From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: the simplicities of freedom
Summary: babytalk
Organization: Precipitating Pendulums Postal Party Poopers
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 01:01:02 GMT

In article <37596@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.201520.28510@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>>I don't know if its the atypical background in computers that leads
>>Libertarians to think in such binary terms or not. Since when was the
>>only alternative to Libertarianism "statism" ?
>
>The only alternative to allowing the individual to live his life
>by his own judgement is NOT allowing the individual to live his life
>by his own judgement. There really is no middle ground.

I wasn't aware that either the policy, philosophy or political
platform of anyone calling themselves "libertarian" could be reduced
to such simplicities. Normally, most such people mention certain
special cases like "defence", "fraud", "legal system"; a few make room
for problems associated with deferred or amortized costs. 

Given all these various mechanisms proposed to allow us all to "life
our life by our own judgement", it seems quite obvious that there are
alternatives and compromises that either are "statism", in which case
this is a property shared with the Libertarian Party of the USA, or
not, in which case, there is a middle ground.

>It is amazing to me that people just don't want others to be free.
>Of course, I guess its a little more understandable when you 
>realize that this means that these people don't want to be responsible
>for their own lives.

Time for the annual hit-on-the-libs. Mr. Albini, are you out there
still ?

Free. This is supposed to be a theory group, so why not consider what
"free" means in a theoretical sense for a moment.

"Free" to do what ? Anything you want ? Surely not. There are
mechanical, physical, and temporal problems in being *that* free. How
about being "free" to do anything you can ? This seems a little more
likely, except that now we have to deal with the problem that human
ability is a remarkably plastic phenomenon, changing over the lifetime
of an individual in many different ways.

So lets try something simpler. "Free" from other's actions to which
one did not consent ? Hmm, this seems easier. Property rights and all
that should make this work really nicely, right ?

The problem is:

	I can be affected by other's actions without even knowing
		about it. 
		
	 	1a) This could either be due to others intent (Advertising) or
		1b) because the timescale or geographic density of the effect
                         escapes my senses (air pollution, species extinction,
                             myriad other environmental issues)

I like libertarianism, really, I do. Its just all so simple - one nice
theory ("free to live by one's own judgement", or whatever), and
everything else falls into place. Well, it doesn't. The world, and
humans, are a lot more complicated than that. That doesn't mean that
your noble notions are not noble, but it does mean that they are
inadequate as the basis for a society of 250 million (let alone 5
billion) human beings.

To talk.politics.theory regulars: I'll creep back into the woodwork
and lurk again. Or I'll try, really.

-- paul

-- 
There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
price only are this man's lawful prey.
						John Ruskin
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.logic