From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 6 Sep 92 02:19:05 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff) writes:

>By definition the outcome of any negotation between socialists,
>anarchists, and libertarianisms will not result in wholesale adoption
>of any one belief system, there will be a mix, just as there is now.

No.  Libertarianism ("the government does a few things, those necessary
to qualify it as a government") can be viewed as a mean between
socialism ("everything is under social a.k.a. government control, so
the government does lots of things") and anarchism ("the government
does nothing whatever").  So a three-way negotiation with lots of
difference-splitting could end with libertarianism. 

In addition, negotiations sometimes conclude with an agreement based on
principles that become generally accepted in the course of the
negotiation, perhaps because they seem better to most of the
participants than other principles that might otherwise govern.  So a
negotiation between Wilhelm Reich ("government-funded orgone therapy
compulsory for everyone") and the Ayatollah ("chadars compulsory for
women and jehad compulsory for men") could well end in libertarianism
("the government keeps the peace and protects property and otherwise
people are free to pursue what they think is good").

>A negotiation is not taking place if "making arguments of principle"
>means no compromise occurs. Then then only way your views will win is
>either by force or the religious conversion of enough people to your
>side.

In the United States today, a lot of issues are decided by the Supreme
Court ignoring vote-counting and basing their decisions on principles
that the justices and the people they look to for approval think are
the right ones.  How does that situation fit into your scheme of
things?

>I don't see the Salvation Army making any kind of significant dent on
>florida right now. They can't help everybody.

I have no special theory about disaster relief.  It seems to me rather
different from your previous example (family of 5 with no money) and
less troublesome from the point of view of someone who wants to limit
the responsibilities of government because it relates to situations
that don't arise in day-to-day social life.  Since it can be treated
separately from issues relating to government responsibility for the
welfare of individuals, it seems to me I don't need to have a theory
about if for purposes of this discussion.

Having said that, it seems to me that a lot of disaster relief is
extended because politicians like to appear to be doing something about
things that are in the news and a lot of it relates to things that
people should insure or otherwise provide against.  There are no doubt
people on the net who know more about this issue than I do and who have
thought about it.  If so, I urge them to comment.

>There are needs for people in the country that are not beeing met by
>private organizations. I and majority of others, apparently, believe
>people should be helped in and organized manor and not be left to the
>winds of fate. The court of last resort is the government. In then end
>you believe this as well by investing all legitimate use force in the
>state.

Again, you express your belief that to help people in an organized
manner is the same as having the government help them, that being "left
to the winds of fate" is the alternative to government aid and that the
"court of last resort" is the government.  Why can't people deal with
the world in an organized way other than through the government?  Why
is the agency that possesses a near monopoly of force also necessarily
the agency that is responsible for all final substantive decisions? 
The idea of private property is the idea that some final substantive
decisions are left to agents other than the government, and that the
role of the government is the limited one of protecting the right to
make such decisions.  What's wrong with that?

You seem to view the government as society in action, so that anything
that we all have some sort of obligation to see to is an appropriate
(or rather necessary) subject for government action.  A libertarian
might view the government as a specialized agency that is responsible
for situations in which the use of force is necessary, but is no more a
stand-in for society in general than the director of the FBI or the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Why is the libertarian
obviously wrong?


-- 
    Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
Xref: sparky sci.econ:7425 talk.politics.misc:44453