From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 29 Aug 92 22:19:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.BtrnCt.5Bo
Organization: Indiana University

Thomas Omar Smith writes:
>Strange as it feels, I have to agree with Victor on this one.  Although
>Libertarianism possesses a strong argument logically, as a moral system,
>it is repugnant.

Again, libertarianism is not a moral system.  Libertarianism is a political
theory. 

>  And it is this way for one simple reason.  All basic
>human rights become connected to wealth under Libertarianism.  If you're
>rich, then you can buy whatever sets of rights and protections you want.

False!  One might argue about what the best mechanisms _are_ to 
ensure that sets of rights are not 'up for sale'.  Among these
are the basic principles of a constitutional democracy.

It would be far more accurate to say: once one gives up a principled
defense of human rights, then anything GOES... and might makes right.
It is under the _current_ system that rights are 'up for sale'... to
corporations who rape the environment... to defense contracters who
co-opt our decision making process to lead us into vicious wars.

>Let me give a concrete example of how a theory can be perfectly logical,
>and yet morally repugnant.
>
>Postulate: Killing all blacks in America would lower crime rates.
>
>1) Blacks have the highest crime rate of any ethnic group.
>2) Removing blacks from the society would remove their crime rate
>3) Removing a group with a crime rate above the national average will
>lower the national crime rate on average.
>4) Killing every black in America would remove them as a group.
>5) Therefore, killing every black in America would lower the national
>crime rate.
>
>Logically, there is no flaw.  Yet morally, this is genocide in its
>basest, most vile form.  This is not to say that Libertarianism
>advocates genocide.  This is an illustration of how a system that is
>logically correct can be morally outrageous.

Allow me to acquaint you all with Hume's famous is/ought gap.  What
is the missing premise in the above argument?  The missing premise is
that 'government ought to do whatever is necessary to reduce the
crime rate'.  And I offer that it is _that_ moral prescription which
is repugnant.

Who uses such hidden premises?  Well, let's take a look at the current
government's position on drug use!  The government wishes to show
that 'strong anti-drug laws reduce the use of drugs'.   This is easy
enough to show.  What is ignored is the wide set of repugnant consequences!
What is the hidden premise used in such an argument?  'government
ought to do whatever is necessary to reduce the use of drugs'

>Libertarians need to accept the fact that people possess certain basic
>human rights. 

I bet that many observers thought that they would never hear this
question from the libertarian side... but I have to ask you, Thomas,
what the foundation for these rights is.

Do human beings need rights, and why?  What are the facts of reality
that give rise to the concept 'rights'?  What sets of rights are
functional, i.e. implementable in reality.

The libertarians have a set of arguments which address each of these
questions in turn.

Victor, Francis, and company offer us only a set of tired cliches
and ad hominem attacks.

Note well that every political statement of 'ought' contains (at
least implicitly) an ethical statement.

One of the tasks of a legitimate intellectual analysis of the claims
of the various competing political theories is to discover what ethical
premises underlie the theory.  Only _then_ can we assess the alleged
'repugnancy' of the theory.

--Jimbo
Newsgroups: sci.econ