From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:30:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.091039.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox) writes:
>From: tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox)
>Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
>Date: 24 Jul 92 17:10:39 GMT

>In article <1992Jul23.231714.16273@leland.Stanford.EDU>, dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:
># In article <1992Jul23.145354.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox) writes:
>##
>## But what, exactly, are the assumptions about human behaviour made by
>## free-market economics? I cannot think of any except the trivial one upon
>## which all economics is based - that people want to trade.
>##
>## Conversely, non-free-market economics DOES make at least one assumption about
>## human behaviour - it assumes that people will do what they are told.
># 
># Come on now. Libertarianism makes the exact same assumption. Poor
># people are told they can't take the property of the wealthy even
># if they think that wealth was attained unjustly. I don't think
># they'll be any more likely to listen to this than people in
># command economies listen to the central planners.
># 

>I take it that you dont have a problem with my analysis of economics and
>human behaviour....

>Libertarianism makes the assumption that people will do what they are
>told? Seems an odd sort of phrase to associate with libertarianism.

>"Poor people are told they can't take the property of the wealthy"?
>Libertarianism doesn't "tell" the poor any such thing. You are putting
>a strange slant onto "Thou shalt not steal", which is not a commandment
>exclusive to libertarians.

>Perhaps you wish to deassociate the converse - wealthy stealing from
>the poor - with the libertarian position. A common theme with non-libs
>on a.i tries to associate libertarianism with wealth and ripping off the
>underdog. Nothing could be further from the truth.

>The only thing that libertarians attempt to `tell' people is that they
>should not initiate force. They don't assume people will do as they are
>told - if they did, then all that would be needed would be to get the
>word out, and then nirvana would follow.

>You have a problem with that? 
>If you do, then perhaps you could explain when you think it is appropriate
>to initiate force. If you are poor and you think your wealthy neighbour
>got his wealth unjustly perhaps?

... And how does one unjustly acquire property? Criminally? Well then the 
govt is there to try to stop him. By mixing his labor with it? 
By taking it from someone else against his will and giving it to you? 
Which is more unjust: acquiring something due to one's initiative and labor, 
or acquiring it by taking it by force from someone who has? What 
libertarians want to know is this: If it's wrong for one person to steal 
from another person, how does it suddenly become OK if the society as a 
whole (via coersive govt legislation) does it? 

-- Tony 
Cox>-- "One mans tax dodge is another mans free round of drinks" - Auberon 
Waugh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Bell                                    Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc                   You can force any entertainment
P.O. Box 833875                                 on a people except the consistent
Richardson, TX 75083-3875                       pursuit of a topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------