Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

A Non-Libertarian FAQ, Version 1.4

3 views

Skip to first unread message

Tom Asquith

unread,

Sep 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/6/97

On 25 Aug 1997 11:47:57 GMT, Henry Blaskowski
<jhb...@bigpapa.nothinbut.net> wrote:

|Mike Huben <mhu...@world.std.com> wrote:
|Look, time for Mr H's silliness again. Guess I better post this:

snip!
|On to specific points:

|> This diversity of libertarian viewpoints can make it quite difficult
to have
|> a coherent discussion with them, because an argument that is valid
for or
|> against one type of libertarianism may not apply to other types.

|Feel free to compare and contrast this to, say, a Republican or
|a Democrat or a member of the Reform Party. What are their core beliefs?
|What, in the end, do they stand for? Apparently, their beliefs are
|"it's my turn to drive now!" -- even though they have no apparent
|destination in mind.

Hmm. It could be argued that this too is the goal of the Libertarian
Party, EXCEPT that when they take control of the car, they'll smash it
into the nearest tree.

|> They are utopian because there has never yet been a
|> libertarian society (though one or two have come close to some libertarian
|> ideas.)

|As flawed as it was, the original United States, back when it first
|started, was fairly close to Libertarian (that slavery thing was a
|serious mistake!). Would anyone argue that the US is a failure? Compare
|this to "anti-libertarian" states, like the USSR, North Korea, and Cuba.
|Does anyone really believe that _more government_ looks good when held
|up to the light of history?

This is what is called revisionist history, not to mention
anachronistic. By applying the term "libertarian" with its modern
context to the post-Declaration US government is inaccurate to say
the least. The second point regarding the comparison is a variant
on the A=B fallacy. It is akin to asking one to compare an apple to
a couple of oranges in varying states and conditions (one of which is, I
note, now reduced to humus). And then you ask which is the
better apple?

|> their misrepresentations of government and contracts. Widen the scope, and
|> their questionable assumptions leap into view. Why should I accept that
|> "right" as a given? Is that a fact around the world, not just in the US? Are
|> there counter examples for that idea? Are libertarians serving their own
|> class interest only? Is that economic argument complete, or are there other
|> critical factors or strategies which have been omitted? When they make a
|> historical argument, can we find current real-world counterexamples? If we
|> adopt this libertarian policy, there will be benefits: but what will the
|> disadvantages be? Are libertarians reinventing what we already have, only
|> without safeguards?

|Subject the philosophy of others to even a fraction of this scrutiny
|demanded here, and it falls down much more quickly than libertarian
|beliefs. Would you hold those who believe in smaller government to
|_higher_ standards, despite all the obvious failures of _too much_
|government through the ages? How much money do we have to dump down
|the sewer-hole of big-government waste before we declare it a failure?

You would hold those who propose radical changes to the state of any
government to a greater degree of scrutiny--and this would include the
libertarians. You forget that people do have a touch of
sentimentality--otherwise, how do you explain the existence of
conservative parties? Sometimes before one pursues the summit, one
stops and asks whether or not it can be done--without perishing in the
attempt. Pure and simple, skepticism is the libertarians' enemy here.
Nothing less.

|> 1. The original intent of the founders has been perverted.

|> The founders of the USA were a contentious lot, who hardly
agreed on

|This can be debated as an academic exercise, but really doesn't
|have much bearing on libertarianism. Libertarianism is
|based on a few simple principles, not on "the founding fathers".
|Debating whether they would agree or not with a particular position
|may be great fun, but not particularly relevant. This is also true
|for arguments about the Supreme Court and the Dec. of Ind.

It does have a strong foundation if one tries to assume that the
original United States was "libertarian". It is relevant and goes to
the heart of American libertarian assumptions regarding the nature of
the state (and to a certain extent, it is needed to help keep the
neoconservatives on side--libertarianism, as is the case with any
ideology, does need allies). And if this is not relevant, then you
have still managed to contradict yourself (see the point earlier).

|> 4. Libertarians are defenders of freedom and rights.

|> It would be foolish to oppose libertarians on such a
mom-and-apple-pie
|> issue as freedom and rights: better to point out that there are
|> EFFECTIVE alternatives with a historical track record,
something
|> libertarianism lacks.

|In other words, the libertarians are right, but historically those
|who crave power over the lives of others have been able to use
|government to get their way. What's sad is that some people will
|believe that this is a reflection on libertarianism, rather than on
|statism. Your point, rephrased, seems to be "Why should we want to be
|free? After all, in the past, we've had our freedom taken away, why
|not go with that?". Such a view defies explanation.

Not really--it merely avoids the "word games" that one finds in
political discussions. Let me explain: the logic behind this argument
is a little more subtle. Let's presume that "libertarians stand for
freedom." Freedom is a tenet of at least three ideologies (lib'nism,
liberalism, democratic socialism), yet they differ in means and ends.
Could a person who favours "freedom" as a soc.dem. agree with the
"freedom" of a libertarian? Probably not, because both groups would
have a different notion of what "freedom" constitutes.

Further, I note that the majority of the libertarian debates take place
in the United States, "the land of the free...". Freedom is supposedly
valued by all and so it is unlikely that the libertarians opponents in
the US would have any objection to the word "freedom", but the question
is: what does "freedom" mean? Even in the US, a land based on liberal
democracy, I doubt that you could get a uniform definition. In short,
it is a plastic word.

|> 5. Taxation is theft.

|This is discussed endlessly on the groups. Anyone who is interested
|in this tired subject should look there for both sides.

One could also call this a cop-out.

|> 7. Social Contract? I never signed no steenking social contract.

|> There are several explicit means by which people make the
social
|> contract with government. The commonest is when your parents
choose
|> your residency and/or citizenship after your birth. In that
case, your
|> parents or guardians are contracting for you, exercising their
power of
|> custody.

|Agreeing to be governed is not the same as waiving your fundamental
|rights. If the SC decided that free speech is no longer in the
|constitution, are we to quietly put up with it? This is where
|libertarians are different than the "mushy" philosophies: libertarians
|support consistent respect for the rights of individuals -- not just when
|it is politically popular or politically expedient.

I noted this too. This is true to a point, and where social contract
theory becomes quite weak. Curiously, there are some variants of
libertarian theory which rely on social contract theory (Gaulthier is
one). But it can lead to some problems in arguments...using it against
libertarian contractarians is one such example.

|> 8. The social contract is like no other because it can be "unilaterally"
|> modified.
|>
|> Not true. Consider the purchase of a condominium. You have a contract
|> with the condominium association, agreeing to pay the fees they levy
|
|The difference, of course, is when the US "unilaterally" changes the
|rules, it affects 260,000,000 people, and then, there is nowhere
|to go. Libertarians, in general, believe in voting with your feet,
|but minimizing the difference between switching condos and switching
|job, friends, and country is just an "argument in desperation".
|Nobody believes they are the same thing, some people just pretend to
|when they run out of real arguments.

This seems to be a side-stepping of the argument. In contract law,
although one may agree on a couple basic points of the contract, quite
often there are points that are left open by both parties even after the
contract was signed. The contract is still binding, even though one may
object to the changes occurring in some of these background conditions.

|> 12. Isn't that "love it or leave it"?
|>
|> For example, let's say you live in a condominium, and are very fond of
|> it.
|>
|> This is analogous to living in a nation.
|
|Oh, look, here it is now. Having to move six blocks because you
|can't get 30 people to agree with you is "analogous" to having
|to move 2000 miles and learning a new language because you can't get
|260,000,000 people to agree with you.
|
|Sorry, analogies don't stretch that far, even under the most
|liberal definitions. The author of such a claim doesn't believe it
|any more than libertarians; it is just a last ditch attempt to
|distract from the real issues.

But logically speaking, the analogy still works.

|> There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
|
|Yet, opponents of libertarianism frequently claim that they
|can "provide" houses/food/medicine/whatever for free, without
|infringing on the rights of others, because "the government will
|require it". Sure.

But these can produce indirect benefits to the person opposing it. Weak
perhaps--but those people receiving subsidized housing tend to be paying
the price already.

|> 15. Extortion by the state is no different than extortion by the Mafia.
|>
|> This is a prize piece of libertarian rhetoric, because it slides in the
|> accusation that taxation is extortion.
|
|And yet, oddly enough, this "prize piece of libertarian rhetoric" is
|more frequently proposed by _opponents_ of libertarianism than
|by libertarians themselves. Where is your "Non-statist FAQ"?

But is it not possible that in a libertarian free market that the Mafia
and others bearing arms might engage in extortion?

|> 16. There's no such thing as rights to govern territory!
|
|I have not seen a libertarian make such a claim, so enjoy your
|inflatable date!

I've seen it before--though not stated in precisely this way.

|> [discussion of property rights deleted -- this subject has been
|> beat to death in this group lately, and this FAQ adds
|> nothing, and is, in fact, a sorry subset of the discussion...]

Pity. It did have some potential.

|> 19. New limitations on use of property are a taking, and should be
|> compensated.
|> [... mild examples deleted...]
|
|Comparing the changes that just formalize accepted practice or
|are put in for safety reasons to those in which a politically
|connected group gets their vision of utopia enforced into law at
|the expense of a few is another not-so-subtle trick to evade the
|real issues at hand. By claiming that things that most libertarians
|don't object to is the same as those that they do, you have again
|set up a strawman, and may auto-eroticize on it all you like.

And this is assuming that libertarianism is not utopian either.

|> 20. Think how much wealthier we'd be if we didn't pay taxes.
|>
|> This is a classic example of libertarians not looking at the complete
|> equation for at least two reasons. (1) If taxes are eliminated, you'll
|> need to purchase services that were formerly provided by government.
|
|Most libertarians have thought about this and would be happy to pay
|for things they actually use via user fees. This can be compared
|favorably to the statists who want _others_ to pay for the things
|_they_ want, whether the others will use it or may even be opposed to it.

Ah, the user fee argument. Couldn't one think of taxes as a form of
user fee? Like that fitness club membership that you paid for in
advance or a life insurance policy.

|> (2) If taxes are eliminated, the economics of wages have changed, and
|> wages will change as well.
|
|I'll admit, this is frequently ignored. ...

The respective point was not rebutted. Explained away (partial red
herring) but not rebutted.

|> 21. We lived in a fairly libertarian society in the US 150 years ago.
|>
|> Yes, the Federal government had a much lighter hand then. However,
|> state and local governments had a much greater influence. There is not
|> one class of positive duty or obligation in the US today that did not
|> exist 200 years ago at state or federal level.
|
|The total burden was significantly less than today. And the people
|making and enforcing the laws were accountable to the people they
|represented, rather than the nameless, faceless bureaucrats living
|thousands of miles away.

More historical revisionism.

|> Also, society was organized quite differently before the industrial
|> revolution spread to the US. Our "nation of shopkeepers" was actually a
|> nation of farmers. The means of production were controlled primarily by
|> the workers (who were the owners of the farms and shops.) Government of
|> that era would be as out-of-place today as the tariffs and scientific
|> knowledge of that era.
|
|So, because society is more complicated, a few central planners are now
|more able to make decisions for the masses? I would like to see the
|defense of this incredible claim! Of course you will offer none, because
|your arguments can only pretend to be even slightly valid when placed
|away from criticism in a FAQ format.

Curious form of attack. Basically, it is (1) more historical
re-writing, (2) a lack of awareness of the societal structure
changes that have occurred to parallel the technological changes, and
(3) assumes that the only answer is central planning. This fellow has
been reading too many Austrian economist text books.

|> 22. "Might Makes Right" is the principle behind statism.
|>
|> However, government is not alone in requiring might. All property is
|> based on might as well. Nobody is beholden to your notions of what
|> constitutes your property. Property is just as "involuntary" as the
|> social contract. There is no moral obligation for anyone to respect
|> your property: only a practical one.
|
|Encoding the "commonly accepted" definition of ownership and force
|into law is hardly the same as encoding the right of you to take my
|money for a project that I have no interest in! Once again, the blurring of
|two clearly distinct concepts should be dismissed as the silliness that
|it is. Another "statist same-as"....

And this rebuttal isn't one (and so much for not dealing with the
property argument, as stated earlier). What was missed is that law
often is followed without the need for force, and sometimes force
doesn't even come. Also, he seems to neglect the trend in England,
Canada and the United States that the property not owned falls to
the Crown or the people--a reality not myth. Lastly, it would appear
that there is a confusion between the concept of possession and
property.

|> 23. I want self-government, not other-government.
|>
|> More explicitly, "self government" is the peculiar notion that other
|> people ought not to be able to regulate your behavior. Much as we would
|> like to be free of such regulation, most people also want to be able to
|> regulate the behavior of others for practical reasons.
|
|Do you mean practical reasons like "I don't like it when you do that"?
|There is no questions that rights often collide. That is the point
|of government. What libertarians object to are laws that regulate
|the rights of others to *behave peacefully and cooperatively* when
|such behavior *has no effect on others' equal rights*.

This is assuming that everyone is capable of making their own choices
and decisions, which remains to be tested. Many people died when the
provincial government merely suggested that seatbelts be worn in cars,
because many macho pig-headed drivers decided that it would be foolish
to do so. A penalty was needed to ensure that people wore the 'belts,
and consequently automobile deaths were reduced by a factor of 3.

|> 24. Why shouldn't we adopt libertarian government now?
|>
|> Because there are no working examples of libertarian cities, states, or
|> nations.
|
|Your argument here seems to be "Because there are power hungry people
|who have corrupted governments everywhere, we should just live with the
|corruption and be happy with it". I don't buy such a lame argument,
|and I doubt if many people will. It seems like a fairly cynical and
|depressing view of life. I like to believe we can constantly strive to
|make things better.

And we shouldn't doubt that pigs might fly because we haven't seen one
try.

|> Let libertarians point to successful libertarian programs to seek our
|> endorsement. For example, narcotic decriminalization in Holland has
|> been a success. So has legalized prostitution in Nevada and Germany
|> (and probably other places.) Privatization of some municipal services
|> has been successful in some communities. But these are extremely small
|> scale compared to the total libertarian agenda, and do not rule out
|> emergent problems and instabilities of a full scale libertarian system.
|
|Libertarians are actively trying all tactics -- large scale, small scale,
|theoretical, pragmatic. But no matter how many working examples are
|provided, or how clear the effects, people oppose the plan due to
|a remote "what if" scenario -- usually one that occurs *due to* statism!

I beg your pardon. It is not a matter of "what if". It is because the
libertarian case has just been poorly presented and has been found
lacking. "Statism" is just irrelevant but the respect for the nation's
history, how long it took to reach such prominence and the general
satisfaction with the state of things, no matter how imperfect, are
relevant.

|Also, these are not "small scale compared to the total libertarian agenda",
|these ARE the libertarian agenda. Freedom is the agenda, and
|wherever freedom is tried, it works. You just have to be willing to
|give up your desire to run the lives of others when it doesn't affect
|you. Libertarians are ready. Are you?

Progressivism also has relied on small-scale (see Brandeis' "Curse of
Bigness" or Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful." There are other
variations. And note how we have falled back on the magic word of
"freedom"--again the earlier argument applies. The libertarian uses
this word to throw people off. Really what he advocates is 'economic
freedom' (which varies in relation to the possession of property) and
little of any other.

|> 25. There's a conspiracy to prevent a working libertarian experiment.
|
|This has nothing to do with libertarianism and is really just name
|calling. If there are people with such views, they are nutcases, and
|exist in all parties. Lyndon LaRouche is a Democrat -- does that
|make "Democratism" (whatever that would be) invalid?

First point is true but it was employed by Lepore two years ago.

|> 26. An event is explained by the issue at hand.
|
|Most of your discussion under this heading falls into the "some
|libertarians are bad at arguing". Big whoop. You're not so good yourself...

Ad hominem attack.

|> 27. Haven't you read "Libertarianism in One Lesson"?
|>
|Again, your arguments fall into the "some people can't argue" category.
|Mostly the reason a particular book is recommended is because people
|get tired of discussing the types of strawmen that you happily
|refer to in this FAQ by people who don't even know what libertarianism is!

Actually the LiOL hit pretty close to home. But then not all
libertarians argue like that.

|> 29. Libertarians oppose the initiation of force.
|>
|> Libertarians except defense
|> of property and prosecution of fraud, and call them retaliatory force.
|> But retaliation can be the initiation of force: I don't need force to
|> commit theft or fraud. This is a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand that
|
|Ok, would you be happier, if, instead of "force and fraud", libertarians
|said "force, fraud and theft"? Theft is really just a combination of
|force and fraud -- taking without the owner's permission -- so it seems
|sort of redundant, but I guess some people don't understand subtlty.

Redefining basic tenets of the law to suit the libertarian cause. It
does make you wonder though how they expect to hang onto
their property in a "libertarian free-market" society.

|> libs like to play so that they can pretend they are different than
|> government. You know: break a law (like not paying your taxes) and MEN
|> WITH GUNS initiate force. Sorry, but you've gotta play fair: it can't
|> be initiation for government and retaliation for you.
|
|Now you are getting into semantic games. Government *IS* the set of
|things that we authorize the use of force for. Libertarians think
|this set of things should be minimized. Statists think it should
|be adjusted to suit _their_ personal needs.

The first three sentences are adequate. The remainder just falls into
the usual misattributions and lumping together of the lib'n
opposition--creating strawmen along the way.

|> 30. Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave Laws were examples of government
|> enforcement of slavery.
|>
|> No. There's a subtle distinction: they were enforcement of property
|> rights of slaveowners. It was entirely the owners assertion that he was
|> property that the government was acting upon. If the owner had at any
|> time freed him, he would not have been a slave.
|
|I sort of agree with you here. Slavery was not government enforcement of
|slavery, it was a failure of the government to endorse civil rights
|for all persons. It is certainly not libertarian. If your morality
|is that blacks are not people, there may even be logic to slavery.
|Fortunately, this nation came to it's senses and decided to acknowledge
|that slaves were humans, thereby reversing the government failures
|of the past.

This is an interesting point (having recently completed a study of
slavery myself). Although people can accept the existence of rights
it is still quite possible for institutions, such as slavery, which
don't respect them to exist. I note however that this could be
furthered by the excuse created by property in capitalist society.

|> 31. The World's Smallest Political Quiz. [Nolan Test]
|>
|> This libertarian quiz asks a set of leading questions to tempt you to
|> proclaim yourself a libertarian. The big trick is that if you answer
|
|It's not really all that biased (try it and see), but even in
|non-libertarian questionaires, the number of libertarians far
|exceeds the expectations of pollsters, and, in fact, the majority
|of the population mistrusts the government.

True, if one believes that the "truth is out there" and that you
can "trust no one."

|> Many libertarians use this as an "outreach" (read: evangelism) tool. By
|
|That's because libertarians can't rent out the Lincoln Bedroom or
|give rides on Air Force One as an "outreach (read: evangelism) tool".
|
|Yet.

So much for respect for history and the nation's institutions.

|> 32. The Libertarian Party: America's third largest political party.
|
|I'll agree, it's sort of a silly claim, although probably no more
|silly than things the D&Rs repeat regularly (see, e.g., mandatory
|volunteerism, a 5% increase is a "cut" if 30% was previously threatened).
|
|And again, this has nothing to do with the _philosophy_, but instead is
|just more name-calling.

I will agree here, but the Libertarian Party does need whatever it
assistance it can to achieve a certain level of respect.

|> 33. You're a Statist!
|>
|> Don't be surprised if you receive some ad-hominem abuse from
|> libertarian evangelists when you don't accept their arguments. It's no
|
|Calling somebody who believes that government can solve the problems
|of 260,000,000 diverse and dispersed individuals better than the
|individuals themselves a "statist" isn't an ad-hominem attack, it
|is the word that is used to describe people who believe the state
|functions better than cooperative individuals. If you feel this is
|an attack, could it be that you are embarrassed by the philosophy it
|encompasses? Would you really rather have people type "those who
|think government can solve problems better than individuals think...."
|instead of "statists think....". If you are embarrassed by your
|philosophy, don't come cryin' round here.

|You don't see Libertarians claiming that the use of the word
|"Libertarian" is an ad-hominen attack.

Interesting. Once again, we have the lumping of every moderate with the
more extreme commies and Marxists. Curious how a fellow who states
that he wouldn't use ad hominem attacks--resorts to the same.

--
----
Cheers,
Tom Asquith
Faculty of Law
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Ab, Canada
tasquith-@-gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
-------------------------------------------------------------
"How long soever it hath continued, if it be against
reason, it is of no force in law."
--Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634)
--------------------------------------------------------------

Quetzalcoatl

unread,

Sep 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/7/97

You say that freedom is a goal of democratic socialism. Actually, security
is the goal, freedom (liberty) be damned.

FWIW
Andy

Caesar

unread,

Sep 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/7/97

In article <5utbso$s0p$2...@gte1.gte.net> nos...@nospamm.net "Quetzalcoatl" writes:

> You say that freedom is a goal of democratic socialism. Actually, security
> is the goal, freedom (liberty) be damned.
>

Actually, IMO, democratic socialists feel they are increasing
the average amount of liberty possessed by individuals in
society by reducing the need of people to work long hours
to earn meagre amounts of money which they needed to buy food, clothing
and shelter by creating welfare states and nationalising major
industries.

The nationalised industries aim to give people better pay
than private firms, by reducing the amount of profits.

The welfare state helps the retired (and unemployed) to
enjoy a decent standard of living, rather than being plunged
in pauperism.

A democratic socialist would say that a man is not free
if he is starving or if he has to work 80 hours a week
for an employer in a factory to earn enough money to
buy food.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
Email address: Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk
-"Today is the tommorrow that you worried about yesterday"
----------------------------------------------------------

Caliban

unread,

Sep 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/8/97

In talk.politics.libertarian Caesar <Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk> wrote:

: In article <5utbso$s0p$2...@gte1.gte.net> nos...@nospamm.net "Quetzalcoatl" writes:

: > You say that freedom is a goal of democratic socialism. Actually, security
: > is the goal, freedom (liberty) be damned.

: Actually, IMO, democratic socialists feel they are increasing
: the average amount of liberty possessed by individuals in
: society by reducing the need of people to work long hours
: to earn meagre amounts of money which they needed to buy food, clothing
: and shelter by creating welfare states and nationalising major
: industries.

I agree with you that most democratic socialists feel
that way, and I also agree (of course!) that those are
laudable goals. I share your goals, and I feel that
free-market economies -- which are different from the
oligarchies you seem to equate with capitalism -- provide
the best standard of living to workers, as well as the
most freedom. This is because, first, they define the
rights of workers (and everyone else) as equal to those
of the rich and powerful; second, they allow each worker
to freely choose the best available working conditions
for him( or her)self, so that businesses with exploitive
or other unfavorable working conditions don't get or
keep any workers; and, third, they promote technological
advancement, which is the main factor which determines
standards of living and working conditions. After all,
even in the most human social structure, if there is
not enough food to go around, or labor-saving technology
doesn't exist, then people will starve or suffer at work,
no matter what.

: The nationalised industries aim to give people better pay

: than private firms, by reducing the amount of profits.

I also want workers to have the best possible combination
of pay and working conditions (without violating the
legitimate rights of business owners, whatever those may
happen to be). And there's certainly nothing wrong with
a non-profit or even a government-owned or worker-owned
business; to me, this is perfectly acceptable in a
free-market system. In fact, a business which reduces
its profits in order to provide better pay or working
conditions has an advantage in attracting workers. (In
fact, all businesses do this already, to some extent,
when they decide what to pay their workers; AFAIK, your
only complaint is that the decisions that they make are
not as generous as you personally wish they would make,
but I don't see any reason for assuming that your personal
opinions are the laws of nature -- nor are mine.)

My only objection to what I think you want would be to any
business having any sort of unfair special privilege,
either a forcible monopoly or a subsidy that its competitors
didn't receive. Unless you think that this is necessary,
then we agree, AFAIK.

: The welfare state helps the retired (and unemployed) to

: enjoy a decent standard of living, rather than being plunged
: in pauperism.

I also want to make sure that people who are poor or
otherwise disadvantaged through no fault of their own
will have a decent standard of living, and I personally
believe that everyone has an obligation to help those
less fortunate than themselves. (This is the main reason
why I am politically active.) As far as I can tell (from
public-opinion polls, election returns, and the like),
the overwhelming majority of people, including libertarians,
agree on this. My objections to the present system, and
my questions about what you advocate, are relatively minor.

First, I believe that we ought to acknowledge, recognize,
respect, and support personal responsibility. In other words,
I believe that everyone -- whether conservative, liberal, or
libertarian -- agrees that people who are unwilling (but not
unable) to work or save ought to be allowed to freely choose
this path. Second, I suggest that any welfare program ought
to either reward effort, or at least not penalize it. Third,
I believe that social programs should also recognize that
individual circumstances vary, and that one person might
want or need more housing assistance and less health care,
or _vice versa_.

Unfortunately, at least in the United States, we have a
situation in which the liberals are concerned because not
enough is being done to help the poor, while the conservatives
are concerned that too much welfare money is wasted by the
government on administrative costs, or by recipients who
are unwilling to work rather than unable. And the most
unfortunate circumstance of all is that both sides are
generally correct. In addition, the current system is set
up so that the working poor lose their welfare benefits,
often losing more than they earn!

Therefore, any social program needs to address these issues.
IMO, the only social programs which do would be either a
negative income tax/guaranteed income program, which provides
cash assistance (or vouchers which can be spent like cash,
but limited to necessities like food, clothing, housing, health insurance,
and education) to everyone (with extra benefits to the physically
or mentally disadvantaged), but which allows each recipient
to decide exactly what items they need, and under which
work is rewarded rather than penalized; or else providing
complete child care for the poor, but requiring parents to work.

: A democratic socialist would say that a man is not free

: if he is starving or if he has to work 80 hours a week
: for an employer in a factory to earn enough money to
: buy food.

I agree with you, and extend this principle to government-
owned factories, as well. This is why I oppose any sort
of compulsory monopoly or special advantages to one
competitor (like subsidies, or penalties to their competitors).

Would you disagree?

--
Caliban
cal...@gate.net

"Whoever dies with the most skills wins."

Steve Brinich

unread,

Sep 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/8/97

Caesar wrote:

> Actually, IMO, democratic socialists feel they are increasing
> the average amount of liberty possessed by individuals in
> society by reducing the need of people to work long hours
> to earn meagre amounts of money which they needed to buy food,
> clothing and shelter by creating welfare states and nationalising
> major industries.

Democratic socialism also frees individuals from the heavy burden
of deciding whether or not to have children. Ask any Swede.

--
Steve Brinich ste...@access.digex.net If the government wants us
PGP:89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E to respect the law
http://www.access.digex.net/~steve-b it should set a better example

Henry Blaskowski

unread,

Sep 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/9/97

Tom Asquith <tasq...@ualberta.ca> wrote:

Thanks for the intelligent response -- something that joker Mike Huben
could never be bothered to do...

> |What, in the end, do [Dems/Reps/etc/ stand for? Apparently, their

> | beliefs are
> |"it's my turn to drive now!" -- even though they have no apparent
> |destination in mind.

> Hmm. It could be argued that this too is the goal of the Libertarian
> Party, EXCEPT that when they take control of the car, they'll smash it
> into the nearest tree.

No, libertarians have a goal. A clear cut, explainable goal that is
an improvement over the current "might makes right" system. Can you
say as much for any other party?

> | Would you hold those who believe in smaller government to
> |_higher_ standards, despite all the obvious failures of _too much_
> |government through the ages?

> You would hold those who propose radical changes to the state of any

> government to a greater degree of scrutiny--and this would include the
> libertarians. You forget that people do have a touch of
> sentimentality--otherwise, how do you explain the existence of
> conservative parties? Sometimes before one pursues the summit, one
> stops and asks whether or not it can be done--without perishing in the
> attempt. Pure and simple, skepticism is the libertarians' enemy here.
> Nothing less.

This is correct. People should be skeptical of a group that comes
in and says "follow us and we'll fix everything". Libertarians
just ask for open eyes and ears. When Libertarians called for
term limits back in the 70s, people said "too crazy". Now they're
supported by 80% of the population. When libertarians said price
controls would lead to economic turmoil, the Republicans charged
ahead anyway, leading to the gas crisis of the 70's. Libertarians
explained that an increase in the Insane War on Drugs would lead
to increased violence in the cities. Now pundits are struggling
for an explanation of the increased violence that doesn't admit
that the IWOD is a failure. How many times do libertarians have
to be right before we can even make the incremental changes that
libertarians want (say, e.g., ending corporate welfare).

> |> 1. The original intent of the founders has been perverted.

> |This can be debated as an academic exercise, but really doesn't

> |have much bearing on libertarianism.

> It does have a strong foundation if one tries to assume that the

> original United States was "libertarian". It is relevant and goes to
> the heart of American libertarian assumptions regarding the nature of
> the state (and to a certain extent, it is needed to help keep the
> neoconservatives on side--libertarianism, as is the case with any
> ideology, does need allies). And if this is not relevant, then you
> have still managed to contradict yourself (see the point earlier).

I only brought it up earlier to contradict the claim that libertarianism
is untried. I never meant it to prove that "this is what the
founding fathers wanted" -- surely a poor basis for government.

> |> It would be foolish to oppose libertarians on such a
> mom-and-apple-pie
> |> issue as freedom and rights

> |In other words, the libertarians are right, but historically those

> |who crave power over the lives of others have been able to use
> |government to get their way.

> In short, it is a plastic word.

But Libertarians meaning of the word is clear -- freedom from the coercion
of neighbors when your actions don't affect them. Very simple, very
clear. Of course, there are gray areas, but the concept, as discussed
by libertarians, is simple and clear.

> |> 5. Taxation is theft.

> |This is discussed endlessly on the groups. Anyone who is interested
> |in this tired subject should look there for both sides.

> One could also call this a cop-out.

No, maybe eventually I'll fill this section in, but I'm totally bored
by the discussion. It goes nowhere and isn't particularly relevent
to anything. To summarize it: some people claim it's theft because
they didn't explicitly agree to taxes. Others say it's not because
you implicitly agree by living here. The truth is somewhere in-between.
If you use political connections to get taxes to subsidize your
poorly managed business and keep it afloat, you are not much different
from the criminal with the gun. But some taxes are necessary to
finance the legal system.

> This seems to be a side-stepping of the argument. In contract law,

> although one may agree on a couple basic points of the contract, quite
> often there are points that are left open by both parties even after the
> contract was signed. The contract is still binding, even though one may
> object to the changes occurring in some of these background conditions.

This is what the legal system is for -- to decide which changes are
valid and which aren't. No, everything can't be specified, but there
is an implicit framework for an agreement that can't be changed. If
that framework changes too much, contracts can be voided.

As to the government, if Clinton declared "no more free speech for my
opponents", are we to sigh and say oh well tough break? How many
previously obvious and apparent rights have to go away before the
libertarians have a point?

> |Oh, look, here it is now. Having to move six blocks because you
> |can't get 30 people to agree with you is "analogous" to having
> |to move 2000 miles and learning a new language because you can't get
> |260,000,000 people to agree with you.
> |
> |Sorry, analogies don't stretch that far, even under the most
> |liberal definitions. The author of such a claim doesn't believe it
> |any more than libertarians; it is just a last ditch attempt to
> |distract from the real issues.

> But logically speaking, the analogy still works.

No, it doesn't work. At some point you are voluntarily agreeing to
be ruled. But living in a country this size does not mean you owe
your life to the whims of the other 260,000,000.

> But is it not possible that in a libertarian free market that the Mafia
> and others bearing arms might engage in extortion?

No, extortion would be illegal. Force would be illegal.

> Ah, the user fee argument. Couldn't one think of taxes as a form of
> user fee? Like that fitness club membership that you paid for in
> advance or a life insurance policy.

No, taxes are not the same because I have to pay for things I will
never use and in fact object to. I would never pay for a club
membership or insurance policy that I have no use for and am opposed
to the term of.

> |The total burden was significantly less than today. And the people
> |making and enforcing the laws were accountable to the people they
> |represented, rather than the nameless, faceless bureaucrats living
> |thousands of miles away.

> More historical revisionism.

Not at all. Compare total tax rates at all levels of government.
Look who had control over people's daily lives. Until the 30's,
the federal government was an insignigicant part of most people's
lives.

> This is assuming that everyone is capable of making their own choices
> and decisions, which remains to be tested. Many people died when the
> provincial government merely suggested that seatbelts be worn in cars,
> because many macho pig-headed drivers decided that it would be foolish
> to do so. A penalty was needed to ensure that people wore the 'belts,
> and consequently automobile deaths were reduced by a factor of 3.

Why do you care if other people want to kill themselves. It's none
of your business.

> |> 26. An event is explained by the issue at hand.
> |
> |Most of your discussion under this heading falls into the "some
> |libertarians are bad at arguing". Big whoop. You're not so good yourself...

> Ad hominem attack.

When Mike attacks libertarians for being bad at arguing, isn't that
ad hominem attack? Or only when libertarians do it? I was just
demonstrating the silliness of his argument.

> |> Many libertarians use this as an "outreach" (read: evangelism) tool. By
> |
> |That's because libertarians can't rent out the Lincoln Bedroom or
> |give rides on Air Force One as an "outreach (read: evangelism) tool".
> |
> |Yet.

> So much for respect for history and the nation's institutions.

Would you have preferred a smiley? I didn't think the joke was
all that subtle...

> |
> |Calling somebody who believes that government can solve the problems
> |of 260,000,000 diverse and dispersed individuals better than the
> |individuals themselves a "statist" isn't an ad-hominem attack, it
> |is the word that is used to describe people who believe the state
> |functions better than cooperative individuals. If you feel this is
> |an attack, could it be that you are embarrassed by the philosophy it
> |encompasses? Would you really rather have people type "those who
> |think government can solve problems better than individuals think...."
> |instead of "statists think....". If you are embarrassed by your
> |philosophy, don't come cryin' round here.

> |You don't see Libertarians claiming that the use of the word
> |"Libertarian" is an ad-hominen attack.

> Interesting. Once again, we have the lumping of every moderate with the
> more extreme commies and Marxists. Curious how a fellow who states
> that he wouldn't use ad hominem attacks--resorts to the same.

Again, why is somebody who believes the state can solve problems
better than cooperative individuals "statist" an insult? I don't
understand that. You can be statist on single issues (welfare,
privacy, religion, etc), on all issues (Marxist), or somewhere
in between. I don't see the insult in it. In a particular
discussion on a particular issue, saying "statist" is a shorthand
for "those who prefer the state to have control of X", which is
hard on the fingers. This is not ad hominem, this is common
usage.

hblask

Henry Blaskowski

unread,

Sep 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/9/97

Tom Asquith <tasq...@ualberta.ca> wrote:

> |> [discussion of property rights deleted -- this subject has been
> |> beat to death in this group lately, and this FAQ adds
> |> nothing, and is, in fact, a sorry subset of the discussion...]

> Pity. It did have some potential.

OK, here's the best summary I've seen of the debate, from the always-
intelligent Julia/Julie Cochrane:

++ From: jb...@prism.gatech.edu (Julia R. Cochrane)
++ Newsgroups: or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics,seattle.politics
++ Subject: Re: VOLUNTEERISM and RENT
++ Date: 30 Apr 1997 11:05:43 -0400
++ Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
++
++
++ Interesting argument, but all it boils down to in practice is a
++ way for someone to sell land to somebody else for "dollars" as
++ an intermediary representation of paintings, song, ditches dug,
++ houses built in the hot summer sun, letters typed, clay pots
++ thrown on wheels, fabric woven, glass blown, books written, type
++ set, doctoring done, hair cut, chemical processes to produce electronic
++ components laboriously calculated, programs written, cars made and
++ repaired, wiring done, telephone calls connected, etc.----It boils
++ down to an excuse for accepting labor, creativity, management, and
++ production of non-land goods and services, and then having you or
++ your descendants go up to the engineer or hair stylist or sales
++ clerk who has worked long, hard hours and deprived themselves of
++ a great deal of wine, women, and song in order to "buy" the land---
++ you accept the non-land goods and services in exchange for title
++ to the land, and then you or your descendants go "Psyche! Nope,
++ can't have it, you evil landholder you!"
++
++ That's bullshit. The government took that land and that at least
++ somewhat democratically elected government sold much of it outright,
++ as the representative for all the people who could vote at that time,
++ or "homesteaded" it---gave it away with strings attached in exchange
++ for certain kinds of labor being performed on it and contributed to
++ the economy. Was it a transfer program (theft)?---Yes, a transfer
++ program *exactly* morally equivalent to welfare and payments of
++ social security that are in excess of what was paid in moderated by
++ the time value of money at market rates at the time it was paid.
++
++ If you want to argue that particular title holders don't have clear
++ title to the land, go ahead, because they have *also* usually paid
++ money for "title insurance" which will repay them the "money" intermediary
++ of the wine, women, and song they've foregone in the event that it
++ turns out the person they bought the land from didn't have clear title.
++
++ Holding *all* land titles forever tainted because somewhere back
++ when there "must have been" a violent theft of the land is just a
++ cheesy way trying to swindle people out of the value of their engineering,
++ or nursing, or assembly-line, or reception desk labor and camouflage
++ it in pretty terms to hide what you're doing.
++
++ The US Government stole the land, and then resold it. The people who
++ bought the land with their legitimate labor hold legitimate title, and
++ the US Government as the recipient of the goods and services it sold
++ the land for is the entity people who had their land stolen need to
++ sue to get the value of the land repaid to them in compensation. In
++ many cases, the descendants of those people have *already* sued and
++ been compensated, and have expended the compensation on wine, women,
++ and song. Those descendants' descendants, ad infinitum, are not entitled
++ to an unending parade of fresh compensation each generation to spend
++ on a fresh round of goods and services all over again.
++
++ Where the US Government has not yet paid compensation to a particular
++ pool of descendants and survivors, it needs to do so, but if they
++ choose (as many have done) to spend that on other goods and services
++ instead of repurchasing land with it, it is as if they had voluntarily
++ sold the land themselves.
++
++ Your argument is pretty, but it ignores the fact that the entity that
++ did the original theft is *not* long-dead but still exists---the
++ corporate entity know as the Government of the United States. It ignores
++ that that entity actually sold the land in many instances for money.
++ It ignores the fact that that entity has actually paid on the claims
++ of *some* of the groups of surviving descendants of the groups it
++ injured.
++
++ But as an American of mixed white and Creek descent, if it makes you
++ feel better, I'll pay myself a chunk out of each future paycheck for
++ my white computer jock self to buy my Creek self a house with a little
++ space for a garden in back. :-) You'll be happy to know that the
++ decision of my white self and my Creek self to continue to sleep
++ together under the same roof is mutual, so my Creek self won't consider
++ it land-theft that my white self wants a share of the covers in the
++ new house.
++
++ Bottom line: Your argument may sound good, but it still doesn't make
++ it right to steal from people the goods, services, and yes, land, that
++ they trade their labor for.
++
++ Julie
++
++ --
++ I can see you crying for the children of the flame; I can feel you comforting
++ their fears from the dread, unspeakable name; I can hear you screaming out
++ the truth saying children, come be free; I can hear tears in the wind.
++

Caesar

unread,

Sep 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/9/97

In article <34149F...@access.digex.net>
ste...@access.digex.net "Steve Brinich" writes:

>
> Caesar wrote:
>
> > Actually, IMO, democratic socialists feel they are increasing
> > the average amount of liberty possessed by individuals in
> > society by reducing the need of people to work long hours
> > to earn meagre amounts of money which they needed to buy food,
> > clothing and shelter by creating welfare states and nationalising
> > major industries.
>
> Democratic socialism also frees individuals from the heavy burden
> of deciding whether or not to have children. Ask any Swede.
>

What is that supposed to mean?

In any society people will choose to have children. The only
way people can be compelled to have children (or not) is if
they were forcibly impregnated (or forceably sterilised to
stop them having kids).

Hansjoerg Walther

unread,

Sep 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/10/97

Hello Caesar,

Caesar wrote:

> In article <34149F...@access.digex.net>
> ste...@access.digex.net "Steve Brinich" writes:
>
> >
> > Caesar wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, IMO, democratic socialists feel they are increasing
> > > the average amount of liberty possessed by individuals in
> > > society by reducing the need of people to work long hours
> > > to earn meagre amounts of money which they needed to buy food,
> > > clothing and shelter by creating welfare states and nationalising
> > > major industries.
> >
> > Democratic socialism also frees individuals from the heavy burden
> > of deciding whether or not to have children. Ask any Swede.
> >
>
> What is that supposed to mean?
>
> In any society people will choose to have children. The only
> way people can be compelled to have children (or not) is if
> they were forcibly impregnated (or forceably sterilised to
> stop them having kids).

Exactly. Haven't you heard about the sterilzation programs
in the Scandinavian countries? They started in the late 20s
and lasted until the 70s. In Sweden about 60,000 people were
coercively sterilized under Social Democratic governments.

Best regards,

Hansjoerg Walther.

Tom Asquith

unread,

Sep 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/10/97

On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:22:00 +0200, Hansjoerg Walther
<wal...@nineties.com> wrote:

|Hello Caesar,
|
|
|Caesar wrote:

|> What is that supposed to mean?
|>
|> In any society people will choose to have children. The only
|> way people can be compelled to have children (or not) is if
|> they were forcibly impregnated (or forceably sterilised to
|> stop them having kids).
|
|Exactly. Haven't you heard about the sterilzation programs
|in the Scandinavian countries? They started in the late 20s
|and lasted until the 70s. In Sweden about 60,000 people were
|coercively sterilized under Social Democratic governments.

But Hansjoerg, you must also realize that stupidity knows
no ideological boundaries. Populist, conservative and liberal
governments here in Canada also had eugenics programs and
have endorsed them. And neoconservative governments such
as Ralph Klein's government have refused to recompense the
individuals for the errors made.

Cheers,
Tom Asquith
tasquith-@-gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
---------------------------------------------------
"In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is
king." --Desiderius Erasmus.
---------------------------------------------------

Hansjoerg Walther

unread,

Sep 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/11/97

Hello Tom,

Tom Asquith wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:22:00 +0200, Hansjoerg Walther
> <wal...@nineties.com> wrote:
>
> |Hello Caesar,
> |
> |
> |Caesar wrote:
>
> |> What is that supposed to mean?
> |>
> |> In any society people will choose to have children. The only
> |> way people can be compelled to have children (or not) is if
> |> they were forcibly impregnated (or forceably sterilised to
> |> stop them having kids).
> |
> |Exactly. Haven't you heard about the sterilzation programs
> |in the Scandinavian countries? They started in the late 20s
> |and lasted until the 70s. In Sweden about 60,000 people were
> |coercively sterilized under Social Democratic governments.
>
> But Hansjoerg, you must also realize that stupidity knows
> no ideological boundaries.

True.

Yet I think there is a common denominator.

The point is that certain political theories do not
see wealth as something belonging to individuals who
are free to use it as they please, but as the collective
wealth in a country which is to be taken care of by the
state.

I'll take three examples (which I don't mean to
equate!):

Scandinavian welfare states

Nazi Germany

Socialist states like e. g. Romania, the USSR

As I said I don't mean to equate these three examples.
But I would like to explain that they all addressed
the same problem arising from their respective
ideologies.

All three underlying ideologies set the objective
to the government to further the collective wealth.

In a way, they all share the common belief (with
due qualifications, of course) that this wealth
is to be managed by the state, that it should
be distributed according to some scheme and that
it is more or less not the property of individuals
who can do with it what they please. (Again: the
differences are considerable and I don't mean
to equate these examples, especially not on a
moral level).

The problem is: if you want to maximize collective
wealth, what about those who cannot contribute as
much as others to it because they are mentally
retarded? If the state helps these people, it is
clearly a waste of collective wealth and directly
affects the size of the pie it can give to those
who contribute at an average level and above.

What one cannot evade in such a picture is that
certain people are 'useless', a minus in the
creation of national wealth. And the straight-
forward conclusion is that they should not be
there.

So Scandinavian welfare states chose sterilization
(rather mild as compared to the other examples).
AFAIK, the Social Democratic politicians used
the argument that mentally retarded people were
a loss to the welfare state, and therefore it
should be done. Part of the reason for adopting
and applying sterilization was also the drive
to better the Scandinavian race.

The Nazis used sterilization and later simply
killed mentally retarded people (in this context
gas chambers were invented). The Nazis were
pretty consistent in their thinking and also
thought about killing elderly people after
the war.

And Socialist states like Romania placed mentally
retarded people in institutions which seem to have
had no other purpose than to let them die due to
lack of care.

If you share the premise that the objective of
a government is to bake a cake as big as possible,
you cannot escape this conclusion (you may stop short
of the above measures, but I think, against better
arguments, just because you introduce something
else. E. g. Christians in Germany protested against
the killing of mentally retarded people because
it was against their faith, and they had a certain
success with it), but basically the conclusion cannot
be evaded on this level.

I think the libertarian comment to this is crisp:
it is none of the government's business whether
I take my hard-eared money to help e. g. my mentally
retarded child or send a check to a private charity.
And if it is a minus in the sum of national wealth:
to hell with it.

> Populist, conservative and liberal
> governments here in Canada also had eugenics programs and
> have endorsed them. And neoconservative governments such
> as Ralph Klein's government have refused to recompense the
> individuals for the errors made.

I am not familiar with the Canadian situation. Could
you explain this a little and what the motivation was
for introducing such measures.

> Cheers,
> Tom Asquith
> tasquith-@-gpu.srv.ualberta.ca

Best regards,

Hansjoerg Walther.

Tom Asquith

unread,

Sep 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/16/97

On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 00:09:09 +0200, Hansjoerg Walther
<wal...@nineties.com> wrote:

|Hello Tom,

|Tom Asquith wrote:
|>
|> On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:22:00 +0200, Hansjoerg Walther
|> <wal...@nineties.com> wrote:

|> |> In any society people will choose to have children. The only
|> |> way people can be compelled to have children (or not) is if
|> |> they were forcibly impregnated (or forceably sterilised to
|> |> stop them having kids).
|
|> |Exactly. Haven't you heard about the sterilzation programs
|> |in the Scandinavian countries? They started in the late 20s
|> |and lasted until the 70s. In Sweden about 60,000 people were
|> |coercively sterilized under Social Democratic governments.
|>
|> But Hansjoerg, you must also realize that stupidity knows
|> no ideological boundaries.

|Yet I think there is a common denominator.

|
|The point is that certain political theories do not
|see wealth as something belonging to individuals who
|are free to use it as they please, but as the collective
|wealth in a country which is to be taken care of by the
|state.

True (though for two of these this wasn't the original
basis of their governing ideologies--this also
hinges on our common understanding of what "wealth"
means). Also, I would argue that lumping these three
together is not unlike putting together a wolf, a hyena
and a moose in the same cage.

|In a way, they all share the common belief (with
|due qualifications, of course) that this wealth
|is to be managed by the state, that it should
|be distributed according to some scheme and that
|it is more or less not the property of individuals
|who can do with it what they please. (Again: the
|differences are considerable and I don't mean
|to equate these examples, especially not on a
|moral level).

Not quite true in the Swedish model (it seems that
your definition is perhaps a little too broad).

|The problem is: if you want to maximize collective
|wealth, what about those who cannot contribute as
|much as others to it because they are mentally
|retarded? If the state helps these people, it is
|clearly a waste of collective wealth and directly
|affects the size of the pie it can give to those
|who contribute at an average level and above.

Now this premise is problematic in that it has worked
in classical liberal thought as well as socialism.
Social darwinism is a separate ideology, and has affected
socialist and liberal democratic states alike.

Also, I note at this particular point that you haven't
demonstrated that the racism and socialism are
necessarily commensurate.

So far you have outlined the argument used by
the Fascist states quite admirably. But, this was
also used by 19th century Austrian and English
industrialists concerning their arguments of
regarding the building of personal wealth as
well.

|So Scandinavian welfare states chose sterilization
|(rather mild as compared to the other examples).
|AFAIK, the Social Democratic politicians used
|the argument that mentally retarded people were
|a loss to the welfare state, and therefore it
|should be done. Part of the reason for adopting
|and applying sterilization was also the drive
|to better the Scandinavian race.

I note here that you have started to use one of the key terms
that was intimately linked with the whole eugenics craze--the
issue of race. Race of course being opposed to "the state"
here. The challenge, as it seems to me, is the proof that
race is inseparable from socialism (in any of its forms).

I do note however that the problem of the handicapped is
equally problematic in its resolution in the libertarian
systems. If one chooses to follow the classical liberal
models of the 19th century, it seems that the 'struggle or perish'
idea is equally repugnant when one talks about those people
who cannot get out of the starting blocks in the human race,
And we ought not forget that the problem of the institution
was not restricted to communist block countries.

|If you share the premise that the objective of
|a government is to bake a cake as big as possible,
|you cannot escape this conclusion (you may stop short
|of the above measures, but I think, against better
|arguments, just because you introduce something
|else. E. g. Christians in Germany protested against
|the killing of mentally retarded people because
|it was against their faith, and they had a certain
|success with it), but basically the conclusion cannot
|be evaded on this level.

It seems that you are being rather restrictive in
your associations of ideologies with the problem
of social darwinism. It is also present in liberal,
conservative and dare I say libertarian thought.

Perhaps baking a big cake is a bad metaphor,
Hansjoerg--a better one would be: making sure
that one can be able to make a cake, period.

|I think the libertarian comment to this is crisp:
|it is none of the government's business whether
|I take my hard-eared money to help e. g. my mentally
|retarded child or send a check to a private charity.
|And if it is a minus in the sum of national wealth:
|to hell with it.

But Hansjoerg, why do you use two positive examples
for the libertarian alternatives? Could you have
also said that it wasn't the government's business
whether you chose to dump your legless son on a
bus stop bench to freeze to death or hoard your
money regardless of whether it could have been used
to assist a deaf person get by in society instead
of just letting the money wallow in a bank account
doing nothing? At least, in most Western
countries, you can get a tax writeoff for charitable
contributions...

rex

unread,

Sep 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/16/97

Interesting. A serious topic discussed politely? Did I stumble onto
to discussion list that wasn't on the internet?

Tom Asquith wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 00:09:09 +0200, Hansjoerg Walther
> <wal...@nineties.com> wrote:
>
> |Hello Tom,
>
> |Tom Asquith wrote:
> |>
> |> On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:22:00 +0200, Hansjoerg Walther
> |> <wal...@nineties.com> wrote:
>
> |> |> In any society people will choose to have children. The only
> |> |> way people can be compelled to have children (or not) is if
> |> |> they were forcibly impregnated (or forceably sterilised to
> |> |> stop them having kids).
> |
> |> |Exactly. Haven't you heard about the sterilzation programs
> |> |in the Scandinavian countries? They started in the late 20s
> |> |and lasted until the 70s. In Sweden about 60,000 people were
> |> |coercively sterilized under Social Democratic governments.
> |>
> |> But Hansjoerg, you must also realize that stupidity knows
> |> no ideological boundaries.

> |The problem is: if you want to maximize collective
> |wealth, what about those who cannot contribute as
> |much as others to it because they are mentally
> |retarded? If the state helps these people, it is
> |clearly a waste of collective wealth and directly
> |affects the size of the pie it can give to those
> |who contribute at an average level and above.
>
> Now this premise is problematic in that it has worked
> in classical liberal thought as well as socialism.
> Social darwinism is a separate ideology, and has affected
> socialist and liberal democratic states alike.

Here in Indiana there was a brief period of sterilization
from around 1900 to 1920, this is always labeled the "Progressive
Era". Eugenics was a world wide phenomenon

But I wouldn't say that was a classical liberal problem
or a socialist one.
It is a human problem. Human beings are frequently mean
and brutal and immoral. They have been mean in liberal
societies as well as collectivist ones.

But it is not "liberal". Simply by definition it is not
libertarian. It is wrong to push around peaceful people,
that's what libertarianism/classical liberalism is about -
opposition to the "initiation of force". Forced sterilization
of peaceful people *is* force.

> Also, I note at this particular point that you haven't
> demonstrated that the racism and socialism are
> necessarily commensurate.

Nope, he hasn't done that. That would be fairly impossible.
Although many books and articles have been written demonstrating
a link between the two. What they real say is that socialism
breeds discontent and rivalry for "pieces of the pie". Group
identification is also a human trait and the socialist competition
leads to a Balkanization that frequently breaks along racial and
tribal lines.

What can be easily shown is that socialism allows racism to
come out in immoral ways. Where in a libertarian society you
can: refuse to help, refuse to hire, refuse to work for, sell to
or rent fron someone for a racist reason.
Under Socialist rules you can kill, enslave, tax, regulate or sterilize
for a racist reason.

Libertarian rules *limit* what can be done *to* people. All of the
icky behavior you can *justly* do in a libertarian society involve
choosing not to *give* or not to *receive*. The collectivist
options involve anything. Socialism imposes no moral restraint
upon actions of the collective.

> |So Scandinavian welfare states chose sterilization
> |(rather mild as compared to the other examples).
> |AFAIK, the Social Democratic politicians used
> |the argument that mentally retarded people were
> |a loss to the welfare state, and therefore it
> |should be done. Part of the reason for adopting
> |and applying sterilization was also the drive
> |to better the Scandinavian race.
>
> I note here that you have started to use one of the key terms
> that was intimately linked with the whole eugenics craze--the
> issue of race. Race of course being opposed to "the state"
> here. The challenge, as it seems to me, is the proof that
> race is inseparable from socialism (in any of its forms).

I think you'll fail at doing that. But you won't fail in showing
that socialism (under its own rules) permits the vile
racist actions whereas classical liberalism does not.

> I do note however that the problem of the handicapped is
> equally problematic in its resolution in the libertarian
> systems. If one chooses to follow the classical liberal
> models of the 19th century, it seems that the 'struggle or perish'
> idea is equally repugnant when one talks about those people
> who cannot get out of the starting blocks in the human race,
> And we ought not forget that the problem of the institution
> was not restricted to communist block countries.

But collectivism doesn't solve that either.
A socialist can chose to kill or help the unfortunate.
A libertarian can chose to *ignore* or to help the unfortunate.

> |I think the libertarian comment to this is crisp:
> |it is none of the government's business whether
> |I take my hard-eared money to help e. g. my mentally
> |retarded child or send a check to a private charity.
> |And if it is a minus in the sum of national wealth:
> |to hell with it.
>
> But Hansjoerg, why do you use two positive examples
> for the libertarian alternatives? Could you have
> also said that it wasn't the government's business
> whether you chose to dump your legless son on a
> bus stop bench to freeze to death or hoard your

Not quite. You have agreed to raise and provide for your children
by the act of creating them. You chose to enter into
parent hood.

> money regardless of whether it could have been used
> to assist a deaf person get by in society instead

This is completely accurate. You can wallow in your
wealth while others starve.
But consider this example: If you use your computer to steal the
bank account of a starving Ethiopian you should be punished.
But if you use your computer to play Solitare we should
confiscate your computer and sell it in order to buy food
for that Ethiopian.

> of just letting the money wallow in a bank account
> doing nothing? At least, in most Western
> countries, you can get a tax writeoff for charitable
> contributions...
>
> Cheers,
> Tom Asquith
> tasquith-@-gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
> ---------------------------------------------------
> "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is
> king." --Desiderius Erasmus.
> ---------------------------------------------------

--
---------rex a...@aepix.com---------------------------------------------
"We hold that what one man may not morally do, ten men may not
morally do. Nor a thousand. Nor a million, Nor a government
representing many millions."

Caesar

unread,

Sep 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/17/97

In article <341ED9...@aepix.com> SPAMa...@aepix.com "rex" writes:

[snip]

> Under Socialist rules you can kill, enslave, tax, regulate or sterilize
> for a racist reason.

Surely, a racist mob can exist under any system and can use
violence to attack minorities.

Tom Asquith

unread,

Sep 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/17/97

On 9 Sep 1997 11:49:27 GMT, Henry Blaskowski
<jhb...@bigpapa.nothinbut.net> wrote:

|Tom Asquith <tasq...@ualberta.ca> wrote:

|Thanks for the intelligent response -- something that joker Mike Huben
|could never be bothered to do...

Well, thank-you. I guess.

|> |What, in the end, do [Dems/Reps/etc/ stand for? Apparently, their
|> | beliefs are
|> |"it's my turn to drive now!" -- even though they have no apparent
|> |destination in mind.

|> Hmm. It could be argued that this too is the goal of the Libertarian
|> Party, EXCEPT that when they take control of the car, they'll smash it
|> into the nearest tree.

|No, libertarians have a goal. A clear cut, explainable goal that is
|an improvement over the current "might makes right" system. Can you
|say as much for any other party?

How is it an improvement? According to whose standard? A slightly
impartial bunch of pro-capitalist disestablishmentarians? Or
how about a gaggle of Macawbers?

|> You would hold those who propose radical changes to the state of any
|> government to a greater degree of scrutiny--and this would include
the
|> libertarians. You forget that people do have a touch of
|> sentimentality--otherwise, how do you explain the existence of
|> conservative parties? Sometimes before one pursues the summit, one
|> stops and asks whether or not it can be done--without perishing in
the

|> attempt....[S]kepticism is the libertarians' enemy here.
|> Nothing less.

|This is correct. People should be skeptical of a group that comes
|in and says "follow us and we'll fix everything". Libertarians
|just ask for open eyes and ears. When Libertarians called for
|term limits back in the 70s, people said "too crazy". Now they're
|supported by 80% of the population. When libertarians said price
|controls would lead to economic turmoil, the Republicans charged
|ahead anyway, leading to the gas crisis of the 70's. Libertarians
|explained that an increase in the Insane War on Drugs would lead
|to increased violence in the cities. Now pundits are struggling
|for an explanation of the increased violence that doesn't admit
|that the IWOD is a failure. How many times do libertarians have
|to be right before we can even make the incremental changes that
|libertarians want (say, e.g., ending corporate welfare).

Although I agree with you (i.e., people's skepticism), I would also
point out that not all libertarians share this particular perspective.
Some libertarians do tend to take positions that are a little more
idealized, a little less than skeptical and quite close-minded
(depending on which camp one chooses to speak with).

Also one can't assert that libertarians would necessarily be
right without the actual testing of their theories. Note that
in making your very own assertion here you yourself have
taken a stand far removed from a cautious skepticism. Perhaps
this is why conservatives are usually regarded as being the
ideology of the skeptics.

|I only brought it up earlier to contradict the claim that libertarianism
|is untried. I never meant it to prove that "this is what the
|founding fathers wanted" -- surely a poor basis for government.

A good clarification. We'll halt pursuing this one.

snip! (re: freedom)

|> In short, it is a plastic word.
|
|But Libertarians meaning of the word is clear -- freedom from the coercion
|of neighbors when your actions don't affect them. Very simple, very
|clear. Of course, there are gray areas, but the concept, as discussed
|by libertarians, is simple and clear.

Just simplify it to negative liberty and I'd quickly agree.
(That is, negative liberty tends to mean "freedom from..." as
opposed to "freedom to...".

|> |> 5. Taxation is theft.
|
|> |This is discussed endlessly on the groups. Anyone who is interested
|> |in this tired subject should look there for both sides.
|
|> One could also call this a cop-out.
|
|No, maybe eventually I'll fill this section in, but I'm totally bored
|by the discussion. It goes nowhere and isn't particularly relevent
|to anything. To summarize it: some people claim it's theft because
|they didn't explicitly agree to taxes. Others say it's not because
|you implicitly agree by living here. The truth is somewhere in-between.
|If you use political connections to get taxes to subsidize your
|poorly managed business and keep it afloat, you are not much different
|from the criminal with the gun. But some taxes are necessary to
|finance the legal system.

Thanks for the attached summary (it was interesting to say the
least). And I'll let you have your escape from the endless
discussion. ;-)

|> |The difference, of course, is when the US "unilaterally" changes the
|> |rules, it affects 260,000,000 people, and then, there is nowhere
|> |to go.
|
|> This seems to be a side-stepping of the argument. In contract law,
|> although one may agree on a couple basic points of the contract, quite
|> often there are points that are left open by both parties even after the
|> contract was signed. The contract is still binding, even though one may
|> object to the changes occurring in some of these background conditions.
|
|This is what the legal system is for -- to decide which changes are
|valid and which aren't. No, everything can't be specified, but there
|is an implicit framework for an agreement that can't be changed. If
|that framework changes too much, contracts can be voided.
|
|As to the government, if Clinton declared "no more free speech for my
|opponents", are we to sigh and say oh well tough break? How many
|previously obvious and apparent rights have to go away before the
|libertarians have a point?

Well said. But be cautious about your use of the term "apparent
rights". It nearly sounds like a friend of mine who started a
mock society for the protection of pink elephants. Leave it
at rights and their decay, and your argument has more force.

But a fish can't live in the sea without swallowing something
left behind by another fish. In other words, short of being
a hermit, you have to live with and be accountable to your
fellow citizen.

|> But is it not possible that in a libertarian free market that the Mafia
|> and others bearing arms might engage in extortion?
|
|No, extortion would be illegal. Force would be illegal.

To quote Bugsy Mallone: it is only illegal if you get caught.
And if you have watered down the police force...

|> Ah, the user fee argument. Couldn't one think of taxes as a form of
|> user fee? Like that fitness club membership that you paid for in
|> advance or a life insurance policy.
|
|No, taxes are not the same because I have to pay for things I will
|never use and in fact object to. I would never pay for a club
|membership or insurance policy that I have no use for and am opposed
|to the term of.

True but the flipside of the argument usually runs along the
lines of "if you don't pay for it, everybody else will" and
that wouldn't be fair (regardless of whether we agree that
taxes are an evil or not). So much for avoiding the tax
argument.;-)

But is that insignificant or is that undetectable?

|> This is assuming that everyone is capable of making their own choices
|> and decisions, which remains to be tested. Many people died when the
|> provincial government merely suggested that seatbelts be worn in cars,
|> because many macho pig-headed drivers decided that it would be foolish
|> to do so. A penalty was needed to ensure that people wore the 'belts,
|> and consequently automobile deaths were reduced by a factor of 3.
|
|Why do you care if other people want to kill themselves. It's none
|of your business.

Tell that to the person driving on the highway who is faced with a
homicidal maniac charging head on.;-)

Alternatively, there is an argument that some conservative
thinkers have used, which is based on the ideas of an organic
view of society. Basically it proposes that each person plays
a role in society. When one person dies, society becomes weaker.
Although you may think it is no big whoop, each time a member
of this whole vanishes society ceases to run at peak efficiency.
And it is not just limited to the disappearance of that role
in the work force--it also tends to include family members
and close relations. Although you think that it is just
one person's life, directly or indirectly it could have an
impact on you.

It usually isn't wise to pick up a broken sword in the heat
of battle when there is a perfectly good one lying beside it.

|> |> Many libertarians use this as an "outreach" (read: evangelism) tool. By
|> |
|> |That's because libertarians can't rent out the Lincoln Bedroom or
|> |give rides on Air Force One as an "outreach (read: evangelism) tool".
|> |
|> |Yet.
|
|> So much for respect for history and the nation's institutions.
|
|Would you have preferred a smiley? I didn't think the joke was
|all that subtle...

Hey, you would be surprised at how literal people take things
on the UseNet. Been around 13 odd years and still people can't
see jokes. Standard rule of thumb: take the words as you see'em.
BTW, perhaps I should have used a smiley too.;-)

Although I do agree with you here, I was pointing out that it
is an intellectual tool used by libertarians (particularly
the cybertarian breed we see here on the 'Net) to help push
everybody who disagrees with them (with the noted exceptions
of the oddball neoconservatives) to the left of centre (with
the libertarians occupying centre and the neocons and fascists
taking the right).

Based on my reading of various academic journals and texts, the
only examples where "statist" appears as common usage lexicon
is in pieces written by Mises, Friedman, Rand, etc., or their
respective disciples. If one wishes to look at the history
of the word, it is well worth noting that it is a late 20th
century American term--coined only recently (according to
OED).

My only objection to the term is that it does do some
intellectual disservice to the members of more moderate
ideological positions who find themselves lumped in together
with some of the more stranger ideologies of this century.

But then again if the libertines, hedonists and shirkers want a
political wing all to themselves, their very own Liebenstraum, who am I
to deny them? :-) After all, what's in a name? It only
states what one perceives as characterizing a group, right?

--
----
Cheers,
Tom Asquith

University of Alberta
Edmonton, AB, Canada
tasquith-@-gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
-----------------------------------------------------
"A fixed idea ends in madness or heroism."
--Victor Hugo
-----------------------------------------------------

rex

unread,

Sep 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/18/97

Caesar wrote:
>
> In article <341ED9...@aepix.com> SPAMa...@aepix.com "rex" writes:
>
> [snip]
>

> > Under Socialist rules you can kill, enslave, tax, regulate or sterilize
> > for a racist reason.
>

> Surely, a racist mob can exist under any system and can use
> violence to attack minorities.

Absolutely. And throughout my orginal post you will see
me saying that icky behavior is a human trait.
Bad things are done by humans all the time.

My point was the distintion between Socialism/Authoritarianism
and Classical Liberalism/Libertarianism.

Socialism permits the state to do anything. There are NO limits
to what the state can do. It permits the state to rape pillage and
pluder and if the state says it is ok for a mob to violent then
it is OK. Whatever the state says is *right* under socialism.

While Libertarianism puts *limits* on the power of the state.
Libertarianism is "opposition to the initiation of force"
Therefore, the state is prohibited from "attacking [peaceful]
minorities"
And anyone who does attack peaceful minorities has done something
*wrong*. If the mob attacks them then the mob is wrong.

This is all about passing "moral" judgement on human actions.

Socialism == anything the state does is by definition, just and proper.

Libertarianism == The state is not special. We simply oppose the
initiation of force. Since the discussion is
*about* the state, we oppose the state initiating
force.

> Email address: Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk

-rex-

Caesar

unread,

Sep 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/18/97

In article <5vr1tc$dfd$1...@news3.microserve.net>
jhb...@bigpapa.nothinbut.net "Henry Blaskowski" writes:

>
> Caesar <Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <341ED9...@aepix.com> SPAMa...@aepix.com "rex" writes:
>
> > [snip]
>

> > > Under Socialist rules you can kill, enslave, tax, regulate or sterilize
> > > for a racist reason.
>

> > Surely, a racist mob can exist under any system and can use
> > violence to attack minorities.
>

> The point of is post, of course, was that under Socialism, it is
> "the state" that is doing it

Violent private mobs still exist in socialist nations.

>-- in other words, it is technically
> legal. Under free systems, such a mob and such behavior is illegal.

Who would surivive to procecute the mob for their "illegal behaviour"
in a "free system".

>
> See the difference?
>
> hblask
>

--
----------------------------------------------------------
Email address: Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk

-"Today is the tomorrow that you worried about yesterday"
----------------------------------------------------------

Caesar

unread,

Sep 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/18/97

In article <34213D...@aepix.com> SPAMa...@aepix.com "rex" writes:

> Socialism permits the state to do anything. There are NO limits
> to what the state can do. It permits the state to rape pillage and
> pluder and if the state says it is ok for a mob to violent then
> it is OK. Whatever the state says is *right* under socialism.

Not necessarily. Have you heard of the rights of due process
and the right to be free from arbitary arrest. They would,
for example, still hold in a society where the means of
production were state-owned.

>
> While Libertarianism puts *limits* on the power of the state.

Any written consitution does that.

> Libertarianism is "opposition to the initiation of force"
> Therefore, the state is prohibited from "attacking [peaceful]
> minorities"
> And anyone who does attack peaceful minorities has done something
> *wrong*. If the mob attacks them then the mob is wrong.

That's not much consolation to the victim of a mob.

>
> This is all about passing "moral" judgement on human actions.
>
> Socialism == anything the state does is by definition, just and proper.
>
> Libertarianism == The state is not special. We simply oppose the
> initiation of force. Since the discussion is
> *about* the state, we oppose the state initiating
> force.
>
>
> > Email address: Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk
>
> -rex-

Mike Huben

unread,

Sep 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/22/97

Archive-name: libertarian/non-lib-faq
Posting-Frequency: monthly

A Non-Libertarian FAQ.

Part of the "Critiques of Libertarianism" site.
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

Last updated 04/17/97.

Version 1.4

Copyright (c) 1997 Mike Huben.
This document may be freely distributed for non-commercial purposes if it is
reproduced in its textual entirety, with this notice intact.

Please send comments to mhu...@world.std.com . I welcome suggestions for
redistribution, additions, enhancements, and corrections.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

* INTRODUCTION
* ABOUT THIS FAQ
* WHAT IS LIBERTARIANISM?
* STRATEGIES FOR ARGUMENT
* LIBERTARIAN EVANGELISTIC ARGUMENTS

1. The original intent of the founders has been perverted.

2. The US Government ignores the plain meaning of the constitution.
3. The Declaration Of Independence says...

4. Libertarians are defenders of freedom and rights.

5. Taxation is theft.
6. If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will show up at your
house, initiate force and put you in jail.

7. Social Contract? I never signed no steenking social contract.

8. The social contract is like no other because it can be
"unilaterally" modified.

9. Other misc. claims denying the social contract.
10. Why should I be coerced to leave if I don't like the social
contract?
11. Do Cubans under Castro agree to their social contract?

12. Isn't that "love it or leave it"?

13. Why should we be coerced to accept the social contract? Why can't
we be left alone?
14. We can't emigrate because there is no libertarian nation.

15. Extortion by the state is no different than extortion by the
Mafia.

16. There's no such thing as rights to govern territory!

17. Why should I be told what to do with my property? That infringes
on my rights of ownership.
18. Of course it's my property. I paid money and hold the deed.

19. New limitations on use of property are a taking, and should be
compensated.

20. Think how much wealthier we'd be if we didn't pay taxes.

21. We lived in a fairly libertarian society in the US 150 years ago.

22. "Might Makes Right" is the principle behind statism.

23. I want self-government, not other-government.

24. Why shouldn't we adopt libertarian government now?

25. There's a conspiracy to prevent a working libertarian experiment.

26. An event is explained by the issue at hand.

27. Haven't you read "Libertarianism in One Lesson"?

28. Have you read "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority"?
29. Libertarians oppose the initiation of force.

30. Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave Laws were examples of government
enforcement of slavery.

31. The World's Smallest Political Quiz. [Nolan Test]

32. The Libertarian Party: America's third largest political party.

33. You're a Statist!

34. Why do you spend so much time trying to debunk?
* QUOTATIONS POPULAR WITH LIBERTARIAN EVANGELISTS
o Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)
o Lysander Spooner (1808-1887)
o Thomas Jefferson
o Alexander Fraser Tyler
o Ayn Rand
o Andre Marrou
o James A. Donald
o Unattributed
* LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY
* CRITICAL REFERENCES
* BIBLIOGRAPHY
* CREDITS

INTRODUCTION

Many USENET readers encounter libertarianism for the first time on USENET.
Such unfamiliar claims might be quite difficult to judge if we haven't had
the time to think of reasons why the claims might be false. This FAQ is
intended to review a few common libertarian claims that seem wrong to
newcomers, and present some arguments in opposition that show their
shortcomings.

ABOUT THIS FAQ

The purpose of this FAQ is not to attack libertarianism, but some of the
more fallacious arguments within it. That done, libertarians can then
reformulate or reject these arguments. This is also needed to help people
place libertarianism and its arguments in context. It is very hard to find
any literature about libertarianism that was NOT written by its advocates.
This isolation from normal political discourse makes it difficult to
evaluate libertarian claims without much more research or analysis than most
of us have time for. Compare this to (for example) the extensive literature
of socialism and communism written by ideologues, scholars, pundits, etc. on
all sides. Libertarianism is scantily analyzed outside its own movement.
Let's fix that.

This particular FAQ is mostly a personal view of libertarianism. It is
impossible to have an objective view of something like libertarianism, and
it would be a mistake to presume this FAQ is. (Or that the FAQs written by
proponents are.) It is also impossible for this FAQ to represent all the
opposing positions to libertarianism, though I hope to see many future
contributions from others. One notable failing (common to many libertarians
as well) is that this FAQ is rather US-centric. All statements in this FAQ
can be argued further by both sides, and indeed most have in several answers
to this FAQ. However, feel free to save a copy of this FAQ and cite from it.
It may not be ultimate truth, but it can be a starting point for answers to
libertarianism.

The editor and primary author, Mike Huben , has 20 years experience in
debate over electronic networks. Much of that has been with religious
believers and creationists, and this colors some of the arguments and
examples. No judgement or personal offense is intended, though there is a
substantial amount of ridicule of arguments (based in large part on my
belief that it is the most effective antidote to pompous argument.) I
welcome recommendations for alleviating offense while retaining the sense
and humor of the arguments.

This FAQ is an unfinished work. Vast sections have yet to be created: as in
talk.origins, we might expect perhaps 20 FAQs to eventually result. Only the
first major section (Evangelism) has been written and included here. This
FAQ is written in HTML, then converted to plain text for posting.

WHAT IS LIBERTARIANISM?

It's hard to clearly define libertarianism. "It's a desert topping!" "No,
it's a floor wax!" "Wait-- it's both!" It's a mixture of social philosophy,
economic philosophy, a political party, and more. It would be unjust for me
to try to characterize libertarianism too exactly: libertarians should be
allowed to represent their own positions. At least two FAQs have been
created by libertarians to introduce their positions. But the two major
flavors are anarcho-capitalists (who want to eliminate political
governments) and minarchists (who want to minimize government.) There are
many more subtle flavorings, such as Austrian and Chicago economic schools,
gold-bug, space cadets, Old-Right, paleo-libertarians, classical liberals,
hard money, the Libertarian Party, influences from Ayn Rand, and others. An
interesting survey is in chapter 36 of Marshall's "Demanding the Impossible:
A History of Anarchism", "The New Right and Anarcho-capitalism."

This diversity of libertarian viewpoints can make it quite difficult to have
a coherent discussion with them, because an argument that is valid for or

against one type of libertarianism may not apply to other types. This is a
cause of much argument in alt.politics.libertarian: non-libertarians may
feel that they have rebutted some libertarian point, but some other flavor
libertarian may feel that his "one true libertarianism" doesn't have that
flaw. These sorts of arguments can go on forever because both sides think
they are winning. Thus, if you want to try to reduce the crosstalk, you're
going to have to specify what flavor of libertarianism or which particular
point of libertarianism you are arguing against.

Libertarians are a small group whose beliefs are unknown to and not accepted
by the vast majority. They are utopian because there has never yet been a

libertarian society (though one or two have come close to some libertarian

ideas.) These two facts should not keep us from considering libertarian
ideas seriously, however they do caution us about accepting them for
practical purposes.

STRATEGIES FOR ARGUMENT

Many libertarian arguments are like fundamentalist arguments: they depend
upon restricting your attention to a very narrow field so that you will not
notice that they fail outside of that field. For example, fundamentalists
like to restrict the argument to the bible. Libertarians like to restrict
the argument to their notions of economics, justice, history, and rights and

their misrepresentations of government and contracts. Widen the scope, and
their questionable assumptions leap into view. Why should I accept that
"right" as a given? Is that a fact around the world, not just in the US? Are
there counter examples for that idea? Are libertarians serving their own
class interest only? Is that economic argument complete, or are there other
critical factors or strategies which have been omitted? When they make a
historical argument, can we find current real-world counterexamples? If we
adopt this libertarian policy, there will be benefits: but what will the
disadvantages be? Are libertarians reinventing what we already have, only
without safeguards?

There are some common counterarguments for which libertarians have excellent
rebuttals. Arguments that government is the best or only way to do something
may fail: there are many examples of many government functions being
performed privately. Some of them are quite surprising. Arguments based on
getting any services free from government will fail: all government services
cost money that comes from somewhere. Arguments that we have a free market
are patently untrue: there are many ways the market is modified.

There are a number of scientific, economic, political, and philosophical
concepts which you may need to understand to debate some particular point.
These include free market, public goods, externalities, tragedy of the
commons, prisoner's dilemma, adverse selection, market failure, mixed
economy, evolution, catastrophe theory, game theory, etc. Please feel free
to suggest other concepts for this list.

One way to bring about a large volume of argument is to cross-post to
another political group with opposing ideas, such as
alt.politics.radical-left. The results are quite amusing, though there is a
lot more heat than light. Let's not do this more often than is necessary to
keep us aware that libertarianism is not universally accepted.

LIBERTARIAN EVANGELISTIC ARGUMENTS

Evangelists (those trying to persuade others to adopt their beliefs)
generally have extensively studied which arguments have the greatest effect
on the unprepared. Usually, these arguments are brief propositions that can
be memorized easily and regurgitated in large numbers. These arguments, by
the process of selection, tend not to have obvious refutations, and when
confronted by a refutation, the commonest tactic is to recite another
argument. This eliminates the need for actual understanding of the basis of
arguments, and greatly speeds the rate at which evangelists can be trained.

Without preparation, even blatantly fallacious arguments may disturb or
convince a targeted individual. Evangelists, who tend to be more interested
in effect than in accuracy, don't tend to point out that there are usually
lots of valid counterarguments available, sometimes known for millennia.

If the target is not the person spoken to (it may be a group of onlookers,
such as the lurkers in newsgroups or listeners on a radio show), we might
expect that the "discussion" will focus on making the person spoken to seem
wrong, ridiculous, uncomfortable, at a loss, etc.

Small wonder many people are not interested in entering "discussions" with
evangelists! They're likely to be out-prepared, swamped (or worse convinced)
by specious arguments, and possibly used as a cat's paw in the persuasion of
listeners.

The arguments treated here are not strawman misrepresentations: they are all
evangelistic arguments that have actually been made by libertarians. Many of
them have been made frequently. Although they are often used
evangelistically, we can't presume that someone making them doesn't
understand their basis or cannot support their argument. And on the other
hand, often other libertarians cringe when they hear these.

Most of these questions are phrased as assertions: that is simply a less
clumsy shorthand for "How could I respond to a libertarian claiming X?",
where X is the assertion.

1. The original intent of the founders has been perverted.

The founders of the USA were a contentious lot, who hardly agreed on
any one thing, let alone libertarian notions. It is well documented
that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are compromises amongst them:
few agreed wholeheartedly with any particular part. Thus, looking to
the founders for "original intent" is silly: it will vary amongst them.
Not to mention that "original intent" (or original understanding) is
just as open to interpretation as the Constitution itself because while
there is lots of explicit data, it is from many contradictory sources.
For example, Judge Bork presents notably non-libertarian versions of
original intent.

I think the best way to interpret the constitution is the way the
founders explicitly specified in the Constitution: look to the courts,
especially the Supreme Court. The Constitution leaves the method of its
interpretation by the court entirely to the court to decide. This begs
the question of how to judge the interpretive philosophies of the
possible justices, but libertarians seldom get that far.

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of
the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the
judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain
its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding
from the legislative body." Federalist No. 78.

There is no reason short of worship of the founders to presume that the
Supreme Court is less capable than the founders. Indeed, many
libertarians from outside the US find the authority of the founders
unconvincing. One writes: "As a Canadian, I don't give a _damn_ what
the `founders' intended. I hate it when a net.opponent trots out some
bit of tired U.S. history as a most holy of holies, not to be
questioned."

Jefferson himself said this plainly: "Some men look at constitutions
with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the
Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the
preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be
beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the
progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more
enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance
also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to
wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to
remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

2. The US Government ignores the plain meaning of the constitution.

Often this is presented as "The US wouldn't be so bad if the government
followed the Constitution."

"Plain meaning" is a matter of opinion. A plain meaning one century can
well be reversed in another, depending on popular usage, historical
context, etc. Well intentioned people can disagree on "plain meaning"
endlessly, as we see in any non-unanimous court decision. For practical
purposes, the meaning MUST be decided one way or another.

Libertarian claims of "plain meaning" are often clearly shaped by their
beliefs. Where this occurs, it's pretty obvious that their claims to
"plain meaning" are not "common sense".

3. The Declaration Of Independence says...

The Declaration Of Independence is a rhetorical document, without legal
standing in the USA. That status was a deliberate decision of the
founders, not an accident. If it is purported to reflect the intent of
the founders, then we can only conclude that they changed their minds
when writing the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution.

Nor should it be mistaken for a philosophical treatise: that was not
its purpose. If a libertarian would like to defend it as philosophy, he
should rely on sound argument, not reverence for the founders.

4. Libertarians are defenders of freedom and rights.

Libertarians frequently try to present themselves as the group to join
to defend your freedom and rights. Lots of other organizations (many of
which you would not want to be associated with, such as Scientologists)
also fight for freedom and rights. I prefer the ACLU. (Indeed, if you
wish to act effectively, the ACLU is the way to go: they advertise that
they take on 6,000 cases a year free of charge, and claim involvement
in 80% of landmark Supreme Court cases since 1920.)

It would be foolish to oppose libertarians on such a mom-and-apple-pie

issue as freedom and rights: better to point out that there are
EFFECTIVE alternatives with a historical track record, something
libertarianism lacks.

Nor might we need or want to accept the versions of "freedom" and
"rights" that libertarians propose. To paraphrase Anatole France: "How
noble libertarianism, in its majestic equality, that both rich and poor
are equally prohibited from peeing in the privately owned streets
(without paying), sleeping under the privately owned bridges (without
paying), and coercing bread from its rightful owners!"

5. Taxation is theft.

Two simple rebuttals to this take widely different approaches.

The first is that property is theft. The notion behind property is that
A declares something to be property, and threatens anybody who still
wants to use it. Where does A get the right to forcibly stop others
from using it? Arguments about "mixing of labor" with the resource as a
basis for ownership boil down to "first-come-first-served". This
criticism is even accepted by some libertarians, and is favorably
viewed by David Friedman. This justifies property taxes or extraction
taxes on land or extractable resources if you presume that the
government is a holder in trust for natural resources. (However, most
people who question the creation of property would agree that after the
creation of property, a person is entitled to his earnings. Thus the
second argument)

The second is that taxation is part of a social contract. Essentially,
tax is payment in exchange for services from government. This kind of
argument is suitable for defending almost any tax as part of a
contract. Many libertarians accept social contract (for example,
essentially all minarchists must to insist on a monopoly of
government.) Of course they differ as to what should be IN the
contract.

6. If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will show up at your house,
initiate force and put you in jail.

This is not initiation of force. It is enforcement of contract, in this
case an explicit social contract. Many libertarians make a big deal of
"men with guns" enforcing laws, yet try to overlook the fact that "men
with guns" are the basis of enforcement of any complete social system.
Even if libertarians reduced all law to "don't commit fraud or initiate
force", they would still enforce with guns.

7. Social Contract? I never signed no steenking social contract.

That argument and some of the following libertarian arguments are
commonly quoted from Lysander Spooner.

The constitution and the laws are our written contracts with the
government.

There are several explicit means by which people make the social
contract with government. The commonest is when your parents choose
your residency and/or citizenship after your birth. In that case, your
parents or guardians are contracting for you, exercising their power of

custody. No further explicit action is required on your part to
continue the agreement, and you may end it at any time by departing and
renouncing your citizenship.

Immigrants, residents, and visitors contract through the oath of
citizenship (swearing to uphold the laws and constitution), residency
permits, and visas. Citizens reaffirm it in whole or part when they
take political office, join the armed forces, etc. This contract has a
fairly common form: once entered into, it is implicitly continued until
explicitly revoked. Many other contracts have this form: some leases,
most utility services (such as phone and electricity), etc.

Some libertarians make a big deal about needing to actually sign a
contract. Take them to a restaurant and see if they think it ethical to
walk out without paying because they didn't sign anything. Even if it
is a restaurant with a minimum charge and they haven't ordered
anything. The restaurant gets to set the price and the method of
contract so that even your presence creates a debt. What is a
libertarian going to do about that? Create a regulation?

8. The social contract is like no other because it can be "unilaterally"
modified.

Not true. Consider the purchase of a condominium. You have a contract

with the condominium association, agreeing to pay the fees they levy

for the services they provide and obey the rules that they create. You
have an equal vote with the other residents on the budget and the
rules. If you don't like the budget or rules that are enacted, you can
vote with your feet or persuade everyone to change them.

There are numerous other common sorts of contracts that allow changes
by one or both sides without negotiation. Gas, electric, oil, water,
phone, and other utility services normally have contracts where at most
they need to notify you in advance when they change their rates.
Insurance companies raise their rates, and your only input is either
pay the new rates or "vote with your feet". (The exception is when
rates are supervised by government regulatory agencies.)

9. Other misc. claims denying the social contract.

One commonly cited Spooner argument is that the social contract is like
no other, and thus not a contract. That's a nonsequitur. A unique
feature or combination of features doesn't disqualify something from
being a contract.

Some complain that the social contract is fundamentally unjust because
it doesn't treat people equally, that people are taxed unequally or
receive services unequally. So? Like insurance, rates can vary from
individual to individual, and services received may be more or less
than premiums paid.

Some complain "Any contract where the enforcing agency is one of the
contractors is hardly fair." But the U.S. Constitution is a contract
between SEVERAL parties: the three branches of the government, the
states, and citizens. It's a multilateral contract where every party is
subject to enforcement by one or more of the other parties, and every
party is involved in enforcement for at least one other. This pattern
of checks and balances was specifically designed to deal with precisely
this fairness issue.

10. Why should I be coerced to leave if I don't like the social contract?

Why leave an apartment if you change your mind about the lease? You do
not own the apartment, just as you do not own the nation. At most, you
may own some property within the apartment, just as you may own some
property within the nation.

11. Do Cubans under Castro agree to their social contract?

If you define contracts as voluntary, then you probably wouldn't say
the Cuban government operates by social contract, since most people who
wanted to emmigrate have not been permitted to.

Most libertarians have a peculiar definition of voluntary: contractual
agreement makes all requirements of the contract "voluntary", no matter
how unexpected they are, no matter how long the contract lasts for, no
matter if the contractee changes his mind. However, they're seldom
willing to view our social contract in that manner.

Our social contract in the USA is one of the nice, voluntary contracts
that libertarians should like. Even better, because you can terminate
it by leaving at any time. There is no US government obstacle to
emmigration from the US.

12. Isn't that "love it or leave it"?

Nope. This is a distinction that seems too subtle for a lot of
libertarians: the difference between having a choice and having to
leave.

For example, let's say you live in a condominium, and are very fond of

it. As long as you can move out, you have a choice. No matter how
firmly you intend to stay. No matter how much you prefer your current
condo. No matter how good or bad your current condo is for you, you
still have a choice.

This is analogous to living in a nation. You choose which one to live
in, and you can change. You may not be able to improve some things
about it all by yourself, because it is not entirely yours.

You have at least 4 choices. 1) Tolerate the social contract, and
perhaps try to amend it. 2) Leave it by emigrating. 3) Violate it. 4)
Revolt.

13. Why should we be coerced to accept the social contract? Why can't we be
left alone?

You are not coerced to accept US government services any more than you
are coerced to rent or purchase a place to live. If pretty much all
territory is owned by governments, and pretty much all houses and
apartments are owned, well, did you want them to grow on trees? There

ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

14. We can't emigrate because there is no libertarian nation.

Yes you can emmigrate, just as you could buy a different car even
though your favorite company doesn't produce cars which let you travel
at the speed of sound and get 2000 mpg. Even if nobody produces EXACTLY
what you want, you can choose any car the market produces or you create
yourself.

There are roughly 200 nations to which you could emmigrate. They are
the product of an anarcho-capitalist free market: there is no
over-government dictating to those sovereign nations. Indeed, the only
difference between the anarchy of nations and libertopia is that
anarcho-capitalists are wishing for a smaller granularity. These
nations have found that it is most cost-efficient to defend themselves
territorially.

If any other market provided 200 choices, libertarians would declare
that the sacred workings of the market blessed whatever choices were
offered. The point is that choices do exist: it's up to libertarians to
show that there is something wrong with the market of nations in a way
they would accept being applied to markets within nations.

Libertaria is a combination of values that just doesn't exist: the
government equivalent of a really posh residence for very little money.
You can find nations which have much lower taxes, etc.: just don't
expect them to be first class.

And the reason these combinations don't exist is probably simple: the
free market of government services essentially guarantees that there is
no such thing as the free lunch libertarians want. It's not
competitive.

15. Extortion by the state is no different than extortion by the Mafia.

This is a prize piece of libertarian rhetoric, because it slides in the

accusation that taxation is extortion. This analogy initially seems
strong, because both are territorial. However, libertarians consider
contractual rental of land by owners (which is also fundamentally
territorial) ethical, and consider coercion of squatters by those
owners ethical. The key difference is who owns what. The Mafia doesn't
own anything to contract about. The landowner owns the land (in a
limited sense.) And the US government owns rights to govern its
territory. (These rights are a form of property, much as mineral rights
are a form of property. Let's not confuse them with rights of
individuals.) Thus, the social contract can be required by the
territorial property holder: the USA.

16. There's no such thing as rights to govern territory!

You'd have to ignore an awful lot of history to claim this sort of
PROPERTY didn't exist. The US government can demonstrate ownership of
such rights through treaty, purchase, bequeathment by the original
colonies and some other states, and conquest. The EXACT same sources as
all other forms of land ownership in the US. Also note that governance
rights are merely a subset of the rights that anarcho-libertarians
would want landowners to have. For example, insistence on contractual
obedience to regulations and acceptance of punishment for violations.

17. Why should I be told what to do with my property? That infringes on my
rights of ownership.

This question comes up rather often, since absolute ownership of
property is fundamental to most flavors of libertarianism. Such
propertarianism fuels daydreams of being able to force the rest of the
world to swirl around the immovable rock of your property. For example,
there were trespass lawsuits filed against airlines for flying over
property.

A good answer is: what makes you so sure it is yours?

18. Of course it's my property. I paid money and hold the deed.

What do you hold the deed to? Property as recognized by a government.
As such, you can address infringement of your rights through the legal
system. However your property as recognized by the legal system is
limited.

This isn't too surprising, since limitations created by private
transactions are also common. For example, property is often sold
without water rights or timber rights. Property is commonly sold with
easements: for example a neighbor may have the right to cross to reach
the road. And property may be sold with limitations to its usage: for
example, the Adirondack State Park was bequeathed to the people of New
York State with the stipulation that it remain forever wild.

Most government limitations on property are analogous, and you bought
property that was already under those limitations. Just as it would be
wrong to deny the validity of an easement sold by the previous owner,
it is wrong to deny the validity of the current system of limited
ownership of property. For example, a clear statement of such an
"easement" is in the Fourth Amendment, which essentially says that the
government can enter your property with a valid search warrant and not
be trespassing.

There are many existing limitations such as government rights to tax
and to zone property, limitations to ownership of navigable waters, how
far property extends to the water, etc. And sometimes new limitations
are specified, such as non-ownership of airspace above property.

19. New limitations on use of property are a taking, and should be
compensated.

Some new limitations can be viewed as merely making specific that what
was claimed was never really owned. For example, where was ownership of
airspace above property ever explicitly granted in our system of
property? Where were polluters ever explicitly granted the right to
dump wastes into air or water that they do not have a title to?

Other limitations (such as rezoning to eliminate undesirable business
or protecting wetlands from development) might be viewed as control of
negative externalities. Most libertarians would recognize the right of
a mall owner to write his leases so that he could terminate them if the
renters cause externalities: why shouldn't communities have this right
to self-governance as well?

20. Think how much wealthier we'd be if we didn't pay taxes.

This is a classic example of libertarians not looking at the complete
equation for at least two reasons. (1) If taxes are eliminated, you'll
need to purchase services that were formerly provided by government.

(2) If taxes are eliminated, the economics of wages have changed, and
wages will change as well.

Here's a really ludicrous (but real) example of (1): "With taxation
gone, not only will we have twice as much money to spend, but it will
go twice as far, since those who produce goods and services won't have
to pay taxes, either. In one stroke we'll be effectively four times as
rich. Let's figure that deregulation will cut prices, once again, by
half. Now our actual purchasing power, already quadrupled by
deTAXification, is doubled again. We now have eight times our former
wealth!" (L. Neil Smith)

And here's an example of (2): "I'm self-employed. My pay would
absolutely, positively go up 15+% tomorrow if I wasn't paying
FICA/Medicare." But only briefly. Standard microeconomic theory applies
just as well to someone selling labor as to someone selling widgits. If
FICA disappeared, your competitors in the market to sell labor would be
attracted to the higher wages and would sell more labor. This increase
in supply of labor would drive down your wage from the 15% increase.
You'd earn more (per hour). But less than 15% more.

21. We lived in a fairly libertarian society in the US 150 years ago.

A classic libertarian roll-back-the-clock argument, that sounds good at
first because none of us directly remembers it. Libertarians do usually
remember and criticize some of the more prominent non-libertarian
features of that period, such as unequal protection under the law for
blacks and women. However, they seem to overlook a lot of other
important things.

Yes, the Federal government had a much lighter hand then. However,
state and local governments had a much greater influence. There is not
one class of positive duty or obligation in the US today that did not

exist 200 years ago at state or federal level.

All the biggies were there except income tax. The equivalent of income
tax was property tax (on all possessions) or head tax by many states.
There was involuntary conscription, eminent domain, etc. As a matter of
fact, things got much better when powers of states were interpreted to
be restricted by the US constitution (much later.) Powers such as state
religious authority.

Also, society was organized quite differently before the industrial
revolution spread to the US. Our "nation of shopkeepers" was actually a
nation of farmers. The means of production were controlled primarily by
the workers (who were the owners of the farms and shops.) Government of

that era would be as out-of-place today as the tarriffs and scientific
knowledge of that era.

22. "Might Makes Right" is the principle behind statism.

No, "Might makes ability to make something", Right or Wrong. You can't
even try for Right until you have Might to back it up in the real
world. That's the reason that some real governments have survived and
all utopian governments that have tried to abolish force have failed.

However, government is not alone in requiring might. All property is
based on might as well. Nobody is beholden to your notions of what
constitutes your property. Property is just as "involuntary" as the
social contract. There is no moral obligation for anyone to respect
your property: only a practical one.

Recognition that the fundamental nature of property is based on force
is essential to recognition that there are costs and benefits to the
principle of property. It is not as negative a "right" as libertarians
like to portray it.

23. I want self-government, not other-government.

"Self government" is libertarian newspeak for "everybody ought to be
able to live as if they are the only human in the universe, if only
they believe in the power of libertarianism." It's a utopian ideal like
those of some Marxists and born-agains that would essentially require
some sort of human perfection to work.

More explicitly, "self government" is the peculiar notion that other
people ought not to be able to regulate your behavior. Much as we would
like to be free of such regulation, most people also want to be able to

regulate the behavior of others for practical reasons. Some
libertarians claim that they want the first so much, that they will be
willing to forgo the second. Most other people feel that both are
necessary (and that it would be hypocritical or stupid to want just
one.)

24. Why shouldn't we adopt libertarian government now?

Because there are no working examples of libertarian cities, states, or
nations.

Innumerable other ideologies have put their money where their mouths
are, if not their lives. Examples include most nations that have had
Marxist revolutions, Israel, many of the American colonies, a huge
number of religious and utopian communities, etc.

Yet libertarians want us to risk what many of them consider the best
nation in the world with their untested beliefs. It's not even sensible
to convert here first for the claimed economic benefits of
libertarianism: there would be less marginal benefit to converting the
USA to a libertarian system than most other nations. Let libertarians
bear the risk and cost of their own experiment.

Let libertarians point to successful libertarian programs to seek our
endorsement. For example, narcotic decriminalization in Holland has
been a success. So has legalized prostitution in Nevada and Germany
(and probably other places.) Privatization of some municipal services
has been successful in some communities. But these are extremely small
scale compared to the total libertarian agenda, and do not rule out
emergent problems and instabilities of a full scale libertarian system.

25. There's a conspiracy to prevent a working libertarian experiment.

Right. Uh huh. [Read: sarcasm.]

Libertarians sometimes cite the Minerva project (armed squatting on a
Tongan island) and an attempted overthrow of the government of
Suriname. If libertarians are too inept to compete internationally
through diplomacy, politics, bribery, or force of arms, it hardly takes
a conspiracy to explain that they lost. That's what sovereignty takes.

A working libertarian experiment could be easily county sized. A tiny
religious sect was able to buy control of Antelope, Oregon and relocate
there a few years ago: the vastly more numerous libertarians could do
much more. Privatize the roads, schools, libraries, police. Abolish
property taxes, zoning, anything not required by the state. Then show
the benefits. Yes, the state will prevent you from achieving some
libertarian goals: do what you can to show how you can improve things.
You shouldn't have to go 100% libertarian to show marked benefits
according to most libertarian claims.

26. An event is explained by the issue at hand.

This is really a class of argument, "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", that
is made all too often by arguers of all stripes. The claims made with
this sort of argument by libertarians are innumerable. Counter examples
and other issues that plainly had influence are usually extremely easy
to find. Here are some real claims actually made in a.p.l.

For example: "The automotive recession started in October 1989, which
was the start of the requirement that some cars of each manufacturer be
fitted with air bags... Perhaps the reason that car sales have gone
down is that many consumers are not willing to pay for a car with air
bags."

For example: "There are as many military reasons why the draft is bad
as there are moral ones. Witness our success using a volunteer army
versus a conscripted one."

It would be possible to collect libertarian examples of the other
classes of fallacies of argument, but this frequent one can serve as
the exemplar. This particular one comes up a lot because of the lure of
testing theory with reality.

27. Haven't you read "Libertarianism in One Lesson"?

Every belief system has its evangelistic writings, designed to help
convince or draw in new members. The Campus Crusade for Christ uses
"Evidence That Demands A Verdict", Scientology uses "Dianetics", and
libertarians use "Libertarianism in One Lesson".

All of these books are very convincing-- in the absence of
counterargument. However, they are easily rebutted by skeptics because
they MUST omit the exceptions to their point of view to be convincing.

If I may cite a convert: "Libertarians like me believe in a simple
morality-- everyone should be free to do what they like, so long as
they don't initiate use of force... If you're not familiar with this
morality, I urge you to read "Libertarianism in One Lesson", by David
Bergland. I was personally shocked to find that things could be so
neatly axiomatized, and what's even more remarkable is that in the
empirical world, societies seem to me to be punished in an eye for an
eye fashion from their deviation from this simple morality. We are
deviating quite a bit and suffering accordingly... in my view this is
why economic growth is stagnating, the inner cities are dying..."

Any time I read how simple it is to understand the world through system
X, I know I'm dealing with a convert from evangelistic writings. They
blithely assert that their explanations show the true cause of current
problems. And the key to showing them to be wrong, is to show that
there's more complexity to the world than is encompassed by their
simplistic explanations.

28. Have you read "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority"?

"No Treason" is a lengthy rant that doesn't take longer than the first
paragraph to begin its egregious errors.

For example, in the first paragraph: "It [The Constitution] purports,
at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years
ago." Thus he focuses his attention on the Preamble, and evidently
ignores Article VII, which says EXACTLY who contracted for the
Constitution:

"The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient
for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so
ratifying the same. Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the
States present, the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our
Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and of the
Independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In Witness
whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our names."
[signatories FOR STATES omitted.]

He's wrong on this simple matter of fact: the constitution says who
contracted with whom. But then he goes on to make a big deal about the
people of that era being dead, as if contracts between organizations
lapse when their office holders depart.

The rest of his "analysis" is equally shoddy, and consists largely of
calling government a collection of thieves and murderers at least 75
times. David Friedman, in "The Machinery of Freedom", says Spooner
"attacks the contract theory of government like a lawyer arguing a
case": but REAL presentations of cases have to cope with
counterarguments, and can't depend so heavily on invalid presumptions
which are easily shot full of holes.

29. Libertarians oppose the initiation of force.

How noble. And I'm sure that in a real libertarian society, everybody
would hold to this morality as much as Christians turn the other cheek.
[ :-( For the sarcasm-impaired.]

"Initiation of force" is another libertarian newspeak term that does
not mean what the uninitiated might think. Libertarians except defense

of property and prosecution of fraud, and call them retaliatory force.
But retaliation can be the initiation of force: I don't need force to
commit theft or fraud. This is a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand that

libs like to play so that they can pretend they are different than
government. You know: break a law (like not paying your taxes) and MEN
WITH GUNS initiate force. Sorry, but you've gotta play fair: it can't
be initiation for government and retaliation for you.

Like most other non-pacifistic belief systems, libertarians want to
initiate force for what they identify as their interests and call it
righteous retaliation, and use the big lie technique to define
everything else as evil "initiation of force". They support the initial
force that has already taken place in the formation of the system of
property, and wish to continue to use force to perpetuate it and make
it more rigid.

The National Libertarian Party membership form has "the pledge" on it:
"I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of
achieving political or social goals." It's quite amusing to hear how
much libertarians disagree over what it means: whether it is or isn't
ok to overthrow the US because it has "initiated force" and they would
be "retaliating".

Beyond this perceived class interest, libertarian dislike of
"initiation of force" isn't much different than anyone else's. It may
be humanitarian, defensive, etc.

30. Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave Laws were examples of government
enforcement of slavery.

No. There's a subtle distinction: they were enforcement of property
rights of slaveowners. It was entirely the owners assertion that he was
property that the government was acting upon. If the owner had at any
time freed him, he would not have been a slave.

Libertarians would love to lay slavery at the feet of government
precisely because slavery is a sin of capitalism. The US government
NEVER enslaved the blacks. The US government never said "you must now
own this slave" or "you've never been a slave before, but you are one
now." US slavery was initiated by capitalists.

The US government was NOT in the business of proclaiming people free or
slaves: that was a private sector responsibility until that Evil
Statist Lincoln stole that sacred private right for the State. Until
that time, only private, capitalist owners had the right to declare
whether a black person was free or slave.

31. The World's Smallest Political Quiz. [Nolan Test]

This libertarian quiz asks a set of leading questions to tempt you to
proclaim yourself a libertarian. The big trick is that if you answer

yes to each question, you are a macho SELF GOVERNOR: there is an
unspoken sneer to those who would answer anything else. It is an
ideological litmus test.

The most obvious criticism of this quiz is that it tries to graph the
range of politics onto only 2 axes, as if they were the only two that
mattered, rather than the two libertarians want the most change in. For
example, if socialists were to create such a test, they would use a
different set of axes.

The second obvious criticism is typical of polls taken to show false
levels of support: the questions are worded to elicit the desired
response. This is called framing bias. For example, on a socialist
test, you might see a question such as "Do you believe people should
help each other?" Libertarians would answer "yes" to this question; the
problem is the "but"s that are filtered out by the question format.

Many libertarians use this as an "outreach" (read: evangelism) tool. By

making it easy to get high scores on both axes, subjects can be told
that they are already a libertarian and just didn't know it. This is
the same sort of suckering that cold readers and other frauds use.

32. The Libertarian Party: America's third largest political party.

Wow, third! That sounds impressive until you realize that the
Libertarian Party is about 0.1% of the size of the other two. Funny how
they don't mention that in their slogan. I guess they should get a new
slogan. Let's have a new slogan contest for the Libertarian Party!

o A party a lot smaller than the Communists used to be?
o The party that can't get as many votes as any one-shot third
party?
o The party that's elected fewer to national office than the
Socialists?
o The party whose symbol is a big government statue.
o The party with the oxymoronic name?
o The party of Pat Paulson, uh, I mean Don Imus, uh, I mean Howard
Stern!
o America's Third Most Comical Political Party?
o Preschool for hyperactive Republicans?

Join in! Submit your slogan today!

Almost as comical is the Libertarian Party's '94 election results. They
now have even fewer elected dogcatchers and other important officials.
Most notable, their loss of 2 out of 4 state reps in New Hampshire.

33. You're a Statist!

Don't be surprised if you receive some ad-hominem abuse from
libertarian evangelists when you don't accept their arguments. It's no

different than if a communist called you bourgeois or a Bircher called
you a commie lover. Sometimes they'll go overboard and even accuse you
of mental disease, at which time you can point out to them the fine
company they keep: Stalin, Hitler, etc.

34. Why do you spend so much time trying to debunk?

As I told creationists who wondered why I bothered, it's interesting to
me to study unusual beliefs for the same reason it's interesting for
doctors to study pathologies. You don't have to catch a disease to be
able to understand it, fight it, or vaccinate against it.

QUOTATIONS POPULAR WITH LIBERTARIAN EVANGELISTS

The purpose of bumper sticker phrases is not to enlighten: it is to
misdirect and channel your thoughts. That's a prime need for evangelism, and
thus we see a lot of these from libertarian evangelists.

Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)

* "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws.
On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property
existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."

This quote is one of the central ideas of "The Law", a piece of
philosophical propaganda full of errors and uncompelling arguments.
Let's start with a simple demonstration of its ambiguity. Did men make
laws to support or suppress life, liberty, and property? At first
glance, since we like those three glittering generalities, we'd say
support. But if we change the generalities and keep the "logic" the
same:

"Death, enslavement, and indigence do not exist because men have made
laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that death, enslavement, and
indigence existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first
place."

Now we'd say suppress. The fact is, this ringing statement can be
interpreted to praise or damn law supporting or suppressing any
generality.

Now, Bastiat does get more specific. If you read a few sentences
further into "The Law", he presumes natural rights from god, a simple
fallacy of reification (pretending an idea is a real thing.) But the
real source of rights is might. Individuals don't have rights to
protect their lives, liberty and property: they have miniscule powers
to attempt to create such rights. Law is an attempt to benefit those
within society by creating rights through conventions that reduce
in-society conflict and utilize combined powers efficiently. Bastiat
has the tail wagging the dog: collective rights being justified by
individual rights, when in actual society individual rights are
produced by collective might.

It's hard to accept philosophy like this which starts by preferring
imaginary rights to basic observable facts of society.

Lysander Spooner (1808-1887)

* "A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new
master once in a term of years."

When you contract for government services, you are a customer, not a
slave. If you think you cannot change with whom you contract, you have
enslaved your self.

Thomas Jefferson

* "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring
one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their
own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the
mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good
government." (First Inaugural Address)

Perhaps as an unreachable goal. Certainly Jefferson practiced
differently than this would seem to imply he thought. For example,
Jefferson supported compulsory tax-supported schools and kept slaves.
Jefferson was very much a political pragmatist full of such
contradictions, as any non-hagiographic biography will tell.

But if you want get into a founder quoting contest, Ben Franklin wrote:
"Private property ... is a Creature of Society, and is subject to the
Calls of that Society, whenever its Necessities shall require it, even
to its last Farthing, its contributors therefore to the public
Exigencies are not to be considered a Benefit on the Public, entitling
the Contributors to the Distinctions of Honor and Power, but as the
Return of an Obligation previously received, or as payment for a just
Debt." We could find quite a few other appropriate quotes with a little
searching.

Libertarians might endorse their interpretation of the initial quote
without the backing of Jefferson: if so, let them present a working
example of such a government before we take it as more than a utopian
ideal.

* "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of
himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or
have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history
answer this question." (First Inaugural Address)

History shows that the USA has been one of the best governments, by
most people's standards, even libertarian. The last sentence indicates
that Jefferson intended these as rhetorical questions, not as
statements against all government. He also said (in the same address:

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to
change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of
the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is
left free to combat it."

Jefferson clearly had more confidence in government than the initial
quotation out of context would imply. If libertarians want to adopt
this position (as some do), they'd be better off supporting it with
something more than an appeal to the inconsistent authority of
Jefferson.

Alexander Fraser Tyler

* "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can
only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves
money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority
always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the
Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over
loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship." From: "The
Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic".

I wasn't aware that there was any "permanant form of government".
However, we could make a pretty good case that voters in the US have
always known that they could vote themselves benefits from the Public
Treasury. Indeed, it's been done pretty often. Yet we've lasted 200+
years.

Unlike the Athenian Republic, in the USA the money in the Public
Treasury comes directly from the pockets of the majority, the middle
class. This might be the most significant deterrent to loose fiscal
policy.

Ayn Rand

* "I shall choose friends among men, but neither slaves nor masters."

Did Ayn Rand pay her taxes out of friendship then? That's a new one on
me.

Andre Marrou

* "Liberals want the government to be your Mommy. Conservatives want
government to be your Daddy. Libertarians want it to treat you like an
adult."

Libertarians want to kill mommy and daddy so that they can stay up
later and buy more ice cream than they can now.

Bumper sticker analogies are as poor a method of understanding
libertarianism (let alone anything else) as science fiction. Too bad so
many libertarians make such heavy use of those methods.

James A. Donald

* "We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the
kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state."

The two red-alert-for-a-whopper phrases in this quote are: "the kind of
animals that we are" and "true law".

People who compare us to animals usually know little about animals and
less about people. If we look to animals for models we can find all
sorts of unacceptable (and conflicting) behaviors which are entirely
natural. Characterizations of humans as animals for most philosophical
purposes have historically ignored sociological, anthropological, and
sociobiological knowledge in favor of conveniently parochial
observations.

There is no "true law". Innumerable political and religious sects might
claim it, but I'd think that if there was such a thing, people could
recognize it and agree on it.

Unattributed

* "Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a
government."

Corporate feudalism isn't any prettier merely because the corporations
prattle about free markets. Strawmen are SO easy to create.

The presumption that the US government is the equivalent of mob rule is
ludicrous. The assertion that libertarian anarchy would be better is
unsupported by real examples. (Libertarian minarchy doesn't change the
form of government from "mob rule".)

* "It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money."

Almost all charitable organizations use other people's money. Their
real point is that the money used for government social programs is
"coerced" (libertarian newspeak for taxes.) What they overlook is that,
in many philosophical and religious systems (including Judaism and
Islam), charity isn't a virtue of the giver: charity is the relief of
the receiver.

* "Utopia is not an option."

This is the libertarian newspeak formula for overlooking problems with
their ideas. Much like "Trust in Jesus". Used the way it commonly is,
it means "libertarianism might do worse here: I don't want to make a
comparison lest we lose."

It is also another motherhood and apple pie issue; it applies to EVERY
political theory. The question is what provisions are made for coping
with necessary imperfections; libertarians tend to assume "the same as
today but better", without any experience of what their proposed
changes actually will do.

According to Perry Metzger, who claims to have popularized the phrase,
the correct usage is "you *have* to make a comparison of libertarianism
against the existing system rather than against your ideals of what
you'd like your system to do." However, since there is no real example
of libertarianism, that would be comparing the real current system
against an ideal libertarian system. That's hardly a fair or valid
comparison.

There is one valid way of using this phrase: to indicate that
perfection is not a possible result. That is a rare usage.

* "Democracy is like three wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for
lunch."

We are not a simple democracy: we are a representative democratic
republic: there are not direct elections of laws and there is a
constitution that limits what laws can be enacted. Extend the analogy
to take that into account and lo and behold, it becomes: "deciding what
to have for lunch that is not meat."

Now, if you were making the analogy about anarcho-capitalism, it would
become "three wolves competing to be first to 'add value' to the sheep
by slaughtering it and sell it to the others."

This is really a classic libertarian strawman, used by many flavors of
anarchists for centuries. The authors of the US Constitution were well
aware of this: they devoted a segment of the Federalist papers to it:
"... it may be concluded that a pure democracy... can admit of no cure
for the mischiefs of faction... A republic, by which I mean a
government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a
different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking."
Federalist No. 10, James Madison.

LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY

Libertarianism does have a lot of philosophical literature which is much
more sophisticated than the evangelistic and bumper sticker arguments
critiqued above. However, much of it can be critiqued as fundamentally
flawed. James K. Galbraith, criticizing many economists, might well have
been criticizing libertarians when he wrote (in a letter in Slate, Nov. 5,
1996):

I don't accept that much of use can be learned about policy in
this way [well-structured deduction from metaphysical first
principles.] When the world deviates from the principles, as it
usually does, the simple lessons go astray. This is not a
complaint against math. It is a complaint against indiscriminate
application of the deductive method, sometimes called the
Ricardian vice, to problems of human action. Mine is an old gripe
against much of what professional economists do; not against
science but against scientism, against the pretense of science. To
combat it, I spend my research time wrestling with real-world
data, and I spend much of my writing time warring against the
policy ideas of aggressive, ahistorical deductivists.

A thorough discussion of problems of libertarian philosophy would be well
beyond the scope of this FAQ, though an overview might one day be developed.
In the mean time, a few sources are available at the "Critiques of
Libertarianism" site ( http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html ), and
still better are a number of the excellent critical references listed below.

CRITICAL REFERENCES

I am seeking references to critiques and analyses of libertarianism or its
positions, which seem to be very scarce. So far the following have been
found or recommended (special thanks to James Hammerton and Robert Lockard):

* Walter Adams "The Bigness Complex" Pantheon Books, 1987. (opposes
libertarian antitrust position)
* Norman P. Barry "On Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism" MacMillan
1987
* Jeremy Bentham "Anarchical Fallacies"
* John Bryant "Libertarian Dirt" Socratic Press, 1995. A ranting pamphlet
about Murray Rothbard; 2/3 self promotion and blank pages.
* George W. Downs and Patrick D. Larkey "The Search For Government
Efficiency: From Hubris to Helplessness" Random House, 1986. A serious,
scholarly study of efficiency. Not a polemic but very necessary to
balance the government as inefficient polemics.
* Charles T. Goodsell "The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration
Polemic" Chatham House, 1994. Reexamines empirical findings on U.S.
bureaucratic performance, noting how well the American system really
works.
* Allen Buchanan "Ethics, Efficiency, and the Market" Rowman &
Littlefield, 1985. From the cover: "... contains the most thorough and
systematic analysis of economic and moral arguments both for and
against the market as an instrument of resource allocation." The
chapter, "Moral Arguments For and Against the Market" occupies most of
the book.
* G. A. Cohen "Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality (Studies in Marxism
and Social Theory)" Cambridge Univ Press, 1995.
* John Gray "Beyond the New Right: Markets, Government and the Common
Environment" Routledge 1994. John Gray once held views very close to
libertarianism, but in this book he repudiates both neoclassical
liberalism and libertarianism. Chapter 3, "The Moral Foundations of
Market Institutions" contains some strong criticisms of the libertarian
position.
* Donald P. Green "Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory" Yale University
Press, 1994. A serious, scholarly study of the intellectual failures of
Rational Choice Theory.
* Alan Haworth "Anti-Libertarianism: Markets, Philosophy, and Myth"
Routledge 1994.
* Dennis Henigan, Bruce Nicholson, David Hemenway "Guns and the
Constitution" Aletheia Press 1995. A book-length FAQ of refutations of
the gun-ownership propganda and mythology promulgated by the NRA and
gleefully parrotted by libertarians. Essential reading.
* William E. Hudson "American Democracy in Peril" Chatham House, 1996.
Chapter 3 "The second challenge: radical individualism" has a
subsection "The flaws of libertarianism."
* Attracta Ingram "A Political Theory of Rights" Oxford University Press
1994. Ingram argues that the libertertarian concept of self-ownership
is inadequate, and proposes a (much more complex) theory of rights
based in a principle of self-government. Chapters 1-3, form a useful
exposition and critique of the standard libertarian position.
* Roland Kley "Hayek's Social and Political Thought" Oxford University
Press 1994. Shows that Hayek's concept of a spontaneous order doesn't
stand up to scrutiny, undermining a body of theory libertarians often
draw upon to show that free markets work.
* Will Kymlicka "Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction"
Clarendon Press, 1990. Now the standard text in the field; very highly
regarded. Has a long chapter on libertarianism. Not at all kind to it.
* Steven Luper-Foy "The Possibility of Knowledge: Nozick and His Critics"
* Stephen L. Newman "Liberalism at Wits' End: The Libertarian Revolt
Against the Modern State" Cornell University Press in 1984
* William J. Novak "The People's Welfare: Law and Regulation in
Nineteenth-Century America" Univ. of North Carolina Pr., 1996. "Blasts
to pieces... the libertarian fantasy that until the twentieth century
the American state left private property owners and economic
entrepreneurs alone." --Robert W. Gordon, Yale Law School.
* Jeffrey Paul, editor "Reading Nozick" (anthology of essays about
"Anarchy, State, And Utopia")
* L.A. Rollins "The Myth of Natural Rights"
* Robbins, John W "Answer to Ayn Rand : A critique of the philosophy of
objectivism"
* Schartz, Peter "Libertarianism: The perversion of liberty" (Article)
* Thomas A. Spragens, Jr. "The Limitations of Libertarianism." RESPONSIVE
COMMUNITY (Spring 1992)45-47. (Part 2.)
* James P. Sterba "Contemporary Social and Political Philosophy"
Wadsworth, 1994. His chapter on libertarianism makes the argument that,
"... the right to a social minimum endorsed by welfare liberals is also
required by the libertarian's own ideal of liberty."
* James P. Sterba "Morality in Practice" Fifth edition, Wadsworth, 1997.
Another statement of the above argument. A longer version of this
article will appear as "Reconciling Liberty and Equality or Why
Libertarians must be Socialists" in Liberty and Equality, edited by
Larry May and Jonothan Schonsheck (MIT, 1996).
* Lars Udehn "The Limits of Public Choice: A sociological critique of the
economic theory of politics" (Routledge 1996).
* Robert Anton Wilson "Natural Law"
* Donald A. Wittman "The Myth of Democratic Failure: Why Political
Institutions Are Efficient" University of Chicago Press, 1995. "...
refutes one of the cornerstone beliefs of economics and political
science: that economic markets are more efficient than the processes
and institutions of democratic government."
* Jonathan Wolff "Robert Nozick: Propery, Justice and the Minimal State"
Blackwell 1991. (Details Nozick's political theory and exposes its
flaws and incompleteness.)

I've yet to read most of these, and welcome reviews, summaries, and better
citations.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

* Bergland, David "Libertarianism in One Lesson"
* Friedman, David "The Machinery of Freedom"
* Marshall, Peter "Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism"
* Spooner, Lysander "No Treason"

CREDITS

Thanks to many people who have contributed directly or indirectly to this
FAQ. Some specific recommendations have come from (in alphabetical order):

Ken Arromdee (arro...@blaze.cs.jhu.edu)
Chris Auld (au...@econ01.econ.QueensU.CA)
Paul Barton-Davis (pa...@cs.washington.edu)
Bruce Baugh (Bruce...@p23.f40.n105.z1.fidonet.org)
Jeffrey Bolden (bol...@s5.math.umn.edu)
Daniel Brown (dbr...@ai.uga.edu)
Steven Burnap (sbu...@netcom.com)
Caliban (cal...@gate.net)
Tony Cox (tc...@SSRL01.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU)
Merle Christopher (me...@a.cs.okstate.edu)
Ervan Darnell (er...@cs.rice.edu)
Lamont Granquist (lam...@cs.washington.edu)
James A Hammerton
Chris Holt (Chris...@newcastle.ac.uk)
Aman Jabbi (Amandee...@Eng.Sun.COM)
Steve Kangas (kang...@scruznet.com)
Jim Larson (j...@zeus.Jpl.Nasa.Gov)
Robert Lockard (RLock...@aol.com)
Calvin Bruce Ostrum (c...@cs.toronto.edu)
Glen Raphael (rap...@fx.com)
Scott Susin (ssu...@econ.Berkeley.EDU)
Russell Turpin (tur...@cs.utexas.edu)
Bob Waldrop (bwal...@xmission.com)
Matthew Daniel Walker (mdwa...@1.amherst.edu)

I owe a debt to the many people with whom I have discussed libertarianism on
the net whose ideas have helped to inform and shape my own.

Mike Huben ( mhu...@world.std.com )

Henry Blaskowski

unread,

Sep 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/22/97

Caesar <Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> > > Surely, a racist mob can exist under any system and can use
> > > violence to attack minorities.
> >
> > The point of is post, of course, was that under Socialism, it is
> > "the state" that is doing it

> Violent private mobs still exist in socialist nations.

Of course. So under Socialism, you have both the illegal and the legal
violent mobs, as opposed to only the illegal kind.

> >-- in other words, it is technically
> > legal. Under free systems, such a mob and such behavior is illegal.

> Who would surivive to procecute the mob for their "illegal behaviour"
> in a "free system".

Who would survive what? Violent mobs? How about the police, the courts,
and the majority of "the good people". Your question makes no sense.

hblask

Tom Asquith

unread,

Sep 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/25/97

On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 14:08:52 -0500, rex <SPAMa...@aepix.com> wrote:

|Interesting. A serious topic discussed politely? Did I stumble onto
|to discussion list that wasn't on the internet?

They do happen from time to time. The problem is finding them.
But they can devolve into flame-fights if the right button
is pushed. So keep asbestos gloves close at hand. :-)

|Here in Indiana there was a brief period of sterilization
|from around 1900 to 1920, this is always labeled the "Progressive
|Era". Eugenics was a world wide phenomenon

Correct. Alberta too instituted it at a time where there
was a far more liberal regime in place. You can't place
it comfortably in any modern political ideology.

|But I wouldn't say that was a classical liberal problem
|or a socialist one.
|It is a human problem. Human beings are frequently mean
|and brutal and immoral. They have been mean in liberal
|societies as well as collectivist ones.

Good point raised here.
But one of the questions that underlies such phenomena is
what drives them. Is it part of a group instinct or something
else?

|But it is not "liberal". Simply by definition it is not
|libertarian. It is wrong to push around peaceful people,
|that's what libertarianism/classical liberalism is about -
|opposition to the "initiation of force". Forced sterilization
|of peaceful people *is* force.

Not necessarily (as disgusting as it might sound). If
a person doesn't know that the sterilization is happening
is it still force? What about if they agree to the
procedure? True you have violated their rights. But
it is not force. (And in such cases, where agreement
has taken place, the libertarian position would be
powerless to do anything.)

|> Also, I note at this particular point that you haven't
|> demonstrated that the racism and socialism are
|> necessarily commensurate.

|Nope, he hasn't done that. That would be fairly impossible.
|Although many books and articles have been written demonstrating
|a link between the two. What they real say is that socialism
|breeds discontent and rivalry for "pieces of the pie". Group
|identification is also a human trait and the socialist competition
|leads to a Balkanization that frequently breaks along racial and
|tribal lines.

|What can be easily shown is that socialism allows racism to
|come out in immoral ways. Where in a libertarian society you
|can: refuse to help, refuse to hire, refuse to work for, sell to
|or rent fron someone for a racist reason.
|Under Socialist rules you can kill, enslave, tax, regulate or s
sterilize
|for a racist reason.

And under libertarian (or Aussie-rules*) politics, one
can kill, enslave, underpay and sterilize for commercial reasons--due
in large part to the drastic inability of government to deal with
the problems that have appeared in society.

*-with due apologies to my fellow Australians.

|Libertarian rules *limit* what can be done *to* people. All of the
|icky behavior you can *justly* do in a libertarian society involve
|choosing not to *give* or not to *receive*. The collectivist
|options involve anything. Socialism imposes no moral restraint
|upon actions of the collective.

Libertarian deny any sense of morality. Socialist and conservative
ideologies at least have a sense of the good and the general condition
of the community.

There are classical liberals which are bigots too (I recall
a speech by Thomas Macaulay that had an anti-semitic
tone).

|> I do note however that the problem of the handicapped is
|> equally problematic in its resolution in the libertarian
|> systems. If one chooses to follow the classical liberal
|> models of the 19th century, it seems that the 'struggle or perish'
|> idea is equally repugnant when one talks about those people
|> who cannot get out of the starting blocks in the human race,
|> And we ought not forget that the problem of the institution
|> was not restricted to communist block countries.
|
|But collectivism doesn't solve that either.
|A socialist can chose to kill or help the unfortunate.
|A libertarian can chose to *ignore* or to help the unfortunate.

Any person can *choose* (note the spelling) to do anything
that he/she desires--ideology is irrelevant.

Question: if a person were lying in a pool of blood on the
side of the road, who would he rather have stop to assist
him: a libertarian doctor or a socialist doctor. The libertarian
doctor would ask him before helping: "Can you pay my bill?"--
if he couldn't do so, he would leave him to die. If a socialist
doctor saw the fellow, he would help first and ask questions
later (either because he would have been by nature more
compassionate or because the state had introduced a Good
Samaritan Act).

[SARC]
Ah, I see. So suddenly the libertarian is introducing notions
of family, responsibility, duty and respect for fellow human
beings. How thoughtful. [/SARC] Interesting how we are
able to use the argument of loyalty to one's children (who
obviously can't function in society--hence the obligation), yet
we aren't prepared to deal with those people in society that
can't break drug habits, work in society due to handicaps, etc.

|> money regardless of whether it could have been used
|> to assist a deaf person get by in society instead
|
|This is completely accurate. You can wallow in your
|wealth while others starve.
|But consider this example: If you use your computer to steal the
|bank account of a starving Ethiopian you should be punished.
|But if you use your computer to play Solitare we should
|confiscate your computer and sell it in order to buy food
|for that Ethiopian.

There is a hole in the logic here--surely, both would strike
a rational human being as being wrong (and saying that
the Solitaire-player is miles away is only a cop-out).

--
----
Cheers,
Tom Asquith

Tom Asquith

unread,

Sep 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/25/97

On 18 Sep 1997 11:38:08 GMT, Henry Blaskowski
<jhb...@bigpapa.nothinbut.net> wrote:

|Tom Asquith <tasq...@ualberta.ca> wrote:
|
| [on libertarian "demands" and people's skepticism of it]

|> Although I agree with you (i.e., people's skepticism), I would also
|> point out that not all libertarians share this particular perspective.
|> Some libertarians do tend to take positions that are a little more
|> idealized, a little less than skeptical and quite close-minded
|> (depending on which camp one chooses to speak with).
|

|The thing to keep in mind here is the format where you see these
|discussions. I find myself making sweeping, strict statements that
|I would never make in real life. In reality, most of the people
|who seem close-minded on these newsgroups are really just enjoying
|the discussion -- and controversial statements promote active
|discussions. I call it "fireworks and radio" (from a Dar Williams
|song) -- it's just the visible part of the group, and not the
|best reflection of libertarians overall. The libertarians I know
|in real life are practical people with practical solutions. What
|you see here is "the strict philosophy". In real life, few want
|a radical change overnight. It took almost a century to build
|the welfare state, and it'll take a long time to dismantle it.

That is in itself probably true, but again there are some members
of the libertarian camp that would be equivalent to Russia's
Bolsheviks if they were members of a Libertarian party when
it came to power. They would in all probability engage in an
immediate slash and burn of the various social programs present
in the nation. Mind you, if this were to take place in the US, I
suspect that this stage wouldn't last very long anyhow (at least
compared to the neighbour to the North).

|This goes back to my response above. If you take newsnet rants on
|libertarianism too literally, you'll miss the real meat of
|libertarianism. The Cato Institute, for example, is a much better
|example of the type of practical, incremental solutions "real"
|libertarians are working for -- all the time keeping the end goal
|in mind.

Is it libertarian or neoconservative? Hard to tell really. Ditto
for the Hoover Institute (which I've also seen some lib'ns
refer to on the UseNet).

But back to your point, if one takes a look at these solutions
that these Institutes have been throwing out in recent years,
one must also realize that they are built on fairly idealized
models of nation-states (e.g., ideal unemployment rates,
no outflows of capital, etc.). I'd like to agree with you
that they are practical but there is a profound lack of
reality also present in a number of the theories that they
have produced.

|> |No, extortion would be illegal. Force would be illegal.

|> To quote Bugsy Mallone: it is only illegal if you get caught.
|> And if you have watered down the police force...
|

|This seems to be one of the biggest misunderstandings about
|libertarianism. Libertarians do not want a watered down police force,
|they want a strong police force that is bound by strict rules on
|what they can and cannot do. So instead of kicking in the doors
|of peaceful people whose only sin is smoking a joint, they would
|be arresting people committing violent crimes. And instead of
|letting the child rapist out to imprison somebody who happens to
|ingest the wrong set of chemicals, the child rapist would be locked
|up. I saw one statistic that something like 90,000 women will
|be sexually assaulted this year by violent sex offenders who have
|been released early from jail -- this in a system where almost half
|of all inmates are in drug-related crimes. (How many alcolhol-related
|criminals are in jail). Wouldn't it be better to have a
|police force and legal system that is devoted to pursuing the
|violent criminals instead of consensual criminals?

But which criminal is which? Quite often, the shoplifter evolves into
the bankrobber or murderer. Merely arresting the person breaking
the law and sticking them in the ol' pokey just seems to produce
a different caliber of criminal.

Also, in Fresno, CA, they've taken to using SWAT teams
to catch petty thieves. Looks impressive, but one can't help but
wonder: if this is what libertarians mean by a strong police force,
then it seems that we're not too far from saying "Hello police state."

Quite simply, it would seem to follow that the poor would have an
extra-incentive to use force against the rich to try and give
themselves a fighting chance at surviving (given that the society
has been reduced to a case of one-against-all). The Marquis de Sade
once said (I think it was in "Juliette") that the violent crimes of the
poor is justified by the callous attitudes of the rich. The way I see
it: if libertarianism is to succeed as an ideology and get enough
support to form the intellectual basis of a government, surely it must
find a way of dealing, besides merely beefing up the police force
to deal with the potential conflict between poor and rich.

rex

unread,

Sep 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/25/97

I can see that you read what I wrote because your responses
reflected the words and ideas I put down. But you didn't seem to
comprehend what I intended. Are we using different dictionaries?

Tom Asquith wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 14:08:52 -0500, rex <SPAMa...@aepix.com> wrote:

>
> |Here in Indiana there was a brief period of sterilization
> |from around 1900 to 1920, this is always labeled the "Progressive
> |Era". Eugenics was a world wide phenomenon
>
> Correct. Alberta too instituted it at a time where there
> was a far more liberal regime in place. You can't place
> it comfortably in any modern political ideology.

The "Progressive Era" in the U.S. was a time when politics
was moving toword centralized *government* imposed solutions
to perceived problems. Hence Eugenics, Prohibition, the incompe
tax, Anti-trust and others.

Perhaps I should ask: Is forced sterilization initiation of
force? If it is, then it is NOT an action acceptable under
a classical liberal regime.

I don't see anything in the definition of socialism that
would oppose such an action by the government.

And again I'll restate, whether it is more likely to actually
*happen* in a community trying to be libertarian or one
trying to be socialist I don't know. (I have an opinion you
could guess :-) but that is a different debate.)

I can say that if it happens it would be a violation of libertarian
principles and that it would not violate socialist ones.

>
> |But I wouldn't say that was a classical liberal problem
> |or a socialist one.
> |It is a human problem. Human beings are frequently mean
> |and brutal and immoral. They have been mean in liberal
> |societies as well as collectivist ones.
>
> Good point raised here.
> But one of the questions that underlies such phenomena is
> what drives them. Is it part of a group instinct or something
> else?
>
> |But it is not "liberal". Simply by definition it is not
> |libertarian. It is wrong to push around peaceful people,
> |that's what libertarianism/classical liberalism is about -
> |opposition to the "initiation of force". Forced sterilization
> |of peaceful people *is* force.
>
> Not necessarily (as disgusting as it might sound). If

Well, we can drift off and try to have a practical real world
discussion about the millions of individual situations that could
come up. but again that is a different thread of grey areas.

> a person doesn't know that the sterilization is happening
> is it still force? What about if they agree to the

Yes. If you kill me in my sleep it's still wrong. If you remove
my appendix without my consent or knowledge that is wrong. If
you steal 10 bucks from me and I never find out it is still
wrong. Now what if you sterilize me while I'm in a comma because
it is the only way to save my life or health and you have no clue
what my opinion on it would be we're in different territory.

> procedure? True you have violated their rights. But
> it is not force. (And in such cases, where agreement
> has taken place, the libertarian position would be
> powerless to do anything.)
>

If they agreed to it it isn't wrong (lets forget about the grey
areas of the mentaly incompetent or children). But just think of
all the vasectamies out there. You aren't really saying they
were an "initiation of force" are you?

> |> Also, I |> demonstrated that the racism and socialism are

> |> necessarily commensurate.
>
> |Nope, he hasn't done that. That would be fairly impossible.
> |Although many books and articles have been written demonstrating
> |a link between the two. What they real say is that socialism
> |breeds discontent and rivalry for "pieces of the pie". Group
> |identification is also a human trait and the socialist competition
> |leads to a Balkanization that frequently breaks along racial and
> |tribal lines.
>
> |What can be easily shown is that socialism allows racism to
> |come out in immoral ways. Where in a libertarian society you
> |can: refuse to help, refuse to hire, refuse to work for, sell to
> |or rent fron someone for a racist reason.
> |Under Socialist rules you can kill, enslave, tax, regulate or s
> sterilize
> |for a racist reason.
>
> And under libertarian (or Aussie-rules*) politics, one
> can kill, enslave, underpay and sterilize for commercial reasons--due
> in large part to the drastic inability of government to deal with
> the problems that have appeared in society.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that under a libertarian regime
there will be more crimes like murder and slavery simply because
the police force will be weak? (That doesn't jibe with the fear
of the SWAT team you mentioned in your last post)
I'm going to dismiss that part of your post. 1> We have no idea
at what level the police and courts and prisons will be funded
in a libertarian government. 2> We don't know what effect they will
have. 3> I don't want to discuss 1, and 2 here.

So now I proceed to repeat that while in the real world a
government trying to be libertarian may initiate force in the
form of killing or enslaving. But then that would be a violation
of the libertarian principle. It would not violate socialist
principles.

Your other items were "underpay". Again we can debate what the
pay scale would be. But I don't want to. But I will say
that there is nothing that says that a socialist government will pay
well. The socialist definition does say "good pay" it only says
who gets to *decide* *what* the pay *is*.

AS far as "commercial sterilization". I don't see a problem with that.
Do you want to prevent people from getting a vasectomy?

> |Libertarian rules *limit* what can be done *to* people. All of the
> |icky behavior you can *justly* do in a libertarian society involve
> |choosing not to *give* or not to *receive*. The collectivist
> |options involve anything. Socialism imposes no moral restraint
> |upon actions of the collective.
>
> Libertarian deny any sense of morality. Socialist and conservative
> ideologies at least have a sense of the good and the general condition
> of the community.

That is incorrect. Do I need to repeat it?
Libertarianism *IS* "Opposition to the initiation of force or fraud."

Now the reason for that. (At least my reason) is that I think
the initiation of force is wrong. It is immoral.

How often have you heard Libertarians say "Taxation is Theft".
I mean if there was nothing imoral about theft, then why the
heck would they oppose taxation?

I'll ignore "conservatism", but you mention Socialism "have a
sense of good and the general contion of the community."

That is untrue. (Or at least tenuously true) Socialism
is "collective control of people." A Socialist would probably
better agree to this: "Collective control of all material things"
Now there is generaly a "sense of good" that is the reason for this.
They many people to be better off as a result of all this control.

But in socialist definitions there is no *opposition* to anything.
There is no *limit*. And like I said before in the definition of
socialism there is nothing that declares the actions of the
collective as wrong. There is no line that the collective can
not cross. If there is please tell me.

Is there *ANY* action that the collective can take that socialism
(not you personally) would point out and declare wrong?

> |> I note here that you have started to use one of the key terms
> |> that was intimately linked with the whole eugenics craze--the
> |> issue of race. Race of course being opposed to "the state"
> |> here. The challenge, as it seems to me, is the proof that
> |> race is inseparable from socialism (in any of its forms).
> |
> |I think you'll fail at doing that. But you won't fail in showing
> |that socialism (under its own rules) permits the vile
> |racist actions whereas classical liberalism does not.
>
> There are classical liberals which are bigots too (I recall
> a speech by Thomas Macaulay that had an anti-semitic
> tone).

Certainly. In fact libertarianism does not condem people who
think that other humans are inferior to them. It does not
condem people who refuse to help, hire associate or marry
others regardless of their reason. Their reason could be racist
or sexists or it could be that they think the the other guy's
a jerk. (Myself, I was sexist while trying to find a spouse.
I refused to consider men)

But Socialism doesn't stop any of those things either.

The difference being that socialism *can* stop them if it wants to.
Or in fact socialism can *start* them if it wants to. And socialist
government have done *BOTH*. Libertarianism can not stop them and
it can not start them. If a nation pursuing libertarian government
did so it would be a violation of the libertarian principle.

> |But collectivism doesn't solve that either.
> |A socialist can chose to kill or help the unfortunate.
> |A libertarian can chose to *ignore* or to help the unfortunate.
>
> Any person can *choose* (note the spelling) to do anything
> that he/she desires--ideology is irrelevant.

This is semantics. I will be more clear. The collective can
*compel" the killing or helping of the unfortunate
*without violating socialist principles*. But *EITHER* compulsion
would be a violation of libertarian principles.

>
> Question: if a person were lying in a pool of blood on the
> side of the road, who would he rather have stop to assist
> him: a libertarian doctor or a socialist doctor. The libertarian
> doctor would ask him before helping: "Can you pay my bill?"--
> if he couldn't do so, he would leave him to die. If a socialist
> doctor saw the fellow, he would help first and ask questions
> later (either because he would have been by nature more
> compassionate or because the state had introduced a Good
> Samaritan Act).

This is bogus you are discussing individuals here. The actions
of the individuals are undeterminable based on their political
philosophy.
And if we assume that they are *perfect* followers of their creed
you still have it wrong.

All we know about the libertarian is that he won't *compel* someone
*else* to do the helping. And he won't kick the man while he is
down. He may or may not help or request payment.

Now you may think that the idealized socialist is the clear winner
in this generousity competition. Not so.
The socialist is not *limited* in his actions. Just what is the
collectives ruling in this situation? While there may be a
Good Samaritan Act compeling him to help and permitting him
to compel others to help (NOTE: before you call the liberatians
extreme for opposing the act, the US has NO such law. And I think
such laws have been struck down before) But back to our
Socialist doctor...

He might compel help but he might compel NOT helping. He might even
kick the man when he's down. Perhaps the collective has decided
that the weak and injured are not good for society.

Remember, this is the core of my thesis for the entire thread:
In the libertarian principle there are limits placed on the actions
of people and governments.
In the socialist principle there are NO limits placed on the actions
of the collective.
(In fact you can see my thesis in my .sig)

If there are such limits, please point them out.

No. I'm introducing the notion of contract. Breaking a contract
is a subset of theft which is a subset of initiation of force.

If you create a child you have committed to caring for it.

> able to use the argument of loyalty to one's children (who
> obviously can't function in society--hence the obligation), yet
> we aren't prepared to deal with those people in society that
> can't break drug habits, work in society due to handicaps, etc.

I have made no obligation to provide for all the unfortunate
in the world. And the notion is perposterous. Imagine
that you were the only able bodied person in the world and there
were 40 million "unfortunate" who will die if they are not
cared for. Have you "committed a sin" by not caring for them?
No, you have not.

But if you (and you'd be a better man than me if you did :-)
diliberately procreated 40 million children and you didn't provide
for them you would have commited a great wrong.

>
> |> money regardless of whether it could have been used
> |> to assist a deaf person get by in society instead
> |
> |This is completely accurate. You can wallow in your
> |wealth while others starve.
> |But consider this example: If you use your computer to steal the
> |bank account of a starving Ethiopian you should be punished.
> |But if you use your computer to play Solitare we should
> |confiscate your computer and sell it in order to buy food
> |for that Ethiopian.
>
> There is a hole in the logic here--surely, both would strike
> a rational human being as being wrong (and saying that
> the Solitaire-player is miles away is only a cop-out).

My wording was not clear. What I wanted to say is similar to what I
said above. It is not a crime for you to enjoy life while others
are suffering. It *IS* a crime to *cause* that suffering.
With the solitare example I was trying to show how just about
everyone reading this had violated your rule. We all have computers
here, right? we're all using them for fun, right? Now isn't that
terribly unjust? Should we sell the computer and distribute the
proceeds to the most unfortunate? In fact aren't you imoral because
you aren't working 30 hours of overtime this week and sending all
the extra money to the starving children of Africa? In fact
couldn't you live in a smaller home and use the extra funds to
provide for others?

Now if you don't help others I *will* call you imoral or at least
an unlikable, unworthy, ungood - person. (the
Christian in me leaks out) But it would be a greater imorality
for me or anyone else to come to your home and threaten you
in order to extract money to give to the "needy".

> Tom Asquith

rex

unread,

Sep 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/25/97

Tom Asquith wrote:
>

> |Tom Asquith <tasq...@ualberta.ca> wrote:

There are few "conflicts between poor and rich".
The poor don't rob the rich that often. Poor individuals tend to
rob and kill other poor individuals. Rich individuals tend to
rob and kill other rich folks.

The way the rich and poor conflict is via politics. But only in
the minds of kooks or crooks who are trying to gain advantage.
All the other folks conflict via pollitics. But they usually
just use the names and pictures of the poor to gain advantage
or they just step on them to prevent competition.
The poor don't really vote. Hence we have Social Security and Medicare.
And we have licensing and zoning laws to step on the poor.

Tom Asquith

unread,

Oct 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/1/97

On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 13:08:42 -0500, rex <SPAMa...@aepix.com> wrote:

|I can see that you read what I wrote because your responses
|reflected the words and ideas I put down. But you didn't seem to
|comprehend what I intended. Are we using different dictionaries?

Don't think so. But I think we do have slightly different
views of human nature.

|Tom Asquith wrote:
|> On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 14:08:52 -0500, rex <SPAMa...@aepix.com> wrote:
|> |Tom Asquith wrote:
|> |> On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 00:09:09 +0200, Hansjoerg Walther
|> |> <wal...@nineties.com> wrote:
|> |> |Tom Asquith wrote:
|> |> |> On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:22:00 +0200, Hansjoerg Walther
|> |> |> <wal...@nineties.com> wrote:

|> | Eugenics was a world wide phenomenon

|> Correct. Alberta too instituted it at a time where there
|> was a far more liberal regime in place. You can't place
|> it comfortably in any modern political ideology.
|
|The "Progressive Era" in the U.S. was a time when politics
|was moving toword centralized *government* imposed solutions
|to perceived problems. Hence Eugenics, Prohibition, the incompe
|tax, Anti-trust and others.
|
|Perhaps I should ask: Is forced sterilization initiation of
|force? If it is, then it is NOT an action acceptable under
|a classical liberal regime.

It would be a use of force (see the words that you used).
But the question ought to be whether the individual
consented. No consent--ergo battery and crime against
the person.

|I don't see anything in the definition of socialism that
|would oppose such an action by the government.

Nor in any other power structure that follows from a
political ideology (i.e., what goes for government in
socialist, conservative and liberal models applies
just as well for corporations in corporate libertarian
models of society).

|I can say that if it happens it would be a violation of libertarian
|principles and that it would not violate socialist ones.

That would of course depend on what the founders of
the libertarian society established as their "founding principles"
for their society.
snip--moral argument!

|Well, we can drift off and try to have a practical real world
|discussion about the millions of individual situations that could
|come up. but again that is a different thread of grey areas.

Agreed. We'll let the grey stuff alone...for a while.

|> procedure? True you have violated their rights. But
|> it is not force. (And in such cases, where agreement
|> has taken place, the libertarian position would be
|> powerless to do anything.)
|
|If they agreed to it it isn't wrong (lets forget about the grey
|areas of the mentaly incompetent or children). But just think of
|all the vasectamies out there. You aren't really saying they
|were an "initiation of force" are you?

But if we leave the "grey areas" alone, then suddenly we are
assuming that everyone can function independently as
individuals. Not an easy assumption to make--and even those
of us who believe that we can do so, often find there are those
moments where we cannot (e.g, only fools represent themselves
in courts of law; we don't go around diagnosing our own illnesses;
it is hard to have relationships with ourselves; etc.).

snip!

|> And under libertarian (or Aussie-rules*) politics, one
|> can kill, enslave, underpay and sterilize for commercial reasons--due
|> in large part to the drastic inability of government to deal with
|> the problems that have appeared in society.
|
|Wait a minute. Are you saying that under a libertarian regime
|there will be more crimes like murder and slavery simply because
|the police force will be weak? (That doesn't jibe with the fear
|of the SWAT team you mentioned in your last post)
|I'm going to dismiss that part of your post.

Just merely holding a mirror to your arguments (i.e., that
libertarians favoured a greater weight being placed on the
law). The argument regarding the police force was raised as
a counter to the argument that there would be a greater risk
of crime in a libertarian state (where the responsibilities of
government were diminished).

|1> We have no idea at what level the police and courts and prisons will be |funded in a libertarian government. 2> We don't know what effect they |will have. 3> I don't want to discuss 1, and 2 here.

Don't blame you.

|So now I proceed to repeat that while in the real world a
|government trying to be libertarian may initiate force in the
|form of killing or enslaving. But then that would be a violation
|of the libertarian principle. It would not violate socialist
|principles.

Well, although I myself am not a socialist, many socialists (at
least demsocs) hold that violence is abhorrent (i.e., going against
the idea of a fellowship of men, etc., etc.). How could you say
that it doesn't violate socialist principles?

|Your other items were "underpay". Again we can debate what the
|pay scale would be. But I don't want to. But I will say
|that there is nothing that says that a socialist government will pay
|well. The socialist definition does say "good pay" it only says
|who gets to *decide* *what* the pay *is*.

And there is nothing to say that a socialist government would
pay badly. BUT you are assuming that the socialist government
will take a complete hands-on position with regards to the
economy. Some variants of democratic socialism restrict themselves
to regulation, and let the capitalists do their thing (nearly to the
point that their system of beliefs resemble welfare-liberals). There
are exceptions to the rule, mon ami. And don't overgeneralize--lest
you commit a fallacy.

|AS far as "commercial sterilization". I don't see a problem with that.
|Do you want to prevent people from getting a vasectomy?

Hmm...depends on whether they want the vasectomy or not.

|> Libertarian deny any sense of morality. Socialist and conservative
|> ideologies at least have a sense of the good and the general condition
|> of the community.
|
|That is incorrect. Do I need to repeat it?
|Libertarianism *IS* "Opposition to the initiation of force or fraud."

That is one interpretation of libertarianism. Another one is that
libertarianism means that rights are inviolable. The opposition
to force is not the whole picture with regards to the libertarian
ideology...or at least, I hope not. Otherwise, one might be able
to argue that libertarianism came into this world still-born.

|Now the reason for that. (At least my reason) is that I think
|the initiation of force is wrong. It is immoral.

The initiation of nonconsensual force is wrong. Otherwise,
your doctor could never touch you, for he would be committing
a battery.

|How often have you heard Libertarians say "Taxation is Theft".
|I mean if there was nothing imoral about theft, then why the
|heck would they oppose taxation?

Basically, because they don't like paying it. Face it, taxation
is immoral. But then, it also be argued that so is tax evasion
(for it unfairly transfers the burdens to those people who do
pay).

|I'll ignore "conservatism", but you mention Socialism "have a
|sense of good and the general contion of the community."
|That is untrue. (Or at least tenuously true) Socialism
|is "collective control of people." A Socialist would probably
|better agree to this: "Collective control of all material things"
|Now there is generaly a "sense of good" that is the reason for this.
|They many people to be better off as a result of all this control.

Curious that you wish to reduce the argument to only one
form of pro-state ideology--don't the others have a valid position
to take?

Re the above argument: I would submit that you have once
again engaged in an argument of overgeneralizing based on
one type of socialism. If one follows Berki, one would find
that the ideas common to all forms of socialism are:
egalitarianism, rationalism, moralism and libertarianism.
And I believe he is quite right. Although they hold these ideas
to varying degrees, I would argue that one would not find
in every single form of socialism the idea of collectivism to
the extent that you are inclined to impugne.

|But in socialist definitions there is no *opposition* to anything.
|There is no *limit*. And like I said before in the definition of
|socialism there is nothing that declares the actions of the
|collective as wrong. There is no line that the collective can
|not cross. If there is please tell me.

You are now confusing totalitarianism with socialism.

|Is there *ANY* action that the collective can take that socialism
|(not you personally) would point out and declare wrong?

Socialism couldn't point out anything as being wrong. It is
a system of thought, and hence, couldn't point out anything
as being wrong. Socialists might be able to do so though.

To quote Woody Allen, the great advantage of being bisexual
is it doubles your chances of getting a date on Saturday night.

|But Socialism doesn't stop any of those things either.

Nor libertarianism...indeed, it might promote racism, sexism,
anti-semitism, etc., via the promotion of freedom of speech. But
then again, this is one of the challenges that we face in our
liberal democracy. The question of course being whether such
acts should be tolerated libertarian, liberal or whatever...

|The difference being that socialism *can* stop them if it wants to.
|Or in fact socialism can *start* them if it wants to. And socialist
|government have done *BOTH*. Libertarianism can not stop them and
|it can not start them. If a nation pursuing libertarian government
|did so it would be a violation of the libertarian principle.

But libertarian does seem to offer the potential of the formation
of mass movements. Although I'm running the risk of sounding
like Hannah Arendt here, it would seem that a libertarian government
by maintaining a typical hands-off position, would permit the
flourishing of positions that would be otherwise intolerable in
our modern society.

> |But collectivism doesn't solve that either.
> |A socialist can chose to kill or help the unfortunate.
> |A libertarian can chose to *ignore* or to help the unfortunate.

|> Any person can *choose* (note the spelling) to do anything
|> that he/she desires--ideology is irrelevant.
|
|This is semantics. I will be more clear. The collective can
|*compel" the killing or helping of the unfortunate
|*without violating socialist principles*. But *EITHER* compulsion
|would be a violation of libertarian principles.

Ergo there is no duty for the libertarian to help the injured
man lying in the middle of the road.

|> Question: if a person were lying in a pool of blood on the
|> side of the road, who would he rather have stop to assist
|> him: a libertarian doctor or a socialist doctor. The libertarian
|> doctor would ask him before helping: "Can you pay my bill?"--
|> if he couldn't do so, he would leave him to die. If a socialist
|> doctor saw the fellow, he would help first and ask questions
|> later (either because he would have been by nature more
|> compassionate or because the state had introduced a Good
|> Samaritan Act).
|
|This is bogus you are discussing individuals here. The actions
|of the individuals are undeterminable based on their political
|philosophy.
|And if we assume that they are *perfect* followers of their creed
|you still have it wrong.

On the contrary, although we may not have the libertarian
government, we do have libertarian individuals. And like
Plato, we can learn from different forms of government from
the types of individuals that would flourish in such systems.
Any one ideology describes what the individual must do to
achieve the good life. (Or did you miss this in Pol.Sci. 101?)

For the libertarian, it is no more than a case of "looking out
for #1", survival of the fittest, etc. Ever notice why so many
social workers and teachers tend to be socialists while more
businessmen tend to be more conservative or libertarian?
[And there was a study done at the U of T that seems
to support this argument. Weak, I admit--but evidence
nevertheless.]

|All we know about the libertarian is that he won't *compel* someone
|*else* to do the helping. And he won't kick the man while he is
|down. He may or may not help or request payment.

In other words, he'd tell the man "Bleed for all I care. I'm off
to go get my 'vette from the shop."

|Now you may think that the idealized socialist is the clear winner
|in this generousity competition. Not so.
|The socialist is not *limited* in his actions. Just what is the
|collectives ruling in this situation? While there may be a
|Good Samaritan Act compeling him to help and permitting him
|to compel others to help (NOTE: before you call the liberatians
|extreme for opposing the act, the US has NO such law. And I think
|such laws have been struck down before)

Curious that they seem to be doing well in societies which have
civil codes (e.g., France, Quebec, etc.).

|But back to our Socialist doctor...
|He might compel help but he might compel NOT helping. He might even
|kick the man when he's down. Perhaps the collective has decided
|that the weak and injured are not good for society.

Well said. But this would violate the fundamental socialist
principle of respecting the fellow man (i.e., fraternite in that
old maxim of liberte, egalite, fraternite).

|Remember, this is the core of my thesis for the entire thread:
|In the libertarian principle there are limits placed on the actions
|of people and governments. In the socialist principle there are NO limits |placed on the actions of the collective. (In fact you can see my thesis
|in my .sig)

Indeed, I can see it in the sig. But you are forgetting that the
collectivist argument (to temporarily accept your overgeneralization
regarding socialist ideologies) could just as easily place limits on the
actions of its individuals or even place requirements on the
individuals.

Heck, considering that you are married, doesn't your spouse place
restrictions on your freedom (i.e., who you can sleep with; what time
she expects you at home; not to go out late and drink yourself into
a stupor; etc.). In a similar manner, is it not possible for a
socialist government to expect reasonable behaviours of its
citizens?
Now, think back to the doctor example above (where you argued
that a socialist doctor could be restricted in his actions)--haven't
you just contradicted yourself by alleging that socialist governments
place no restrictions on the members of the collectivity (take a good
look at your argument).

|> [SARC]
|> Ah, I see. So suddenly the libertarian is introducing notions
|> of family, responsibility, duty and respect for fellow human
|> beings. How thoughtful. [/SARC] Interesting how we are
|
|No. I'm introducing the notion of contract. Breaking a contract
|is a subset of theft which is a subset of initiation of force.

So suddenly we have a libertarian who is introducing notions
of <<le contrat social>>. Fascinating (I'm sure Msr. Huben
is laughing at this point).

|If you create a child you have committed to caring for it.

So in short, you are admitting that there are responsibilities
to others in society. Could one not extend the notion of
contract to others at large? Say, to society?

|> able to use the argument of loyalty to one's children (who
|> obviously can't function in society--hence the obligation), yet
|> we aren't prepared to deal with those people in society that
|> can't break drug habits, work in society due to handicaps, etc.
|
|I have made no obligation to provide for all the unfortunate
|in the world. And the notion is perposterous. Imagine
|that you were the only able bodied person in the world and there
|were 40 million "unfortunate" who will die if they are not
|cared for. Have you "committed a sin" by not caring for them?
|No, you have not.
|But if you (and you'd be a better man than me if you did :-)
|diliberately procreated 40 million children and you didn't provide
|for them you would have commited a great wrong.

Ah but how are these other children different from your
child? Are you saying that family might have something
to do with it?

|> There is a hole in the logic here--surely, both would strike
|> a rational human being as being wrong (and saying that
|> the Solitaire-player is miles away is only a cop-out).
|
|My wording was not clear. What I wanted to say is similar to what I
|said above. It is not a crime for you to enjoy life while others
|are suffering. It *IS* a crime to *cause* that suffering.
|With the solitare example I was trying to show how just about
|everyone reading this had violated your rule. We all have computers
|here, right? we're all using them for fun, right? Now isn't that
|terribly unjust? Should we sell the computer and distribute the
|proceeds to the most unfortunate? In fact aren't you imoral because
|you aren't working 30 hours of overtime this week and sending all
|the extra money to the starving children of Africa? In fact
|couldn't you live in a smaller home and use the extra funds to
|provide for others?

Ah, but you see: by my posting that small rebuttal (or rule
as you called it), I have started you thinking (on greater matters
than simply winning this argument). For some reason, I'm
now thinking of an old saying that has something to do with
idle hands...ah well, it has passed.

|Now if you don't help others I *will* call you imoral or at least
|an unlikable, unworthy, ungood - person. (the
|Christian in me leaks out) But it would be a greater imorality
|for me or anyone else to come to your home and threaten you
|in order to extract money to give to the "needy".

Don't be ashamed about being a Christian--I won't hold
that against you. Just remember that libertarian strands
aren't the only strands in the faith.

But let me ask: what is a "threat"?
An interesting word. Some would call a military order a
"threat". Others would deem a reminder of one's obligations
in society to be a "threat". Perhaps we sometimes need
threats to get our backsides in gear and do something.

Rex's sig.

|"We hold that what one man may not morally do, ten men may not
| morally do. Nor a thousand. Nor a million, Nor a government
| representing many millions."

Cheers,

Tom Asquith
University of Alberta

-------------------------------------------------
"The Pleasures of the Rich are bought with the
Tears of the Poor." --Thomas Fuller
-------------------------------------------------

]_eeTPiR8

unread,

Oct 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/16/97

Yes.

>What about if they agree to the
>procedure?

If they agree, and it's not under coercion or duress, then by definition it's
not forced.

>True you have violated their rights. But
>it is not force.

Of course it is.

>(And in such cases, where agreement
>has taken place, the libertarian position would be
>powerless to do anything.)

No it wouldn't; involuntarily sterilizing someone would probably be assault
and battery, and malicious wounding. And a judge or jury would be very likely
to give the stiffest possible sentence for such an atrocity.

>
> |> Also, I note at this particular point that you haven't
> |> demonstrated that the racism and socialism are
> |> necessarily commensurate.
>
> |Nope, he hasn't done that. That would be fairly impossible.
> |Although many books and articles have been written demonstrating
> |a link between the two. What they real say is that socialism
> |breeds discontent and rivalry for "pieces of the pie". Group
> |identification is also a human trait and the socialist competition
> |leads to a Balkanization that frequently breaks along racial and
> |tribal lines.
>
> |What can be easily shown is that socialism allows racism to
> |come out in immoral ways. Where in a libertarian society you
> |can: refuse to help, refuse to hire, refuse to work for, sell to
> |or rent fron someone for a racist reason.
> |Under Socialist rules you can kill, enslave, tax, regulate or s
>sterilize
> |for a racist reason.
>
>And under libertarian (or Aussie-rules*) politics, one
>can kill, enslave, underpay and sterilize for commercial reasons--due
>in large part to the drastic inability of government to deal with
>the problems that have appeared in society.

Slavery is not allowed under a libertarian system. Neither is forced
sterilizarion. And killing would be both a tort (civil wrong) and a crime.

>*-with due apologies to my fellow Australians.
>
>|Libertarian rules *limit* what can be done *to* people. All of the
>|icky behavior you can *justly* do in a libertarian society involve
>|choosing not to *give* or not to *receive*. The collectivist
>|options involve anything. Socialism imposes no moral restraint
>|upon actions of the collective.
>
>Libertarian deny any sense of morality. Socialist and conservative
>ideologies at least have a sense of the good and the general condition
>of the community.

Bullshit. Libertarian morality is very simple: just don't initiate force
against others. Simple but comprehensive.

>|> |So Scandinavian welfare states chose sterilization
>|> |(rather mild as compared to the other examples).
>|> |AFAIK, the Social Democratic politicians used
>|> |the argument that mentally retarded people were
>|> |a loss to the welfare state, and therefore it
>|> |should be done. Part of the reason for adopting
>|> |and applying sterilization was also the drive
>|> |to better the Scandinavian race.
>|>
>|> I note here that you have started to use one of the key terms
>|> that was intimately linked with the whole eugenics craze--the
>|> issue of race. Race of course being opposed to "the state"
>|> here. The challenge, as it seems to me, is the proof that
>|> race is inseparable from socialism (in any of its forms).
>|
>|I think you'll fail at doing that. But you won't fail in showing
>|that socialism (under its own rules) permits the vile
>|racist actions whereas classical liberalism does not.
>
>There are classical liberals which are bigots too (I recall
>a speech by Thomas Macaulay that had an anti-semitic
>tone).

There are speeches from people on *all* political positions that would
indicate some form of bigotry. The important thing is, would these people set
up a system where they would be able to involuntarily impose their positions
on others? With socialism the answer is yes. With libertarianism, it is no.

>|> I do note however that the problem of the handicapped is
>|> equally problematic in its resolution in the libertarian
>|> systems. If one chooses to follow the classical liberal
>|> models of the 19th century, it seems that the 'struggle or perish'
>|> idea is equally repugnant when one talks about those people
>|> who cannot get out of the starting blocks in the human race,
>|> And we ought not forget that the problem of the institution
>|> was not restricted to communist block countries.
>|
>|But collectivism doesn't solve that either.
>|A socialist can chose to kill or help the unfortunate.
>|A libertarian can chose to *ignore* or to help the unfortunate.
>
>Any person can *choose* (note the spelling) to do anything
>that he/she desires--ideology is irrelevant.
>
>Question: if a person were lying in a pool of blood on the
>side of the road, who would he rather have stop to assist
>him: a libertarian doctor or a socialist doctor. The libertarian
>doctor would ask him before helping: "Can you pay my bill?"--
>if he couldn't do so, he would leave him to die.

That is almost certainly not true. The doctor might not have a *duty* to help
him, but most human beings - whether they are capitalists or communists - are
willing to help those in need. Being a Libertarian and giving to charity
(which is the rough equivalent of this case) are not mutually exclusive.
Libertarianism does not mean you never give. It means that the choice of
giving, or not giving, is up to you and not the state.

>If a socialist
>doctor saw the fellow, he would help first and ask questions
>later (either because he would have been by nature more
>compassionate or because the state had introduced a Good
>Samaritan Act).

Not necessarily. Communism has not made people more compassionate.

>|> |I think the libertarian comment to this is crisp:
>|> |it is none of the government's business whether
>|> |I take my hard-eared money to help e. g. my mentally
>|> |retarded child or send a check to a private charity.
>|> |And if it is a minus in the sum of national wealth:
>|> |to hell with it.
>|>
>|> But Hansjoerg, why do you use two positive examples
>|> for the libertarian alternatives? Could you have
>|> also said that it wasn't the government's business
>|> whether you chose to dump your legless son on a
>|> bus stop bench to freeze to death or hoard your
>|
>|Not quite. You have agreed to raise and provide for your children
>|by the act of creating them. You chose to enter into
>|parent hood.
>
>[SARC]
>Ah, I see. So suddenly the libertarian is introducing notions
>of family, responsibility, duty and respect for fellow human
>beings. How thoughtful. [/SARC] Interesting how we are
>able to use the argument of loyalty to one's children (who
>obviously can't function in society--hence the obligation), yet
>we aren't prepared to deal with those people in society that
>can't break drug habits, work in society due to handicaps, etc.

One chooses to have children (Libertarians support the right to abortion,
BTW). One does not choose to be responsible for handicapped people, drug
addicts, skid row drunks, etc. with whom we have no personal connection.

>
>|> money regardless of whether it could have been used
>|> to assist a deaf person get by in society instead
>|
>|This is completely accurate. You can wallow in your
>|wealth while others starve.
>|But consider this example: If you use your computer to steal the
>|bank account of a starving Ethiopian you should be punished.
>|But if you use your computer to play Solitare we should
>|confiscate your computer and sell it in order to buy food
>|for that Ethiopian.
>
>There is a hole in the logic here--surely, both would strike
>a rational human being as being wrong (and saying that
>the Solitaire-player is miles away is only a cop-out).

Why? I feel no personal responsibility for what happens halfway across the
world. (Also, in most cases, these social problems are *created* by the very
socialist and fascist governments you advocate.)

]_eeTPiR8

unread,

Oct 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/16/97

Good! We need a "slash and burn" of all these unconstitutional and immoral
programs! To talk of gradually phasing them out is at best questionable. It
might be justified to let people who are already getting Social Security
collect it, since they were sold a bill of goods and the government should
have to pay. (How to do this without extortion is another question; selling
off unused federal land, perhaps?) But programs like welfare, farm subsidies,
and other extortion schemes need to be stopped NOW!

0 new messages