From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:41:25 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

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

>What make sense depends on your value system [ . . . ] You take it as
>true that police, courts, defense, etc. are all necessary. Many
>anarchists will sincerely disagree with you. Many socialists will also
>sincerly disagree with your limits. Many many people are inbetween. So
>now what?

You had posed the issue as a lib saying "I want the government to do the
stuff on list L but not the stuff on list H" and you saying "I want the
government to do the stuff on list H but not the stuff on list L".  My
objection was that since list L includes only the things that the
government would have to do in order to be a government at all (that is,
an institution with a near-monopoly on the legitimate use of force),
list H makes no sense unless it includes everything on list L.

You now present a dispute between an anarchist who wants list A (a list
with nothing on it), a lib who wants list L (a list that can't easily be
shortened if the government is to be a government at all) and a
socialist who wants list S (which presumably includes everything on list
L and lots more), and ask how the dispute can be resolved.  I assume by
mutual persuasion, and where persuasion fails, by the mixture of
compromise and coercion that characterizes politics.  For example, the
anarchist and the socialist might split the difference between them and
accept list L, which is longer than the anarchist wants but shorter than
the socialist wants.  Or the anarchist might align himself with the lib
for fear of the socialist, and list L might get adopted over the
socialist's opposition even though two of the three don't like it.

Obviously, arguments of principle would be part of the process of
persuasion.  For example, the lib might argue with the anarchist that
the elimination of all government coercion doesn't promote the value
that the lib and the anarchist both prize (freedom) because it leads to
unlimited coercion by private or foreign oppressors.  The lib might
argue with the socialist that socialism doesn't work in the long run, or
that when values differ government should use coercion only in support
of values that are generally agreed on (a line of thought that would
lead to a rather short list of government functions).

What's wrong with such a process?  Why couldn't it lead to a libertarian
society?  Is there something wrong with making arguments of principle as
part of the discussion?  Might not some such arguments actually be valid?

>Again, after much protestation, in the end should the government as the last
>resort help the starving family of five? A simple yes or no will do.

No.  In the end the Salvation Army as the last resort should help them. 
That's why I give the Salvation Army lots of money every year.  Do *you*
think the Salvation Army should just let them starve?

You may object, "But by hypothesis they've exhausted all avenues of
help, which would include the Salvation Army."  If that objection is
valid, "all avenues of help" would include the government as well, so
your solution of having the government help them is no better than mine.

It seems to me that the real question you're raising is what I should do
if I know about a starving family of five.  It escapes me why it's a
necessary truth that what I should do is try to get the government to
help them.  Why is the government a more appropriate agent for me to try
to bring into action than the Salvation Army, the United Nations, you
personally, IBM, the family's relatives and neighbors, or the Emir of
Kuwait?  If someone wants to say "In the end, X should in the last
resort help starving families", why does the statement make more sense
if X is the government than if X is one of the other possibilities?  It
seems to me you don't recognize that these are questions that require
discussion.

>Is not "ethnic purity" the most immutable and self-righteous principle 
>you can think of?

I don't see why it's either immutable, self-righteous or a principle. 
There are degrees of ethnic purity, so it's not immutable.  The slogan
doesn't seem to appeal to any conception of righteousness, so it's not
self-righteous.  And nothing in the news makes me think it's a phrase
that's part of some systematic understanding of the world, so it's
doubtful that it's a principle.  Apart from that, you may have a point.

-- 
    Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
Xref: sparky sci.econ:7342 talk.politics.misc:43529