Newsgroups: sci.econ
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:40:06 -0400 
From: Thomas Omar Smith <ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
	<1992Aug31.144145.3828@desire.wright.edu>

>In article <4ebx6US00WCXE3Rks5@andrew.cmu.edu>, ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Thomas Omar Smith) writes:
>> 	<Btr6yr.H58@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
>> 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
>
>	Not true.  Libertarians hold individual rights supreme.  Period.  No
>ifs and buts or ors.

No, Libertarians hold economic individual rights supreme.  There is a
major difference.

>> rich, then you can buy whatever sets of rights and protections you want.
>
>	But you can NOT infringe upon the rights of others.  Period.

You can if nothing tangible exists to stop you.  After all, we are
dealing with amoral politics now.

>>  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.  
>
>	Not at all.  Emergency service would have the same bypass mode that
>they do now.  No stopping to pay tolls for ambulances.

Then you admit the government has a right to intervene in people's
property rights to ensure other basic human rights.  The free use of the
road is as effectively a tax as any other form.  The owner of the road
provides free service to the government.

>> 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.
>
>	Once again, people take today's society and attempt to overlay it onto
>Libertarian philosphy.  Libertarians believe that the best way to
ensure health
>care is to make sure everyone has adequate opportunity to economic resources
>(like jobs, markets, etc.)  Government can hand out fish and raise a
generation
>(or three) of dependants, or we can provide the tools and let people be taught
>how to fish.

I agree that the government should provide people with the basic tools
to achieve self sufficiency.  Those include a good public education,
equal access to markets despite racial or religious boundaries and
support for entrepreneurship.  I've seen far to many purist libertarians
who want to remove public education and allow discrimination.  These
don't grant rights, they remove them.

>> Let me give a concrete example of how a theory can be perfectly logical,
>> and yet morally repugnant.
>
>	But you are assuming that the goal of Libertarianism is "me-ism". 
>Which is not the case.  It's simply less "thout shall-ism" and more "do unto
>others".

Exactly my point.  But without governmental mechanisms in place, the
rich do unto others until the others have nothing left.

>	Someone posted earlier about letting people starve.  I answered their
>question, but have little hope that that will prevent them from in the future
>stating
>	"All libertarians would let people starve"
>	When that is clearly not the case.

Some libertarians would give food to the poor out of their own pocket,
certanly.  Others wouldn't.  No argument there.  For that matter I'll
agree that if someone refuses to work or try and make themselves more
able to work, then they should be allowed to starve.  However, saying
that private charities are the only reasonable mechanism to prevent
starvation is stupid.  There are people who are in dire trouble through
no fault of their own.  I shudder to think that we as a society have
reached the point where we will not ensure the basic necessities to
widows and orphans unless we happen to feel generous that day.

>> Postulate: Killing all blacks in America would lower crime rates.
>
>	Remove blacks and it's the same strawman.
>
>> 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.
>
>	Let's get extreme.  Destroying the planet will eliminate human crime
>also.  Putting a "but Libertarianism isn't this extreme" at the end doesn't
>make the analogy any less disingenuous.

I wasn't making an analogy, I was making a point.  The point was that
logic does not prove morality.  A system can be completely logical and
workable and still be morally wrong.

>> Libertarians need to accept the fact that people possess certain basic
>> human rights.  
>
>	One more time:
>
>	Libertarians hold individual rights supreme.
>
>	Next straw man?

Yet these same Libertarians would remove every mechanism for ensuring
the protection of many of those rights.  Holding rights as supreme
requires taking action to ensure that ALL PEOPLE receive full, equal
consideration of their rights.  Individuals, acting as individuals,
cannot guarantee that on a large scale.  Only large scale organization
with authority can do that on a large scale.  And that, my friend, is
what government is.

The straw man is the Libertarian insistence on the value of personal
freedom.  They may value it, but not enough to do more than say its a
good thing.  Ensuring rights requires resources and organization,
neither of which the Libertarians are willing to let government provide.

>> An important purpose of government is to insure that
>> these rights are protected for all citizens regardless of social or
>> economic status.  
>
>        Government does not fulfill this role, and is a proven major abuser in
>this respect.  Do the Jim Crow laws ring any bells?  Slavery? 
>*Institutionalized* by government.
>	So don't give us this "it's government's role" bullshit.  Government
>should not have that power, because it implies the reverse.

I never claimed government was perfect.  Or even close.  But without a
government attempting to ensure rights, there is NO protection for
individual freedom beyond money and a gun.  Not a country I want to live
in, but one we quickly degenerate into when government's ability to
safeguard freedoms is weak.  You can observe this phenomenon in the Old
West, or in many modern inner cities.  When government fails to protect
anyone's rights, everyone loses.
	
>> 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.
>
>	That would not happen in a Libertarian society.  Despite the constant
>assertions (unsupported, no less!) by non-Libs that it would.

But the question you have to ask is, WHY wouldn't it happen.  If nothing
beyond a general principle exists to preserve freedom, then the first
person with the needed strength tramples basic freedoms for his own
ends.  If more than that exists, then there must be a government
existing to do it.  And if the government exists then it has to support
itself.  and the way a government supports itself is through taxes.

>	Followups to talk.politics.misc
>
>Brett                                                      
>______________________________________________________________________________
_
>Proconsul Computer Consulting                                       
CHA-CHING!
>Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
>Disclaimer:								   NOT!

					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