From: ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 29 Aug 92 11:36:00 GMT
	<Btr6yr.H58@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:
>Victor Yodaiken writes:
>>And there is no claim that the mean-spiritedness and 
>>intellectual poverty of "libertarianism" implies in any way that it is
>>a "false" theory, merely that it is a repugnant one.
>
>How intriguing an epistemological position!  Yodaiken is claiming
>that "libertarianism" suffers from 'intellectual poverty'.
>
>How can I best address this claim?  Well, the usual approach to addressing
>such a claim would be to work through a point-by-point explanation
>of the theory, showing how each step is true.  But notice that
>Victor claims that his claim about intellectual poverty is does
>not imply "in any way" that libertarianism is a false theory, only
>that it is 'repugnant'.
>
>Once one takes claims of intellectual richness and disconnects them
>from truth and falsehood... then where does one stand?
>
>Victor's statement can be translated as follows: "I don't care if
>everything that the libertarians say is true.  I don't care if individual
>rights give us the best possible mechanism for assuring peace and prosperity.
>I don't care if socialism and interventionism simply don't work.  Who
>cares which theory is true?  Libertarianism is repugnant."
>
>This, friends, is intellectual poverty.
>
>--Jimbo

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.  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.
 However, if you are poor, you cannot purchase certain protections that
are basic rights.  For example, Libertarians want to make people pay for
private roads.  In theory, it sounds nice.  However, if you are poor and
you need to get to a hospital in a hurry, this could be literally life
and death.  For that matter, in a Libertarian society, once you got to
the hospital, you might be left to die in the lobby because you couldn't
afford the money for a simple life saving procedure.

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.

Libertarians need to accept the fact that people possess certain basic
human rights.  An important purpose of government is to insure that
these rights are protected for all citizens regardless of social or
economic status.  To do this, the government must generate revenues for
the enforcement and litigation of these protections.  And that is why
governments have the moral right to impose taxes.  It is more immoral
for them to not do it and allow the wealthy to buy the rights of the
poor against the will of the poor.

					Tom the non hacker
					Kemp in 96!
					"If patriotism is the last refuge
					of scoundrels,  Then environmentalism
					is the current refuge of totalitarians."
					Bob Jackson
Newsgroups: sci.econ