selfishness and the man on the desert island

[Michael]

May I apologise since i suspect I am not posting my notes correctly
and figure maybe they should be sent as indivual replies to posted
responses?

Well to randomly answer a few points. I do not pretend to be an expert
on Libertarian philosophies in any detail. 1. Because it is a broad
church, from the fanatical and deluded I referred to, to the
conservative who resents little more than the ever growing body of law
and law makers who generate it. 2. Because I do not need to. I spoke
of Richard Dawkins and said he does need to understand religion. There
is no point in creationists telling him off because he does not know
his pentateuchal from his Pentecostal. I am saying that your
philosophy(ies) may be logical, placid, virtuous , but when you go to
their heart there is selfishness at its core. I know this by reading
what is said, what is implied, what will, in my opinion, result. I am
a Barbie princess lying on all those comforting Libertarian duck-down
pillows. It’s just that that pea at the bottom is a real nuisance. It
stops me from sleeping.
I do not see self-interest as the same as selfishness. I might be
hard put to decry the former.
I do not have any truck with Zimbabwe. You miss the point here. It was
a crude suggestion about the problem of disconnection from history and
the instability of the rights you would hold as sacrosanct – granted
by an authority you would in the main decry.

But there does seem to be that ‘children as property’ divergence
appearing. I think everyone bar Trevor was offended by the selfish
word? Whereas Trevor embraces it. – just as he embraced the idea of
children as property

Look. My friends with whom I have 'arguments' here will know the
reductio ad absurdum I use when I find an economic theory unpleasant
or fail to undertstand it. Two men are wrecked on a desert island. One
is a Major in the SAS. The other a professor of philosophy. The Major
is in his element. After a day he has built a crude shelter, caught
some fish, lit a fire and found clean water. The two men spend a
comfortable night. After four days the shelter is a liveable home, the
diet is extensive and the fire a constant comfort. But after a week
the Major realises that rescue is not imminent and he is the only
person doing anything of merit and he will have to keep two people
alive for the foreseeable future. Well here I normally digress into an
economy that he derives. But suppose we look at his problem from
another point of view. Well if he was a Christian he would carry on as
he is, maybe educating his philosopher companion to acquire the skills
he needs. But if the major was a Libertarian would his philosophy
OBLIGE him to act in a particular way; living as he does in this
community. I think I know what Kierkegaard would do, Aristotle, maybe
even Nietzsche.

[Trevor Watkins]

Urgent point of order!

Simply select the email from libsa to which you wish to reply, and press reply. The "To" address should be li...@googlegroups.com.  Do not change the subject line, as this creates a new thread, making it difficult for later viewers to see a coherent succession of posts. As in life, do less rather than more. Having a gmail account makes this all much easier.

With regard to the desert island scenario, 2 important points. 

1. Either person CAN do anything they like - cooperate, coerce, kill and eat the other, depending only on cunning and strength. This discussion is about what they OUGHT to do in order to survive long enough to be rescued, or to prosper locally.

2. If the professor of philosophy happened to be a woman, it would be in the SAS fellows interest to establish a well ordered society and to grow a family, if not a nation. Once again, what approach would lead to the best outcomes for the proposed society?

Trevor Watkins -

[M ODOWD]

Neither 'can' nor 'ought' seem good enough to me here. Is one a follower of a philosophy that exists and has defined principles?  If so one adheres to it presumably. Or is one creating a philosophy. If so one can adjust it to fit whatever situation you are in. My SAS major is a Libertarian. I do not fully understand what this means. Does he have a course of action to follow to be true to his belief? Following on from that: is establishing a well ordered society also a necessary Libertarian action or simply a virtuous thing to do (+ all that sex to look forward too)?   --- On Thu, 3/9/09, Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Trevor Watkins]

Some philosophies/systems try to address the issue of what you CAN do eg nazism had a whole hierarchy of mechanisms to ensure compliance with every chapter and verse of their system. So did the apartheid government. Most libertarian schemes, such as the consent axiom, only address what you OUGHT to do, and what others may do when you have done something irregular.

IF the SAS major behaves in a libertarian fashion, he would look out for his own interests first. He would secure water, food, shelter in that order. He would not feel obliged to assist the philosopher, unless he saw some advantage to himself in doing so. Hopefully the philosopher would quickly understand this, and would seek ways of being useful to the more competent major. Of course, if the philosopher was a socialist, he would probably do nothing but whine about how he has a RIGHT to be fed and watered and housed by the more competent member(s) of his society.  

If the philosopher can offer the major nothing useful in the market of this island's economy, then he may well start to waste away and die. Now the major has some decisions to make - does he have enough spare to be charitable, without risking his survival. Does he like the philosopher, or extract any value from his continuing existence, such as companionship? Would the death of the philosopher affect the major emotionally? Would the stench on the beach be inconvenient? The key point - the major is under no obligation to be anyone else's slave, ever. The philosopher has no right to unearned goods or services.  The libertarian major will never actively harm a hair on the philosopher's head, but may respond with vigour if the starving philosopher tries to steal from him.  You must have seen this scenario play out on Survivor a dozen times, the lazy player with nothing to offer gets voted off at tribal council.

Now a more interesting problem. The major falls and breaks his leg. Unable to move, he appeals to the philosopher for help. Is the philosopher obliged to help the major, in a libertarian world. No! He can refuse to be anyone's slave. He can walk the other way down the beach, until he can no longer hear the major's pitiful screams. When explaining his actions to a libertarian jury after rescue, nobody would find him guilty of contravening the consent axiom. They might think him stupid, unkind, arrogant, shortsighted - but not guilty. Of course, what would actually happen, the philosopher now has something to trade with. He would assist, provided the major helps him at a later date. Suddenly we have a market, and the cooperation will begin without further ado.

The libertarian position is consistent - it applies no matter what the circumstances. It is ethical - it rejects coercion, violence, slavery. It does not forbid kindness, mercy, generosity, care for one's fellow - it just does not require it, because to do so is to invite an insoluble problem of consistency and ethics.  It is realistic - the philosopher will know not to waste his time begging the major for the last drop of water, he will spend his time better to go looking for water himself, or for something to trade, or to prepare for death. If the philosopher is not a libertarian, he will probably consider violence and theft.

2009/9/3 M ODOWD <m.od...@btopenworld.com>

[Leon Louw]

If "fanatical and deluded" is your code for espousing emancipated adults,
which it seems to be, it includes me. Setting weird use of words aside, and
applying the ordinary English meaning to words, socialistic belief that
governments are a virtuous supernatural force is, by definition, delusional.
As with delusions generally, victims have difficulty distinguishing reality
from delusion. Delusion is a psychological-emotional aberration that can be
cured with appropriate therapy or medication rather than countervailing
evidence. The evidence that evidence is ineffective is that most the
evidence is readily observable on a daily basis. Everyone observes it
constantly, the difference between government and private service and
efficiency, the fact that needy people migrate in only one direction, from
more to less socialistic countries, that 'corruption' connotes government as
the common denominator, and so on.

Socialists have a fascinating ideological immune system which filters out or
represses the constant bombardment of contrarian evidence to which reality
subjects them.

More interestingly, socialism is, by standard definition, a form of
religious fanaticism and fundamentalism. Unlike the world's major faiths,
which posit supernatural forces in imaginary non-human gods, socialism has
identical blind faith in a curious human god called 'the state' or
'government'. A collective of manifestly inferior people - people who can't
sell what, if anything, they have to offer to willing buyers - is, by
immaculate conception, endowed in their fanatical and delusional world with
god-like characteristics: omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence. The
state-god of socialism is, contrary to the perpetual torrent of evidence to
the contrary, presumed to be not only supernatural, but also benevolent and
selfless.

That makes socialism, by my understanding of English, 'fanatical and
deluded'.

In contrast, libertarians are humble and benevolent. Libertarians don't,
for instance, think they or their elected agents know better than free
people what's good for them. That's humility. They give (charity, welfare,
philanthropy) only what's theirs, never looting others to indulge their
preferences. That's benevolent.

Above all libertarians respect others. That's what it's all about,
regarding the initiation of force against non-consenting people as
unconscionable crime, regardless of whether criminals are called 'the state'
or 'government', and regardless of whether crime is legitimised by calling
it 'socialism', 'welfare' or 'caring'.

[M ODOWD]

Dear Leon,   Can I apologise to you, Trevor, Garth, Colin, Ivo thathey have taken the time to write detailed rebuttals of what I wrote and might rightly expect me to answer each of the points they made. As I said I never committed myself to write into the debates so having dipped my toes in the water I can see that my fear of my little spare time disappearing altogether was well founded. That is not to say that I have not read what is said, nor that I, like you, have budged an inch in my position.   But Lleon you seem to have arrived at the conclusion that I am a dyed in the wool Socialist espousing a Socialist states as the solution to the world problems. I wrote becasue I am unhappy with Libertarianism - at its core value - not be told of the known faults of Socialism.    To the desert island. Libertarianism as I understand it is a philosophy that attempts to set a set of rules to set man free. It has principles that say what each person’s rights are, attempts to delineate rules that govern the interactions of people in terms of those rights and should conflicts arise resolve them in as simple as way as possible by independent assessment of those rules. I will ignore for the moment why one needs such a philosophy. Now it seems curious to me that a philosophy so grounded in the individual has nothing to say of one’s obligations to other individuals. In my reduction ad absurdum it seems to me Libertianism requires nothing of the SAS major, he is OBLIGATED to do nothing for the other man. Indeed if pressed by his fellow desert islander he has every right to ultimately defend himself. Well, you may say we are not talking personal morality here. What the Major does is a matter of his conscience. Well it seems Trevor is happy with this. Others though objected to this view of Libertarianism as selfish. I am not sure any have removed that objection, since, I would hope, they find it disquieting and does not represent the person they see themselves as. As I clarified I am not saying they personally are selfish but that they adhere to a philosphy that is, though they may not recognise it.   Well too bad say I because any philosophy of the individual that does not have obligations as well as rights is immoral - rather than amoral. It is a philosophy ideal for the selfish and solipsistic.  That is why I said that laws, taxes, governments are indeed a good thing – virtuous. They are an (unfortunate) necessity required where moral certainties are no longer shared. I would repeat that perhaps Libertarians see their philosophy as necessary because of all the abuses that governments and other authorities perpetrate but that is to substitute an unequivocal wrong for a good often badly administered. --- On Fri, 4/9/09, Leon Louw <leon...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Garth Zietsman]

Well yes libertarians do hold that the Major is not obligated, has no duties (other than to leave others be if they so want).  In that sense libertarianism is selfish.  It would have been helpful if you had said you found the idea of no obligations to help disquieting.  That way we wouldn't have got sidetracked on other meanings of the word 'selfish'.

 

The problem is that you see a lack of obligation to help as a problem and we see obligations to help as a major source of mischief and a denial of your capacity for moral agency.  In principle we think that the choice has to be an issue of individual conscience if you are to call it moral at all - help has to be freely chosen.  Obligations can be programmed into machines.

 

A hidden assumption in obligations to help is that we should value people - perhaps equally.  That's impossible - even if you believe in the soul superstition.  You will love some more than others - quite reasonably you ought to place yourself pretty high up on the list.  You will probably hate some people and quite reasonably so.  Surely you don't think the Major would be equally bound to help a profound thinker or Hitler?  If he isn't then you can see that the choice to help must be voluntary not obligatory.  Surely you don't think the Major is obliged to do whatever it takes to keep the philosopher fed and sheltered?  He wouldn't be obliged to sacrifice himself would he?  If not the the degree of help has to remain the Major's choice - not his obligation.

 

However libertarian principles don't say that you are obligated NOT to help.  In fact it would be safe to say that we would pretty much all have dim view of the major if he didn't help or of parents who fail to support their kids.

 

A system of obligations also tends to privalage the wants of certain people above others - in theory the needy but in practice those who claim to speak for the needy - and leads to an ineffiecient distribution of resources and in turn to a smaller cake.

 

In short we think your privalaging obligations to people over free choice misunderstands the nature of obligations and morality. 

[Leon Louw]

1. Vices aren't crimes ... unless criminalised by people called "government"
2. Crimes are crimes ... even if criminals are called 'government'
3. Consequences matter ... more than supposed intentions

[M ODOWD]

But let us all avoid compressing complex issues into banal nostrums, aided by catchy rythmns. Many fail to achieve their aims because they are given the information they want to hear, not what they need.

[Michael O'Dowd]

Dear Garth

 

Oh for the days of the Union Castle line when my reply would be off Cherbourg heading south and I could sit back and wait the northbound mail.

You ask me (or Major ‘Me’) would my actions on this island would differ depending on whether my companion was Hitler or a say that impractical professor. This is the problem. You are asking me about my personal morality not the ‘political’ philosophy I abide by. The desert island was a very simple reduction and what I fully meant was in my original posting. But let’s scale up the island to a hundred shipwrecked; a widow, an orphan, a boatbuilder, an astronomer and so on. As I see it the disadvantaged are at the mercy of the individual moralities of the others. The Libertarian philosophy by which the island is run becomes simply Darwinian. The widow if unskilled is in trouble if she is old and arthritic, probably safe if young and beautiful. This is the problem I see with Libertarianism: rights but not obligations. I want to be on an island where the widow and orphan can know they will be cared for; not subject to the ‘selfish’ whims of the Libertarians – or more correctly the lottery of each person’s morality. Are you just treating this as a numerical problem? If we can say (economically?) that proving communal solutions to obligations is inefficient then we don’t provide them or that we amend them to try to be more efficient – the bread and butter of government (I wish anyway). ?

 

By the way I saw two other problems with the philosophy which I can repeat again: the disconnection from history; and the selective use of rights granted by government and the disdain of others (from which you gain no benefit). However I do feel  I have said what I can and have expressed a view. I was not trying to promote a better alternative to Libertarianism. That’s a separate issue – though maybe I should have avoided the discursive mention of  Marx. If anyone wants to know what I think is the best of societies then I would look to Norway (helped as it is by huge oil income – but not wasted as per UK for example).

 

 

---

From: li...@googlegroups.com [mailto:li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Garth Zietsman
Sent: 04 September 2009 12:44
To: li...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Libsa] Re: selfishness and the man on the desert island

 

Well yes libertarians do hold that the Major is not obligated, has no duties (other than to leave others be if they so want).  In that sense libertarianism is selfish.  It would have been helpful if you had said you found the idea of no obligations to help disquieting.  That way we wouldn't have got sidetracked on other meanings of the word 'selfish'.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.76/2345 - Release Date: 09/04/09 05:51:00

[Garth Zietsman]

You ask me (or Major ‘Me’) would my actions on this island would differ depending on whether my companion was Hitler or a say that impractical professor. This is the problem. You are asking me about my personal morality not the ‘political’ philosophy I abide by. The desert island was a very simple reduction and what I fully meant was in my original posting. But let’s scale up the island to a hundred shipwrecked; a widow, an orphan, a boatbuilder, an astronomer and so on. As I see it the disadvantaged are at the mercy of the individual moralities of the others. The Libertarian philosophy by which the island is run becomes simply Darwinian.

Garth: It could Michael (like it could with any other philosophy) but it isn't very likely.  The law of comparitive advantage would operate properly in a libertarian society and it says you will always have something of value to trade and without welfare you are much more motivated to find it.  A free economy (which is open and cooperative) is much more productive than collective economy (which is a command economy).  It follows that there will be more to go around and someone will deal with you.  If you truly cannot I think it very likely that libertarians would be charitable.

The widow if unskilled is in trouble if she is old and arthritic, probably safe if young and beautiful. This is the problem I see with Libertarianism: rights but not obligations.

Garth: I think its more correct to see libertarians believing that if the means, or process, is 100% just and ethical, the outcome must also be just and ethical.  If every step in the process involves free and informed choice, and therefore is always win-win i.e. each party is always left better off or no worse off in their own terms, then the outcome at any point must be win-win and completely just. Libertarians therefore believe inequality in a free market (even if massive) cannot be wrong if the processes always leaves people getting better off than they were (in their own judgement nogal) or never getting worse off through the fault of another.

 

I want to be on an island where the widow and orphan can know they will be cared for; not subject to the ‘selfish’ whims of the Libertarians – or more correctly the lottery of each person’s morality. Are you just treating this as a numerical problem? If we can say (economically?) that proving communal solutions to obligations is inefficient then we don’t provide them or that we amend them to try to be more efficient – the bread and butter of government (I wish anyway). ?

Garth: Libertarians also point out that under their system those at the bottom would do much better than they do under any other system. Firstly free markets are maximally productive and secondly there is no evidence that they become less equal than other systems over time.  So the welfare growth rate of worst off will improve fastest in a libertarian society.  I am a libertarian in part because I the above argument convinced me that the best thing I could do for the poor was give them a libertarian society. In other words if you feel you have obligations to the poor and you care about helping them effectively then paradoxically reason would lead you to libertarianism and the dropping of obligations.

By the way I saw two other problems with the philosophy which I can repeat again: the disconnection from history; and the selective use of rights granted by government and the disdain of others (from which you gain no benefit).

Garth: I don't believe you are correct here.  Libertarians would deny that liberty is a gift of government.  They would say it is a state of nature before government.  That governments across history have come to limit our liberty less than before doesn't mean that liberty is a gift of government.  When one government returns 10% of our taxes than a previous government it doesn't mean it gave us anything, it simply means they stole 10% less.  Libertarians are convinced that everyone would be considerably better off if government got out of the way - better off because freedom is in itself valuable and because freedom is more productive of other values like material welfare.

However I do feel  I have said what I can and have expressed a view. I was not trying to promote a better alternative to Libertarianism. That’s a separate issue – though maybe I should have avoided the discursive mention of  Marx. If anyone wants to know what I think is the best of societies then I would look to Norway (helped as it is by huge oil income – but not wasted as per UK for example).

Garth: Are you aware that the Scandanavian countries are in many respects closer to libertarianism than most others?  Other than high taxes and transfers the governments are not very regulatory and interfere with economic and social life very little.  Many countries that have low taxes and no welfare system tend to be highly authoritarian and vigorously interfere and loot where they can - are as far away from libertarianism as they could be.

[Stephen vJ]

Garth wrote;

"However libertarian principles don't say that you are obligated NOT to help.  In fact it would be safe to say that we would pretty much all have dim view of the major if he didn't help or of parents who fail to support their kids."

 

This is important. I think anyone who has trouble with Libertarianism must have some subconcious distrust in their fellow man. A kind of "I'm okay, you're not okay" point of view is probably what causes the perceived need for using force and oppression.

 

Only if you assume the world to be inherently bad, could you consider freedom to be a threat and oppression to be nessesary. But we are all naturally social, so such a dim view of the world is unwarranted. There may be bad elements within humanity, but humans as a species did not get to where it is by being fundamentally unsocial and uncaring.

 

I think Libertarians get that. I'm okay, you're okay.

 

S.

 

[Stephen vJ]

Michael wrote;

"You miss the point here. It was a crude suggestion about the problem of
disconnection from history and the instability of the rights you would hold
as sacrosanct – granted by an authority you would in the main decry."

In other words, property rights. So the question is, what would motivate a
human being to do anything whatsoever in the absense of property i.e. the
rights to the fruits of his labour ? By what right do I dare put a piece of
food in my mouth, thereby excluding everyone else from it's benefits ? Even
charitable acts are motivated by self-interest i.e. the warm feeling derived
from helping someone.

S.

[Stephen vJ]

Garth: ... Firstly free markets are maximally productive and secondly there is no evidence that they become less equal than other systems over time.  So the welfare growth rate of worst off will improve fastest in a libertarian society.

Incidentally, I recently calculated the correllation between economic freedom and equality to be 0.12. It's small, but significantly the correllation is positive.

Garth: Are you aware that the Scandanavian countries are in many respects closer to libertarianism than most others?

 

Norway is # 23 on the 2008 economic freedom index. Sweden is lower down the list at # 33, but the other Scandinavian countries are higher on the list. Incidentally, I did a paper on Sweden earlier this year and it is interesting to note that they have such a high level of free trade that the EU complained it made their lives difficult in WTO negotiations, since Sweden had no trade barriers to negotiate against. Sweden attributes much of its recent economic success to their blooming international trade (which makes up about two thirds of their GDP), so they are not letting it go.

 

S.

 

[Michael O'Dowd]

 

 

---

From: li...@googlegroups.com [mailto:li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Garth Zietsman
Sent: 06 September 2009 06:55
To: li...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Libsa] Re: selfishness and the man on the desert island

 

 

You ask me (or Major ‘Me’) would my actions on this island would differ depending on whether my companion was Hitler or a say that impractical professor. This is the problem. You are asking me about my personal morality not the ‘political’ philosophy I abide by. The desert island was a very simple reduction and what I fully meant was in my original posting. But let’s scale up the island to a hundred shipwrecked; a widow, an orphan, a boatbuilder, an astronomer and so on. As I see it the disadvantaged are at the mercy of the individual moralities of the others. The Libertarian philosophy by which the island is run becomes simply Darwinian.

Garth: It could Michael (like it could with any other philosophy) but it isn't very likely.  The law of comparitive advantage would operate properly in a libertarian society and it says you will always have something of value to trade and without welfare you are much more motivated to find it.  A free economy (which is open and cooperative) is much more productive than collective economy (which is a command economy).  It follows that there will be more to go around and someone will deal with you.  If you truly cannot I think it very likely that libertarians would be charitable.

 

I do not see this at all I’m afraid. The spread of soup kitchens even now in some states of the USA, even to those in work, suggests that we you have a temporal problem here. How quickly the benefits you envisage (even if real) appear would suggest that the widow would have to be very creative in her search for something of value to trade if she were to survive.  

The widow if unskilled is in trouble if she is old and arthritic, probably safe if young and beautiful. This is the problem I see with Libertarianism: rights but not obligations.

Garth: I think its more correct to see libertarians believing that if the means, or process, is 100% just and ethical, the outcome must also be just and ethical.  If every step in the process involves free and informed choice, and therefore is always win-win i.e. each party is always left better off or no worse off in their own terms, then the outcome at any point must be win-win and completely just. Libertarians therefore believe inequality in a free market (even if massive) cannot be wrong if the processes always leaves people getting better off than they were (in their own judgement nogal) or never getting worse off through the fault of another.

 

To mean the moral means justify the end - particularly as you seem to define it in terms of economic inefficiency?  The widow I spoke of is free but has no choice as you define it.  And even if she had to depend on the personal morality of each Libertarian I suspect she would receive scant attention for some time while they honed their collaterized debt obligations and coconut futures contracts.

 

I want to be on an island where the widow and orphan can know they will be cared for; not subject to the ‘selfish’ whims of the Libertarians – or more correctly the lottery of each person’s morality. Are you just treating this as a numerical problem? If we can say (economically?) that proving communal solutions to obligations is inefficient then we don’t provide them or that we amend them to try to be more efficient – the bread and butter of government (I wish anyway). ?

Garth: Libertarians also point out that under their system those at the bottom would do much better than they do under any other system. Firstly free markets are maximally productive and secondly there is no evidence that they become less equal than other systems over time.  So the welfare growth rate of worst off will improve fastest in a libertarian society.  I am a libertarian in part because I the above argument convinced me that the best thing I could do for the poor was give them a libertarian society. In other words if you feel you have obligations to the poor and you care about helping them effectively then paradoxically reason would lead you to libertarianism and the dropping of obligations.

 

I hope we’re not in the area of ‘trickle down benefits’ so beloved of Mrs Thatcher. At the end of her experiment not only had the wealth gulf increased but the level of absolute poverty in this country had also escalated. I predict a riot as the song says. If only she had.  Not that rioting is a justified reaction to a growing wealth gap, as the Romanovs would concur.

By the way I saw two other problems with the philosophy which I can repeat again: the disconnection from history; and the selective use of rights granted by government and the disdain of others (from which you gain no benefit).

Garth: I don't believe you are correct here.  Libertarians would deny that liberty is a gift of government.  They would say it is a state of nature before government.  That governments across history have come to limit our liberty less than before doesn't mean that liberty is a gift of government.  When one government returns 10% of our taxes than a previous government it doesn't mean it gave us anything, it simply means they stole 10% less.  Libertarians are convinced that everyone would be considerably better off if government got out of the way - better off because freedom is in itself valuable and because freedom is more productive of other values like material welfare.

 

I think as Stephen realised we are more talking property here as a gift of government. Hence my Zimbabwe example. Where do you derive your property rights from? Where do I? Where do Ulster protestants? There are competing freedoms at work everywhere once you include history. I do not see you’re ‘freedom’  as a reality just a peculiarity of this time and space.

However I do feel  I have said what I can and have expressed a view. I was not trying to promote a better alternative to Libertarianism. That’s a separate issue – though maybe I should have avoided the discursive mention of  Marx. If anyone wants to know what I think is the best of societies then I would look to Norway (helped as it is by huge oil income – but not wasted as per UK for example).

Garth: Are you aware that the Scandanavian countries are in many respects closer to libertarianism than most others?  Other than high taxes and transfers the governments are not very regulatory and interfere with economic and social life very little.  Many countries that have low taxes and no welfare system tend to be highly authoritarian and vigorously interfere and loot where they can - are as far away from libertarianism as they could be.

 

May I regretfully decline this debate? For me it was a throwaway line of possible interest. When my temporal constraints change, then…….. Sorry.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.80/2349 - Release Date: 09/06/09 05:51:00

[Michael O'Dowd]

I’m sorry but that is a Darwinian, or Dawkian anyway, explanation of good works. As I wrote elsewhere it is or can be a love of the act and to hell with the economic ends. Mugabe said the white farmers had no property rights. Rhodes was not there to argue the case I’m afraid. But his memorials still stand. Look on my works ye mighty and be afraid. Indeed.

 

---

From: li...@googlegroups.com [mailto:li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen vJ
Sent: 06 September 2009 09:32
To: li...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Libsa] Re: selfishness and the man on the desert island

 

Michael wrote;

[sjaar...@absamail.co.za]

To respond sensibly, I need to understand the question properly, so please
help me out with these before I reply;

- What is wrong with Darwin in your view, if anything ? Below seems to
imply a problem.

- I have heard of Dawkins, but not read his work. Can you summarise his
position and also say what is wrong with it ?

- The work of Nobel laureat Gary Becker made the link between economics
and acts of love, which was hardly nessesary in this context considering
that Mises explained economics as being all about human action and the
things that drive those actions decades earlier... so do I need to go into
the link between economics and the love of an act ?

- What relation are you of Michael C. O'Dowd, author of "The O'Dowd thesis
and the triumph of democratic capitalism" circa 1995 ? I would like to
avoid repeating known info.

Thanks,

S.

> I'm sorry but that is a Darwinian, or Dawkian anyway, explanation of good
> works. As I wrote elsewhere it is or can be a love of the act and to hell
> with the economic ends. Mugabe said the white farmers had no property
> rights. Rhodes was not there to argue the case I'm afraid. But his
> memorials
> still stand. Look on my works ye mighty and be afraid. Indeed.
>
>
>
> _____
>

> From: li...@googlegroups.com [mailto:li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Stephen vJ
> Sent: 06 September 2009 09:32
> To: li...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [Libsa] Re: selfishness and the man on the desert island
>
>
>
> Michael wrote;
> "You miss the point here. It was a crude suggestion about the problem of
> disconnection from history and the instability of the rights you would
> hold

> as sacrosanct - granted by an authority you would in the main decry."

[Garth Zietsman]

Remember its not just economic freedom they have - its considerable social freedom too - so they are decidedly more libertarian than say Singapore.

[M ODOWD]

Well  my credibility may be shreaded by somehow misquoting Ozimandias. Really I would just Wiki Stephen Dawkins and his two books, 'the God Delusion' and 'the Selfish Gene'. What is wrong with Darwin is exemplified by my 100 person desert island where there is a disagreement as to how beneficial Libertarinism would be both in the short term and long term to the disadvantaged. I think I'm right that  Darwin spoke about natural selection whereas 'survival of the fittest' was someone else's phrase. But I am using Darwinian as a shorthand for the latter concept, which is pretty commonplace I'd think. I don't decry economics; it is a broad church. Pick whom you like really to support your views or form them. I would think that J K Galbraith or Keynes might not be the most respected economist amongst Libertarians but they are economists. Where economists retreat into mathematics to explain things I'm afraid I do not have the expertise to assess their 'sums' but the critics of such an approach are manifold. I am not my namesake, of whom I kinow nothing. --- On Mon, 7/9/09, sjaar...@absamail.co.za <sjaar...@absamail.co.za> wrote:

[Stephen vJ]

Well, I'm glad I asked... and that's also why I did not wiki / google Dawkins in the first place. I'm more interested in your view of Dawkins than in Dawkins, because I am trying to understand your argument. Failing that, I did wiki and found Richard Dawkins and too little time to really get into the details.

 

What I gather from this and other recent posts is that your concern is for those "at the bottom of the pile", under the common misconception that libertarians care for those being held back from reaching the very top even in the face of trampling on the way up. But I think if you stick around you will find, as I have, that libertarians are very caring - particularly for those at the bottom.

 

Getting back to Darwin, I believe that a similar misconception afflicts his work. As you pointed out below, someone else's words has become a short-hand for dog-eat-dog or whatever else people want to attribute to Darwin in an irrational disgust. I think he merely observed how species evolved historically and I think that is a very smart observation considering the times in which he made it.

 

In Darwin's works, it was clear that exterminatory competition / survival of the fittest in nature is the exception to the rule - most of the time it is variety filling all sorts of niches and gaps. A place in the sun for most, as I read it. It is less about eliminating and more about variety. Over time, weaknesses disappear naturally and helping it along with force can scarcely be libertarian.

 

Btw, von Mises despised mathematical economics. Keynes happens to have been dead wrong. Ricardo was a stockbroker, Friedman an actuary, Walras a writer, and so on. But it's not worth going into that here. Let me just mention that the names I used below are not selective readings to suit my taste - I have read and can see value in the works of Marx and Roussou... and even Keynes.

 

But I think we need to get back to the property point, because I don't get how a world without property would work. And a world in which property rights are determined by a collective / government / deity is surely no property at all.

 

S.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: M ODOWD

To: li...@googlegroups.com

[M ODOWD]

I hope had established elsewhere that what I find wanting in the philosophy should not be seen to say anything about the character of anyone who calls themselves libertarian. My objection may not even be to what the philosophy does say but to what it does not address. But I'm going over old ground here. I see another search for a Nirvana, or at least an ideal society honed in discussions, routed in certain axioms, strengthened by examination of the faults of all the alternative, failed paradises. But it will not work for me because of its natural attraction to selfishness. Heaven help anyone who has to deal with the fellow travellers that you would attract. Each person may act with compassion to the needy but their philosophy does not require it. I have been told that benefits will anyway inevitably accrue to the unfortunate from the economic dynamism of Libertarianism. My evidence suggest the reverse.  Well evolution can be looked at genetically and over the aeons of time. But when the lion kills the antelope it is often suggested that it makes antelopes better equipped to survive by leaving a pool of stronger animals. The other antelopes may or may not agree on this benefit. But the lion is likely to use these long terms benefits as the moral justification for his action when the cruelty is pointed out. And yes it is a metaphor, I'm not speaking about the natural history of carnivores.     --- On Tue, 8/9/09, Stephen vJ <sjaar...@absamail.co.za> wrote:

[Garth Zietsman]

. I see another search for a Nirvana, or at least an ideal society honed in discussions, routed in certain axioms, strengthened by examination of the faults of all the alternative, failed paradises. But it will not work for me because of its natural attraction to selfishness. Heaven help anyone who has to deal with the fellow travellers that you would attract. Each person may act with compassion to the needy but their philosophy does not require it. I have been told that benefits will anyway inevitably accrue to the unfortunate from the economic dynamism of Libertarianism. My evidence suggest the reverse.

 

Garth: I'm not entirely sure you have fully absorbed why we think not requiring compassion is a good thing.  It wasn't only about our belief that free markets act to benefit those at the bottom better than the alternatives.  In fact that is seen by many libertarians as incidental.  The main point is that removing free choice from the decision makes it amoral.  We believe that the end does not justify the means. 

 

We cannot see why a misfortune that we had no part in creating allows others to lay automatic claim to my life.  "But its a misfortune, its sad" is not in itself a sufficiently good reason.  If you think it is then there is no reason why you shouldn't preach complete enslavement of the able if need is large enough.  If you are willing to go so far then consider why it should be the able who are slaves to the needy rather than the other way round.  In other words in your island example is the Major permitted to enslave the philosopher as payment for his keeping him alive and sheltered, can he force a value for value exchange, or must he just sacrifice because someone needs?

 

I am deeply skeptical of the standards of your evidence that suggests the reverse of the benefits of the free market for the poor.  We have shown you that free markets get wealthier than unfree markets (and do so faster) and that if anything they are slighly more equal than unfree markets.  This is based on comprehensive international cross-sectional and historical economic data - not just theory or anecdote.  We have also pointed out that your favoured countries are closer to libertarianism than most of the world.  What contrary evidence do you have?

[Colin Bower]

Michael writes: "Each person may act with compassion to the needy but their philosophy does not require it", and this apparently is to be understood as part of his objection to libertarianism: he feels libertarians place no obligation on themselves to care for others (even though he readily concedes that the libertarian he knows characteristically acts with generosity towards others).

But it says nothing for either Michael's moral capacity nor his human empathy if his acts of compassion for others are undertaken in response to an obligation his so-called philosophy has placed on him.

Michael: "Hello little old lady, I would like to help you cross the street. I wouldn't otherwise feel the need to do so, but my Wolf Cub philosophy places an obligation on me to do a good turn to somebody everyday. Today you're the lucky one."

Libertarian: "Hello little old lady. You remind me of my granny. If you're planning to cross this street I would be delighted to help you. I'm crossing it myself in anycase."

Colin. 

[M ODOWD]

Dear Garth   Well rather like the heat death of the universe my arguments become reduced over time to rather over-simplified versions of what was said. I did try to point out originally that most visions of a better world stemmed for centuries from an ethical viewpoint and then post-enlightenment still incorporated ethics. Which is quite different from saying they were religious views (though admittedly they were almost synonymous for a huge length of time). I would not accept that I am treating as synonymous the 'sad' with the ‘unethical’ since the latter is almost always the former but not vice versa. But that may indeed be a Darwinian response. Would you concede that a Libertarian state/ commune / community could quite possibly contain people who follow your rules (let us say formed around the consent axioms so much discussed) but whose morality you find quite unpleasant – say in that they do not render help to the disadvantaged or in your view exploit those disadvantages. But they would only be subject to general (rather than personal) opprobrium or ‘trial’ if they came into conflict with the libertarian ground rules. This seems to be exceptional for a political philosophy and a great weakness, as I said. But do we agree this is true or am I incorrect here? But I concede by all means that other philosophies /politics contain entirely terrible people often unsanctioned despite what one might expect.   As to free market/libertarian economics being shown to maximise the general good over time (again am I right) well economics is as I said not a hard science no matter how it tries. That is why elections and debates are so inconclusive: everyone can muster economic ‘facts’ to support their view. It seems from the information I read about welfare reform under Bush that the less draconian the offer made by a state the better was the long term outcome for the welfare beneficiaries and the state. So  those states that offered a social investment approach - behaviour  modification strategies,  education, training followed by modest sanctions to those who did not find work ultimately got more people off welfare and living comfortably than the states who made any job at any cost an immediate requirement or welfare payments ceased. All this did was transfer problems from the state to charities. The problems sometimes went off book but still existed. Incidentally I think I’m right that the welfare beneficiaries targeted where in a large percentage unmarried mothers. My historical disconnection issue runs forward in time as well as back. --- On Wed, 9/9/09, Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com> Subject: [Libsa] Re: selfishness and the man on the desert island To: li...@googlegroups.com

[M ODOWD]

Daer Colin   Yes I fully accept that your little old lady is as safe as any individual cares to make her and this has nothing to do with the society in which she lives or the beliefs of the people who aid her. She also has no interest the political beliefs of her helper measuring their worth simply on how helpful they were.    But my little old lady lives on her own and is malnourished. She too may be subject to all that is said above. Fortunately she lives in a non-libertarian community and knows it has set up a 'meals on wheels service' or similar paid for out of general taxation and is happy not to be at the whim of personal acts of charity. She knows she will be fed because that is enshirned in the state's laws.   --- On Wed, 9/9/09, Colin Bower <princeal...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Colin Bower]

Michael

 

I believe you operate from a point beyind the reach of rational discussion. The point I was making, clear as daylight, is that action taken to help others occasioned by the need to fulfil an obligation - the obligation that you propose should guide all of us, and which you claim makes your universe morally superior to a libertarian universe - is something quite different from action occasioned by moral concern and empathy, which you claim to be full of. Libertarians  fulfil their obligations diligently, provided they arise from non co-ercive contracts. This is an entirely different thing from the kind of obligation you are proposing, the obligation to help fellow human beings. Libertarians help their fellow human beings as much as other people, but when they do it, they do no not do it as the fulfilment of an obligation, and what I am proposing to you, and what you are ignoring, is that if you help you fellow man because you feel obliged to do so, you are not displaying any moral capacity at all, the moral capacity which you seem to believe makes your universe superior to a libertarian universe.

Colin.

[M ODOWD]

--- On Wed, 9/9/09, Colin Bower <princeal...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Colin Bower <princeal...@gmail.com> Subject: [Libsa] Re: selfishness and the man on the desert island To: li...@googlegroups.com Date: Wednesday, 9 September, 2009, 4:04 PM

Michael   I believe you operate from a point beyind the reach of rational discussion. The point I was making, clear as daylight, is that action taken to help others occasioned by the need to fulfil an obligation - the obligation that you propose should guide all of us, ( I think you are confusing here the personal, the aggregate and the communal. Who is this 'all' you refer to, controlled by this 'should'?) and which you claim makes your universe morally superior to a libertarian universe (Im make no such claim. You may infer i think it morally superior. I say that it guarantees to fulfil a need. The idea of these needs has been engaged by political systems that insert a moral component, moral obligations)- is something quite different from action occasioned by moral concern and empathy, which you claim to be full of. ( I make no such claim to the high moral ground. I am happy to subsumed into a society that takes those obligations upon itself. I make no claim to personal sainthood).  Libertarians  fulfil their obligations (but what obligations, I think you mean agreements?) diligently, provided they arise from non co-ercive contracts. This is an entirely different thing from the kind of obligation you are proposing, the obligation to help fellow human beings. Libertarians help their fellow human beings as much as other people, but when they do it, they do no not do it as the fulfilment of an obligation, and what I am proposing to you, and what you are ignoring, is that if you help you fellow man because you feel obliged to do so, (NO THIS IS A MISREPRESENTATION. THE POINT IS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. THE OBLIGATIONS TO HELP IS NO LONGER A PERSONAL ONE AS IT HAS BEEN ADOPTED COMMUNALLY - TO AVOID THE VERY NEED TO FOR ME TO EXERCISE MY PERSONAL MORALITY). e not displaying any moral capacity at all, the moral capacity which you seem to believe makes your universe superior to a libertarian universE.

[Garth Zietsman]

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:27 PM, M ODOWD <m.od...@btopenworld.com> wrote:

Dear Garth   Well rather like the heat death of the universe my arguments become reduced over time to rather over-simplified versions of what was said. I did try to point out originally that most visions of a better world stemmed for centuries from an ethical viewpoint and then post-enlightenment still incorporated ethics. Which is quite different from saying they were religious views (though admittedly they were almost synonymous for a huge length of time). I would not accept that I am treating as synonymous the 'sad' with the ‘unethical’ since the latter is almost always the former but not vice versa. But that may indeed be a Darwinian response.

 

Garth: I was trying to make the point that anything (not caused by me) that evokes sympathy isn't an automatic claim on my life.  I need more justication than the feeling of sympathy. 

 

Would you concede that a Libertarian state/ commune / community could quite possibly contain people who follow your rules (let us say formed around the consent axioms so much discussed) but whose morality you find quite unpleasant – say in that they do not render help to the disadvantaged or in your view exploit those disadvantages. But they would only be subject to general (rather than personal) opprobrium or ‘trial’ if they came into conflict with the libertarian ground rules.

 

Garth: Yes this is true.  If you didn't cause the disadvantages (like whites did in Apartheid) then it is fine to exploit them so long as there is mutual consent.  The reason being that 'exploiting' the disadvantage makes their lives better from their own point of view - or they wouldn't have consented.  No doubt you will argue that they are consenting to something they hate cause they are desperate.  That is true but it isn't my fault and I am offering them a deal that lifts them from what they hate even more without making my own life worse.  What you want is for me to not only make their life better but to make it good - even if it means making my life worse.  You probably think that if I have a lot that I can afford to make my life a little worse.  But how would you know how much worse the sacrifice would make my life?  Perhaps I think it is a lot.  You could say that's only subjective and that the objective sacrifice would be trivial.  But there is no such thing as objective values and you can't privilage your judgement over mine with respect to how much the costs are.  The cost to me could be profound in my terms.  If they weren't I would do what you expect.  If I did see the cost as trivial the pleasure of making someone's life not only better but good will outweigh that and I would consent to the small sacrifice because the net result would be a reward. You can't judge a man for not going further than making someone's life better when you don't know what the extent of his sacrifice would be.

As to free market/libertarian economics being shown to maximise the general good over time (again am I right) well economics is as I said not a hard science no matter how it tries. That is why elections and debates are so inconclusive: everyone can muster economic ‘facts’ to support their view. It seems from the information I read about welfare reform under Bush that the less draconian the offer made by a state the better was the long term outcome for the welfare beneficiaries and the state. So  those states that offered a social investment approach - behaviour  modification strategies,  education, training followed by modest sanctions to those who did not find work ultimately got more people off welfare and living comfortably than the states who made any job at any cost an immediate requirement or welfare payments ceased. All this did was transfer problems from the state to charities. The problems sometimes went off book but still existed. Incidentally I think I’m right that the welfare beneficiaries targeted where in a large percentage unmarried mothers. My historical disconnection issue runs forward in time as well as back.

 

Garth: I understand that economics is a questionable science but I do think that the evidence you quote here is rather a pistol against cannons, a small result with a number of possible interpretations against a great deal of fairly unambiguous evidence.  I don't know if you are aware of a welfare experiement quoted by Charles Murray in his book Losing Ground.  It had the controls you don't often see when evaluating welfare.  It showed that extending welfare in the first place has considerable negative impact on the recipients, many of them unexpected.  E.g. marriage breakdowns, less interest in studying or improving yourself, etc.  A libertarian society wouldn't introduce welfare in the first place but given that it was already in place there is no reason to suppose the libertarian way of removing it would be a charity with no social investment.  Of course I repeat that there would be fewer people requiring charity or welfare in a libertarian society than the alternatives and refer once again to the greater productivity and equivalent equality of the free market system.

 

[Janette Eldridge]

 

Hello Michael

 

Your views are extraordinarily interesting.

 

For the ease of further discussions and to prevent the discussion points sliding passed it each other it would be helpful if you would do the following quiz and let us know the results of your position.

 

http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

 

Looking forward to further exceptional exchange of ideas and thoughts.

 

Janette

 

 

[Stephen vJ]

The important point here for me is that a course of action which was taken under force or threat can neither be moral or immoral. It is simply self-preserving. Only when you choose to act contrary to instinct and impulse can the act be considered from a moral point of view. Without choice / freedom, there can be no morality. Simple as that. This notion was described by some big philosopher, but now I can't recall which one... doesn't matter though. If you think about it, it's pretty obvious.

[Stephen vJ]

... I'm not too impressed with economics being called an "inexact science" or "questionable" or "dismal".

 

Economics is about people, not prices and about actions, not things. It's a social science like sociology, history and anthropology, not a business science or physical science.

 

To hold any of these subjects to the standards of physics, maths or chemistry is misguided in an apples-and-pears-comparison kind of way. It's like blaming an apple for being a poor hunter.

 

S.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Garth Zietsman

To: li...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 7:33 PM

Subject: [Libsa] Re: selfishness and the man on the desert island

[Stephen vJ]

Self-interest maybe, but selfishness I strongly doubt. And the difference is significant because the one puts the individual above society while the other considers individuals within a societal context.

 

I believe you would also have to go a long way to find the delusional concept of nirvana / utopia / heaven on earth amongst libertarians, for a number of reasons. One significant reason is logic / rationality. Libertarians recognise that each person is unique so that every person will have a subjective and individual idea of nirvana / utopia / etc... which implies that utopian ideas are delusional and irrational (we can not all live in our own separate little utopiae and we can not share a common one due to inherent unique characteristics of each member wanting different things in different magnitudes). One man's utopia may be another man's hell. The alternative is that some individual's idea of utopia must be imposed on everyone else. The former is impossible to attain and the latter is exactly non-libertarian in it's very nature.

 

So, no. It is not a search for utopia and it is not selfish at the core. The world has flaws and will always have them. Self-interest / self-preservation and sociability is built into us all. The point is simply that (in my view) libertarianism is the desire to see a world without oppression, enslavement and forcing the will of some people onto others. Such a world will still have flaws, but it will be much better than the current setup, partly because people are inherently social and self-interested. At the same time, this view can not be imposed on anyone - that would be self-contradicting.