) Removing blacks from the society would remove their crime rate
> 3) Removing a group with a crime rate above the national average will
> lower the national crime rate on average.
> 4) Killing every black in America would remove them as a group.
> 5) Therefore, killing every black in America would lower the national
> crime rate.
> 
> Logically, there is no flaw.  Yet morally, this is genocide in its
> basest, most vile form.  This is not to say that Libertarianism
> advocates genocide.  This is an illustration of how a system that is
> logically correct can be morally outrageous.

	Let's get extreme.  Destroying the planet will eliminate human crime
also.  Putting a "but Libertarianism isn't this extreme" at the end doesn't
make the analogy any less disingenuous.

> Libertarians need to accept the fact that people possess certain basic
> human rights.  

	One more time:

	Libertarians hold individual rights supreme.

	Next straw man?

> An important purpose of government is to insure that
> these rights are protected for all citizens regardless of social or
> economic status.  

        Government does not fulfill this role, and is a proven major abuser in
this respect.  Do the Jim Crow laws ring any bells?  Slavery? 
*Institutionalized* by government.
	So don't give us this "it's government's role" bullshit.  Government
should not have that power, because it implies the reverse.
	
> To do this, the government must generate revenues for
> the enforcement and litigation of these protections.  And that is why
> governments have the moral right to impose taxes.  It is more immoral
> for them to not do it and allow the wealthy to buy the rights of the
> poor against the will of the poor.

	That would not happen in a Libertarian society.  Despite the constant
assertions (unsupported, no less!) by non-Libs that it would.

	Followups to talk.politics.misc

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!