From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Summary: Olive branch for Victor
Date: 12 Sep 92 01:25:25 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <53126@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.154925.3968@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>In article <53003@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>> In article <1992Sep4.145111.3924@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>
>>>          3. An excellent example of (2) can be found in the "libertarian"
>>>          belief that government intrusion in to markets to forbid "fraud"
>>>          can be justified on purely economic grounds, 
>>
>>	It would do you a world of good if such a beastie existed.  However,
>>Libertarian stances against fraud have to do with individual rights, and not
>>economics.


I beg to differ with the Stupendous Man, but the best libertarian arguments
in favor of punishment of fraud are economic; that is, fraud interferes
with the market processes which tend to enrich all by the process of
infinite mutually advantageous transactions.  

Fraud is, of course, also a form of theft, which is a violation of property 
rights, and so it can be condemned as such.   But why would this particular form
of theft be given such a bright spotlight in libertarian circles?  The answer is
that the political types were influenced by the economic types, most recently
with Rand (selectively) reading Mises.  Classical liberal economists 
argued that even a laissez faire govt should actively prosecute fraud,
and the idea has stuck in the modern libertarian mindset, detached from its
origins.

>One of the interesting features of arguing with libertarians is that the
>ground keeps shifting. If you recall, this thread started when someone
>argued that the libertarian program allows one to remove morality from
>the scope of government, since morals should be purely a private matter.


The ground isnt shifting, Victor.  L[l]ibertarians do not agree on everything,
and they are especially diverse in their justifications for their
ultimate conclusions.  So you are encountering many different argumentative
directions from many disparate l{L}ibertarians.  I associate myself with
libertarianism, but it would be more accurate to call me a market liberal.
(Liberal in the classic sense.  It's time we took our label back (8-)  )

Indeed, there are the natural rights libertarians, or propertarians, who
venture into economics to attempt to show that their ideal version
of an economic system might actually work, but who then oscillate
between pragmatism (when it confirms their beliefs) and dogma
(when it is more difficult to square with reality).

I notice that you take particular joy in debating these folks.  (8-)

Then, there are market liberals, or Constitutional moderates, 
who base their various philosophies
on the purported economic and social benefits of a market system 
with limited govt.  This position avoids dogma almost entirely and is
fluid in terms of actual political constitution.  The only common
(or govt) morality which is required is that of tolerance; ie, allowing
to each their own morality.  Market liberals can actually be convinced that
it might be better to leave Yosemite in collective ownership.  (8-)

Although we have argued at great length in the past, I actually
think that we are both market liberals, I of the right and you of
the left.  Rather than rejecting your ideas of property as
violating some cosmic law, we need to see if they can actually
work.  Your criticism of modern capitalism and corporatism has
merit, but it needs to be weighted against the positives. 

>
>Denial of service is not victimless. 

Perhaps, but service should be voluntary nonetheless.  If there is an 
actual victimization caused by the exercise of freedom of association, then
let it be resolved in civil court before a jury.  The jury, of course,
represents society.  Why invoke criminal statutes and Equal Opportunity
bureaucracies which may actually end up doing more harm than good?


--Al Date
Newsgroups: sci.econ