From: parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:04:03 GMT
 <parvin1.718293858@husc11> <1992Oct9.092639.11202@genie.slhs.udel.edu>

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:

>In article <parvin1.718293858@husc11> parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
>}starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>}
>}>In article <parvin1.718214048@husc11> parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
>}>}
>}>}This classical approach is based on the assumption that utility is static.
>}>}That is, if I make a transaction my utility may change, but if I don't it
>}>}will remain the same.  Tell that to someone deciding whether to buy heat,
>}>}food, electricity, etc.
>}

>}>Bullshit.  You don't know anything about what you're talking about.  Who

You don't take this to be a rude, caustic personal attack?

>}>says we're economic classicists?  You're far mor likely to find adherents of
>}>the Austrian school of economics than (neo)classicists among libertarians.
>}>Acknowledging that marginal utility changes with time is one of the main
>}>parts of Austrian or market-process theory.  In case you don't know, the
>}>school of thought I'm talking about originated the theory of marginal utility.
>}
>}I didn't claim that libertarians "are classical economists".  I'm simply
>}stating that this "all transactions are good for all" mentality is a relic
>}of that age. Also, I didn't say a thing about marginal utilities changing
>}with time. It's not the change in marginal utilities, but the marginal
>}utilities themselves that I was refering to.  (You can be screwed the exact
>}same way a thousand times ;-) )

>Your referral to "This classical approach" which I've retained above seemed
>to be painting us as classicists in economics in this regard.

I should have said neo-classical.  It was the neo-classical economists who 
coined supply and demand, etc. in the late 19th century.
The classical economists, such as Smith and Ricardo, believed in
a labor theory of value.  So first I'd like to make a correction.
I don't think a labor theory of value would be very good for process-
oriented libertarians ;-).  But it doesn't really matter what you are; it's
the arguments you make.

>"Relic" has negative connotations which beg the question.  Beyond a few
>hypotheticals assuming unrealistic conditions, you've failed to disprove
>the claim that contractual exchanges necessarily leave both parties better
>off afterwards than before.

You're absolutely right, given your very narrow view of "better off".  I
haven't "disproved" it, because I think it's a hollow justification for
the market system.  I regret calling Perry's remark "simplistic".  A
better word would have been "incomplete", i.e., not comprehensive enough
to support his rebuttal of the original poster some 2000 posts back.
You're free to disagree.

>If you have any argument which follows towards your conclusion, I've yet to
>notice it.

Pleas see my other posts.  The subject drifted somewhat from Perry's point,
but I think you'll find plenty lying around.

[stuff deleted]
>}>You're certainly not going to win any points or debates without doing your
>}>homework.

Let's be a bit nicer, OK?  If you think an argument is ill-founded or
misses the point, say so.  But give a poster the benefit of the doubt that
maybe he could actually be well-read in libertarian thought, and still
not buy it (*gasp*).

>}
>}For your information, I'm currently researching a thesis in the history of
>}of economic thought, and last year took a five person seminar course with
>}Robert Nozick on theories of rationality.  Now I hate ad hominem arguments

>Then you should know better than to have taken the line of argument you did!
>If I'm right about your argument, then it's quite possible to study under
>great thinkers such as Nozick and fail to learn such basics of their thought
>as the distinction between end-state and process views of justice.

Sure they're distinctive.  But they're by no means incompatible in day-
to-day life.  I tend toward J.S. Mill's view, that categorical justice
is extremely important and should be given tremendous weight.  But it is
accountable, in the end, to the advancement of the general state of humanity.
It's value is so great that it is quite difficult to put aside.  Where one
draws the line is a matter of conjecture.  You seem to take a pure
categorical stance, which is your right.  I think it leads, in the extreme,
to decisions that would diverge from virtually everyone's real sentiments.

I learned a great deal from Nozick, and I look at categorical arguments
somewhat differently than I used to.  But it's not fair to say I don't
understand what he said, simply because I'm not a convert.

>Perry claimed that consensual transactions are always mutually beneficial.
>All you did was claim that this was simplistic because it could possibly
>include an end-state that most would find unacceptable, given empirical
>assuptions, some false, some highly improbable.  You failed to show how this
>improbable occurrence refuted the proferred justification for libertarianism.

All I claimed was that this somewhat limited notion of "mutually beneficial"
seemed too weak to morally justify a free market.  You're free to disagree.
One can certainly argue a point well without "disproving" the opposition,
if one believes that what's being "proved" is not the salient of the issue.
As for the assumptions, I believe we do find them to lesser or greater
degrees in the market.  But those arguments shouldn't even concern
pure "process" libertarians.

>Am I being uncivil if I say that this is a cheap, illogical debating tactic,
>and unworthy of anyone of informed opinion?  I value civility highly.  I'm
>sorry if I appeared uncivil.

I didn't mean to be sophistical, and I'm sorry if I appeared so.  Perhaps
I was reading more into Perry's post than was intended.

As for your rhetorical style, I think just staying away from scatology and
references to the posters rather than the posts would be a big improvement.

>But do you honestly think that you've pointed out a flaw in the moral
>justification of libertarianism?  If so, you've kept it secret from me, at
>least, if not others.  Care to de-mystify?

I didn't know there was only one justification for libertarianism. 
I take much better to the "corrupt, inefficient, lazy, unaccountable"
government arguments.  But even on the categorical side, the justification
for libertarianism involves much more than the slice of it I was commenting on.

>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
>starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu


-- 
===========================================================================
Douglas Parvin
parvin1@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou,osu.opinion.libertaria