From: albeaj@jima.b17d.ingr.com (Jim Albea)
Subject: Re: Libertarians/programmers was [misc.acti...]
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:06:49 GMT

In article <4171@randvax.rand.org>, edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan7.233259.25877@infonode.ingr.com> albeaj@jima.b17d.ingr.com (Jim Albea) writes:
|> >Libertarians ignore "the deeply irrational vagaries of human nature"?
|> >Like Greed?  Like selfishness?  Like territoriality?  Just the opposite.
|> >Libertarianism is the political philosophy that embraces these things
|> >and recognizes the paradoxical utility of such vagaries and the fact
|> >that they exist along side other human traits such as love, charity, 
|> >and forgiveness in the crazy quiltwork of society.  Libertarians love
|> >complexity and a future that is totally inscrutable and are not afraid of
|> >such a future as long as fraud and the initiation of force have been 
|> >banished from human relations.
|> 
|> Wow!  This sounds like a religion, not a political ideology.  Eliminate
|> government coercion and all that selfish, territorial greed will mix in a
|> marvelously complex way with love, charity, and forgiveness, resulting
|> in A Better World(tm).  You'll have about as much chance convincing me
|> of this as you will of virgin birth.

Your claim was that libertarians ignore aspects of human nature in order
to come up with a pristene theoritical model.  I still contend that the
opposite is the case.  As opposed to other conceptual systems, libertarians
have no agenda to change any aspect of human behavior.  In fact we get
lots of heat from those who claim that libertaria would be filled with
drug addicts, prostitutes, gamblers, and spaced out, greedy, poorly
educated capitalists with low self esteem.  Let it be, amen.  :)

|> 
|> > Our quarrel with the societal entity
|> >commonly called government is that it commits wholesale initiation of 
|> >force - based on "empirical observations".  Will a libertarian society
|> >have great inequities?  Will it have destroyed and broken people?  Yes,
|> >most likely, at times.  These things are certainly possible where there
|> >is no force or fraud.
|> 
|> And how does eliminating government coercion eliminate force or fraud?
|> Individuals are just as capable of violence and deception, and can
|> claw their way to power, making whatever coalitions necessary along
|> the way.  You've failed to show how government of necessity makes things
|> worse (and I freely admit it doesn't, of necessity, make things better).

Did I say eliminate government coercion?  What I meant to say was
eliminate governmental initiation of force.  Said government would
then be the entity in society empowered to apply coercion where necessary
and under due process to prevent and punish the initiation of force and
fraud.  These clawing individuals you describe would (or should) end up in
court and possibly jail if they are practicing violence and deception.
Governments potentially make things much worse as long as they are allowed
to continue to break the basic rules of civilized society.  Libertarians
are not anarchists.  The (L)ibertarian agrees that government is a 
necessary part of society as the "rule keeper".  And the rules that it
keeps should apply equally to itself.
  
|> 
|> > And it is almost certain that society will
|> >continue to change.  The libertarian notion is that as society changes,
|> >in order for it to be civilized, the ethic of no initiation of force
|> >or fraud must be at its foundation.
|> 
|> This begs the question, big time!  Who is it who prevents the initiation
|> of force or fraud?  What's to prevent some non-libertarian heathen from
|> amassing enough force to /make/ a government?  Do you know something
|> about human nature I don't?
|> 
|> 		-Ed Hall
|> 		edhall@rand.org

This bears repeating: (L)ibertarians are not anarchists. Government is
a necessary evil.  But the governmental form is a beast that has a horrendous
history. (Does any of it need to be detailed here?)  We should try as
best we can to limit government to the rule keeper role and keep as
potential last resort an armed population.  This armed population, would
by the way, be a handy check against potential "abuses of power" from a greedy 
capatilist.

-- 
Jim Albea                     albeaj@jima.b17d.ingr.com


Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism