Poli-Sci Digest Volume 6, Part 5
Poli-Sci Digest Tuesday, 19 Aug 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 59
Today's Topics:
Property Rights and Neighbors &
Voluntary Taxes &
Ayn Rand a Libertarian? &
Libertarianism
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 86 10:21:25 CDT
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI < wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA>
Subject: Property rights & neighbors
Lets consider this issue with a more direct and explicit example than
the "next door house looking like a trash heap", which is pretty
subjective and hard to quantify in monetary terms.
Postulate this theoretical example: In a midwest seasonal climate, I
live in a house on a city block. My next-door neighbor, to the south
of me, has a large deciduous tree in his back yard. That tree provides
shade to *my* house in the summer, reducing my cooling bills by a
measurable and definite amount, and sheds its leaves in the winter,
permitting solar gain to reduce my heating bills. Thus I gain a net
benefit from this tree, which is not mine, not on my property, and
which I expend no effort to maintain (the neighbor rakes the leaves
and the ones that come over to my property are too few to consider).
The configuration of the lots and buildings does not allow me to plant
my own tree to my south; I can only get such a benefit from a tree on
my neighbor's property.
The presence of this tree does raise the property value of my house,
but that is not something that can be well-measured when the house is
not for sale. Let us consider only the yearly measurable energy-cost
savings.
Suppose my neighbor decides to cut this tree, not from any particular
need (it is not diseased or damaged) but just because he wants it
down; lets say he merely prefers a lawn with no tree in the middle.
What "rights", if any, do I have in this situation? My neighbor's
action on his own property with regard to his own goods (he owns the
tree) will have a specific financial impact upon me. His cutting down
that tree will cost me $X per year out-of-pocket in greater energy
costs. Am I entitled to claim that from him? To sue him for
compensation?
How would this situation be treated by the various political systems
advocated by the discussion participants on this net?
What, if anything, would be different if the effect were similar in
form but greater in consequence? For example, my neighbor builds a
large building on his property that cuts off all sunlight from
reaching my land most of the day, and this destroys my
greenhouse-gardening business, which is my livelihood? Or he builds or
grows something that cuts off my line-of-sight to a geosynchronous
satellite, which I require to conduct my business?
Would the situation be different if I was there first, or if he was
there first? Do I have any "rights" that the surrounding property
remain unchanged, if I was there first (say, living on property passed
down through my family, while the neighboring land was just bought by
someone who decides to change it as described above). Or the reverse
-- let's say I bought this property because the surroundings were
arranged in a pleasing fashion, and those long-time property owners
made these changes that affected me after I moved in? Do property
rights "grow" stronger with length of residence or tenancy? (Some
legal rights DO change this way -- the length of a live-in
relationship can make it a common-law marriage in some states, right?)
Comments on theoretical rights vs. practical or legal rights would
also be welcomed in this context.
Regards,
Will Martin
wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (on USENET try ...!seismo!wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA)
------------------------------
Return-path: < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Date: Thu 14 Aug 86 22:16:35-PDT
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Voluntary taxes
To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
I think you misunderstood my remark about people lying about their
income on the allocation form. Let me phrase it another way. I was
considering a modification of the tax scheme you mentioned in which
people pay the same taxes they do now but get to allocate them as they
will (in which case the government would already have information
about every individual's income, as it does now). The modification
would be that instead of allocating the money on their tax forms
(where the government could know what each individual's preferences
were), they could fill out separate, anonymous allocation forms. This
would preserve anonymity, at the price of making it easy for people to
lie on their allocation forms by saying they were allocating more
money than they had actually given, in effect stealing a little of
everyone else's money. So the question of whether the government has
the right to know anyone's income is really a separate issue from what
I was discussing, which was whether a certain method of keeping
donations anonymous would be workable.
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 86 02:35:17 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Was Ayn Rand a libertarian?
To: eyal%wisdom.bitnet@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
Cc: JOSH@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
From: Eyal mozes < eyal%wisdom.bitnet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
That's just my point. Libertarians make a basic assumption about
politics - "initiation of force is evil" - and have no argument to
defend it;
Not at all. My point was that in politics (or philosophy if you
prefer) some things are axioms. There is no proof for them, any more
than there is proof for Euclid's axioms of Geometry.
I would take the axioms as being:
1) Minding one's own business is never evil.
2) Non-coercively interacting with another person is never evil.
There are not derivable from simpler axioms, and, as with geometry,
one can use the negation of these axioms as axioms, and come up with a
different and equally self-consistent system. However, just as non-
Euclidian geometry is not useful to architects, the resulting
political system, in which slavery and torture and murder are
considered good, is not useful to people who prefer happiness and
productivity to pain and starvation.
There is no way from first principles to justify mankind's continued
existence. If someone says that mankind's existence is evil and
should be terminated, I have no way to argue with him. I just don't
want anything to do with such a person or his political system.
To defend a political principle by reason and morality - as Ayn
Rand did - you have to accept that politics is not a primary, that
it requires a base in metaphysics, epistemology and ethics;
I think we are just arguing semantics here. At some level
everything is philosophy. I consider anything which applies to how
people should live together to be politics, whether it be
philisophical, pragmatic, taken on faith, based on someone's charisma,
or whatever.
that's what I meant by absolute truth and absolute values, an
that's what libertarians wouldn't accept.
I think we do accept those.
Please keep in mind that I only speak for myself. I was not
recruited by the Libertarian party, nor have I ever even had any
contact with them. I simply discovered that members of that party and
others who call themselves libertarians had political viewpoints
similar to mine. I also discovered that Ayn Rand did also.
I haven't been reading this list for very long; but the few
messages by you that I saw contained some economic and historical
arguments,
Not everyone is convinced by my arguing on principles, so I use
historic and economic examples to show that liberty and capitalism are
not just more moral but also result in greater wealth and happiness
for everyone.
and some repetition of the libertarian "axiom" about the evil of
initiating force, but no moral or rational defense of your basic
position.
I try to make it clear that the main reason I support the policies
that I do is because of morality. That slavery, for instance, is just
plain wrong whether or not people are better off on the average with
or without it. But if I was arguing with supporters of slavery, I
would use both arguments.
Robbery is a good example. Robbery is defined as the use of force
or threat of force to coerce wealth from someone. I am sure everyone
on this list opposes robbery. I oppose it primarily because it is
wrong to initiate force and because it is wrong to steal. It seems
that many members of this list oppose robbery for what I consider to
be peripheral reasons, for instance the unfairness of one person being
robbed for everything he owns while his neighbor isn't robbed at all,
that the victim is quite likely to be killed in a robbery whether he
cooperates or not, that the robber often uses the money for illegal
drugs rather than to pay for his children's food, etc.
Taxation is clearly robbery, by definition. It shares the important
faults of street robbery, in that it initiates force and in that it
steals other people's wealth. It (usually) does not share the peri-
pheral problems that street crime has. For instance no taxpayers are
shot to death by the IRS on April 15th.
Since many people on this list do not oppose taxation, it seems they
only oppose robbery for the peripheral reasons, not for what I
consider to be the main reasons.
I argue against taxation on the grounds that it is robbery, as well
as describing the bad consequences of taxation. I am not sure what
further justification you would have me give for my viewpoint. I have
certainly suggested reading Ayn Rand enough times.
I know that some genuine advocates of individual rights and
laissez-faire capitalism make the mistake of calling themselves
libertarians.
Please explain why this is a mistake. It is clear that you and I
are using the word libertarian in a very different way. Can you
provide some justification for your unusual use of the word? Can you
explain why you feel that libertarianism and (Rand's) objectivism are
opposed?
Maybe, if I'd read the list for a longer time, I'd find
that you, or some other contributors, belong to this category;
The archives are available online.
I am certainly not alone in this. A year or two ago,
JOSH@RED.RUTGERS.EDU was a major contributor to this list, and he
eloquently propounded the cause of individual liberties in the name
of libertarianism.
... you'd better realize that the cause of individual rights has
nothing to gain, and a lot to lose, from association with
libertarianism.
Please justify this. You seem to be using the word differently than
everyone else.
You quote some guy I never heard of as saying that libertarians
support PLO terrorism and Soviet foreign policy. This is utterly
opposite to libertarianism as I understand it. You then say that his
views are a logical result of taking "initiation of force is evil" as
an axiom. This makes no sense at all. PLO terrorism and Soviet
foriegn policy are excellent examples of initiating the use of force,
not of refraining from doing so. Please clarify.
[Ayn Rand's] principled rational and moral defense of capitalism,
and her insistence that this is the only proper way to defend it,
make it very clear that she is profoundly opposed to
libertarianism.
You keep trying to drive home the notion that there is an enormous
distinction between objectivism and libertarianism. But you never
explain what it is.
[Ayn Rand mentions] the 'libertarian' hippies ... who subordinate
reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism ...
Right. The quotes were hers. It seems that she is using the quotes
to say that the hippies are not really libertarians. Also, she wrote
that in 1972, and it is not clear that the word libertarian meant the
same thing then as now. In 1972 there was no Libertarian party.
I don't know many libertarians who are literally anarchists. I sent
a message very recently opposing anarchism - perhaps it hadn't yet
reached the list at the time you sent this message.
There are libertarians who expouse freely competing governments in
the same territory, which is something Rand does strongly oppose. I
am not aware of any other differences in opinions between libertarians
and objectivists.
Even if libertarians and objectivists do have their differences,
don't you think we should band together for the common cause? Once
again I emphasize that I see so little difference between the two that
I've never really said that I am one rather than the other, and I am
equally likely to call myself either.
There have been Libertarian candidates in the last three
presidential elections, and in 1980 Clarke came out well ahead of
Anderson and only just behind Carter in some states. But I have never
heard of an Objectivist candidate. So who should we vote for?
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Date: Thu 14 Aug 86 23:46:29-PDT
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: libertarianism
I think I can see Keith's point about wrong things being wrong even if
they are done for a good cause, because I believe the same thing about
war and killing. Many times people pose pacifists the question of
whether they would not kill in this or that extreme case. And perhaps
in one or another of those cases I would change my mind. It is hard
to continue to believe in nonviolence when it is met, as it often is,
with violence, and when there doesn't seem to be a practical
nonviolent alternative. But I see that a mentality of violence, war,
and terrorism is perpetuating itself in this world, and that people
who start out killing for the best of reasons can wind up killing for
the worst, and so I believe that all wars and killing are wrong, even
those in a good cause.
But I have a few questions. Keith, when you say that something which
is wrong is always wrong do you mean that the only moral rules are
absolute ones? Are there no actions you would consider moral or
immoral that depend on the situation? And where do you derive your
beliefs about right and wrong to begin with? I think I understand
why, given your set of values, you consider libertarianism to be the
most moral form of government, but I still don't understand what is
going to make someone who isn't libertarian become libertarian. You
seem to be saying that these beliefs are not just your own whim or
personal value judgment, but are somehow inherently true. Why are
they inherently true?
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Tuesday, 19 Aug 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 60
Today's Topics:
Property Rights &
First Amendment Follies (2 msgs) &
Objectivism and libertarianism (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Date: Thu 14 Aug 86 23:58:49-PDT
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: zoning
No, you do not have the right to forbid me to do what I like with my
property because it "lowers the value" of your neighboring property.
That argument could be used to prevent me from selling my house to a
black family. If you want to justify zoning, think of more concrete
harm that it protects people against. Otherwise people can be
forbidden to do absolutely anything on their own property as long as
it bothers the neighbors. If I wish to live in a commune, however
neatly and quietly, or live with a female lover, my neighbors can
forbid me because it lowers the value of their homes to have to live
near people like me. If I want to build lower income housing on my
property, my neighbors can forbid me. If I want to buy a sleazy hotel
and fix it up into a shelter for homeless families (as one group in my
town did), my neighbors can forbid me because they feel the value of
their home is degraded by their having to live near homeless people.
And if my tree is shading over my neighbor's solar collector, who
decides whose property rights take precedence? The government? Any
time my neighbor doesn't like something about my house?
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 86 00:37:00 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Hustler vs Falwell
[ Has this Hustler case made it to the Supreme Court?
No.
If it is, then this is very bad, if not, then its still bad, but
it may be correctable. -CWM]
I hope Hustler does appeal to the Supreme Court.
I read that Hustler has countsued, alleging that Falwell reprinted
and distributed thousands of copies of Hustler's fake interview.
Falwell admitted doing so, and admitted that he did not have Hustler's
permission. So how did the court rule? They threw it out, on the
grounds that he was not reducing sales of Hustler since nobody on
Falwell's mailing list reads Hustler! An amazing doctrine, as well as
an incredible overgeneralization. I would be willing to bet plenty of
people on his mailing list read Hustler. Not as high a percentage as
in the general population, but still quite a few. Did he hurt their
sales? Who knows. And who ever said that harm to sales had to be
proven to prosecute copyright infringement?
Whatever happened to a government of laws not of men?
...Keith
[ I dunno; I agree with you (surprise!) that courts of late have lost
the big-view of things, in favor of making popular rulings on
individual cases. - CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 86 23:51:22 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: First Amendment on TV
To: Poli-Sci@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
[ I take it that no amount of anecdotal proof will make you
reconsider the principal, eh? -CWM]
Well, how much anecdotal evidence of happy slaves or of miserable
freed slaves would it take for you to support slavery?
The overwhelming quantity of evidence is on my side. Liberals are
as fond of trotting out the rare exceptions as tobacco companies are
fond of healthy 90 year olds who have smoked heavily for 80 years.
We are either free to broadcast what we wish or we aren't. The fact
that the FCC approved a political advertisement for broadcast makes it
no less repugnant that such approval is necessary. Just as the fact
that the Soviet Union approves the exit visa of a dissident makes it
no less repugnant that such a visa is necessary.
...Keith
[ Well, I can quote you on this: Steve Walton (quoted by you in V6
#35) says, concerning your use of anecdotal immigrants-make-good
stories, "(You have a habit of arguing with anecdotes.)", to which you
reply, "Real life is made up of millions of anecdotes." Maybe we
could do a remake of "Deliverance", with a new theme-song, "Duelling
Anecdotes"? I see lots of opinions I don't like on TV. I take this
as a good sign. - CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 86 14:22:07 PDT
From: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@berkeley.edu (Barry S. Fagin)
Subject: Objectivism & libertarianism
Just for the record, I'm an objectivist, a libertarian, and a Jew.
I've stopped taking Rothbard seriously a while ago, preferring instead
the company of Robert Nozick and David Friedman, who might more
properly be considered the intellectual leaders of the libertarian
movement (and who are both Jewish). So I'm puzzled by objectivists
ragging on libertarians. It's counterproductive, and probably not
very interesting to the great unconvinced majority out there anyway.
Objectivist, libertarian, who cares what the term is? The important
issue is whether or not a movement based on individual liberty across
the spectrum of social issues has relevant and interesting ideas for
the problems of our time. I think the answer is a resounding yes;
that's why I'm involved with the libertarian movement.
Jeez, guys, there are libertarians in the GOP who are trying to pull
the Republican party away from its fundamentalist/conservative
leanings into a more tolerant position on social issues and a
noninterventionist foreign policy. The Reason Foundation, a
libertarian think tank in LA and publisher of Reason Magazine, is the
nation's leading authority on the privatization of local government
services (indeed, they invented the term 'privatization'). The Cato
Institute, another libertarian think tank, is headquartered in
Washington D.C. and has been very succesful in getting their ideas
across to the press and Congress. Their newly appointed director,
William Niskanen, was a former member of Reagan's Council of Economic
Advisors.
The point is that the term 'libertarian', as it is now finally finding
its way into conventional political jargon, refers to a person who
values individual liberty, the free market, and social tolerance:
"Free minds, free bodies, and free markets" might be their creed. I
resent people's constant attempts to peg us into narrowly defined
categories and then write us off as total bozos. In fact,
libertarians are a remarkably diverse lot, like the rest of humanity.
They are also the only group around that's doing anything even
remotely interesting politically; the major parties are so
intellectually bankrupt and so incapable of adressing the problems of
the nation it's downright embarassing.
If you're interested in making the world a freer, more prosperous
place to live, if your leanings are toward less governmental
intervention in both personal and economic affairs, if you value
economic liberties as much as civil liberties, then you're best
described as a libertarian; you're certainly poorly described as
liberal or conservative. Thus the label 'libertarian' fits
baby-boomers quite well. If you're curious about what libertarians
are doing in the real world and/or how you can help, send me e-mail
(fagin@ji.berkeley.edu) and I'll point you in the right direction. In
any case, people out there should recognize that the word
'libertarian' describes a movement far better than it describes a
person. 'Nuff said?
--Barry
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 86 00:21:44 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Transition to libertarianism
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
It seems to me that advocates of libertarianism make implicit
assumptions about society e.g. there would be enough voluntary
contributions to take care of social problems so that these
problems would not threaten the existence and stability of the
libertarian system.
Um, sort of. I would phrase it differently. I would say the amount
which individuals choose to donate to a cause is the right amount by
definition.
If the only way a system can be made stable is by taking money from
people against their will, then that system should NOT remain stable.
... would someone describe how the following countries can be
transformed to stable libertarian societies:
Grenada, Haiti, Namibia, the Philippines, and South Africa.
The problem is that there is only so much wealth to go around. A
libertarian system will result in more wealth than any other, but not
instantly. You might as well ask how will it help ten people in a
life raft with water enough for five to adopt a libertarian system.
The biggest problem is people's attitudes. Someone pointed out that
if we change the world without changing people's attitudes, they will
just change it back by Wednesday. There is a lot of truth in that.
In South Africa, most of the ruling whites fear giving any power to
blacks. A libertarian system would mean giving equal power to blacks,
so they would not adopt such a system.
In some countries there are large numbers of people who believe so
strongly in some cause that they are willing to blow themselves up
along with many innocent people. I don't know of any solution to this
in any political system.
I don't think it is likely that any of those countries will soon
adopt a libertarian system, given political realities. Neither is it
likely to happen soon in the US. But that has nothing to do with
whether it is RIGHT or not. What we CAN do is attempt to convince as
many people as possible that it is the system to have. And that it is
the only truly moral system. Doing so will make it more likely that
it will be adopted in the future. If not here, then elsewhere. If
not in this century, then in the next.
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Tuesday, 19 Aug 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 61
Today's Topics:
Technology, Research and the Free Market (2 msgs) &
Libertarianism and the Community of Nations &
Libertarian Viewpoints &
Big G gone mad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 86 00:45:38 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Commuting
To: Hank.Walker@UNH.CS.CMU.EDU
One of the main reasons that roads are so clogged during rush hour
is that few people live within walking distance from where they work.
Few people CAN live within walking distance from where they work,
thanks to zoning laws. I can understand not wanting a factory next
door to one's house (not that one should have the power to prevent
it), but what line of reasoning says there shouldn't be office
buildings, schools, churches, or grocery stores near one's house?
Where I live there is actually a taxpayer subsidized minibus system
intended primarily for old people to go shopping! If we didn't have
zoning laws they would live within easy walking distance of the stores
and they wouldn't need subsidized bus service.
The main problem with urban bus service is that it is almost always
run by the government. Government has no incentive to make it
comfortable or reliable. Bus routing depends more on political
pressure groups than on demand for service.
This is not to say that bus service is now a lucrative field for
private enterprise. Once a person has bought a car and learned to
drive and payed all the various licensing fees and special taxes, he
is not likely to commute some other way. Especially since buses are
slowed down by private cars to the same extent as other private cars
are, so there is no gain in speed. (Special lanes just for carpools
and buses are a promising innovation in some areas.)
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 86 10:34:47 PDT
From: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@berkeley.edu (Barry S. Fagin)
Subject: Abolish the Postal Service
Put bluntly, there is simply no just cause for the continued
existence of the Postal Service. It's not a partisan issue;
you don't have to be a libertarian to support its abolition.
We have a monopoly in mail delivery simply because we've always
had one. Period.
We inherited a tradition of monopolistic mail service from
Great Britain, first codified in 1792 with the passage
of the first postal act. Private competition flourished
nonetheless, and in 1845 Congress tightened the laws banning
competition, finally subsidizing rates in 1851. Thanks
to spotty and expensive service, however, private carriers
still thrived. The first private Pony Express route delivered
the mail in less than half the time of the Postal Service,
which eventually began contracting with it to speed up
the delivery of government mail. Indeed, private letter
carriers were welcomed throughout the country. Journalist Patrick
Cox notes that:
"The August 1875 cover of Harper's ... showed
an illegal carrier galloping down a country road...
as federal agents race to arrest him for carrying
mail. Arrested carriers of that period were
immediately bailed out by citizens, and most juries
refused to find them guilty..."
Today, however, private competitors find it much tougher
going. Consider the following incidents:
In 1971, a federal district court prohibited a private firm
from carrying Christmas cards in Oklahoma on the basis that
the plaintiffs, a postal employees union, suffered "significant
loss of work time, overtime, employment benefits, ... and
morale". They court held that private delivery of Christmas
cards would be a "widespread public nuisance".
In 1976 in New York, a pack of Cub Scouts tried to raise money by
delivering Christmas cards: Postal Service lawyers ordered them
to stop, and threatened the ten-year-olds with a $76,500 fine.
In 1978, the P. H. Brennan Hand Delivery Service offered
same-day mail delivery in Rochester, N.Y, for 10c a letter
(the post office couldn't guarantee overnight delivery for 15c).
Brennan never lost a letter, and never had a complaint.
Nonetheless, a judge issued a cease and desist order, citing
the "threat to postal revenues".
The USPS has been providing us with deteriorating service for
the past three decades, behaving like a textbook monopoly
organization. It now takes 10% longer to deliver a letter
than it did 10 years ago (according to USPS records), this
slowdown coming at least partially from a 1969 decision to
"no longer strive for overnight mail delivery and to keep
this a secret from Congress and the public" (Washington Post).
The price of a first class stamp has gone up 633% since 1958.
Postal labor costs have long been out of control; they are
"the highest paid semi-skilled workers in the world" (Postal
Rate Commisioner John Crutcher). USPS pays starting clerks
$20,991, compared with $8000-$9000 for private companies.
USPS janitors make $10.29/hr, compared with privately contracted
wages of $4.44. Private mail couriers in Washington D.C.
get $6/hr, USPS couriers get $13. The average postal worker
get 23 paid vacations days a year, 9 paid holidays, 13 sick
days, fully paid life insurance, 75% paid health and medical
insurance coverage, a taxpayer-financed pension, and a
guaranteed lifetime job. In spite of this, up to a third
of postal employees have "attendance problems"; three cities
surveyed by the GAO had average employee absenteeism rates
of *50* work days a year.
One argument often made to support the continued monopoly
status of the USPS is that a monopoly is necessary to maintain
uniform rates. But why should equal rates be charged for
unequal service? Shouldn't uural customers should pay a surcharge
for rural delivery, just as city residents pay surcharges for
fresh produce and firewood?. What is it about uniform rates
that's so sacred? What about efficient, productive mail delivery?
Another argument made by the USPS is that private carriers
can't ensure the inviolability of the mail. But neither
can the USPS, of course. The CIA routinely opened mail
during the 1970's, the USPS refused to deliver Henry Miller's
books only a couple of decades ago (obscene, don't you know),
and has even refused to deliver a booklet published by the
National Health Federation, claiming that it contradicts
the weight of scientific opinion.
And let's not forget those lovable postal employees, who, according
to the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Herald Examiner, have
dumped mail in outhouses to avoid delivering it, committed hundreds
of thousands of dollars of mail theft, and eaten cookies from
packages they we're supposed to have delivered (I like that one
the best). Private mail companies live or die by reliable
delivery; seems obvious to me who would do a better job.
It's interesting to note that the USPS often
contracts with private carriers to deliver mail in rural
areas, saving up to 2/3 the usual cost. Contracting out
other services to private operators could save $12 billion
a year; we could have 15c stamps again.
But why stop there? There simply are no good reasons
for making it a crime to deliver mail better than the USPS.
The Private Express Statutes (the laws that give the Postal
Service their monopoly) should be repealed, pure and
simple. Fortunately, there at least one sign of sanity in Washington:
James Miller III, chairman of the FTC and a board member
of the Cato Institute, supports the abolition of federal
postal monopoly and the legalization of private letter carriers.
Now if only he had more support from members of Congress
and the electorate ...
------------
Most of the above material was shamelessly plagiarized from
a study on the USPS by the Cato Institute, Washington D.C.
Sources include the Journal of Law and Economics, various
Washington, LA, and New York newspapers, USPS records,
personal interviews, and government memos.
It's tough for me to understand why people aren't more
upset about the postal monopoly than they are. I guess
private letter delivery isn't all that exciting an issue.
Alas, there's also a very strong impulse among people to
like things just the way they are.
--Barry
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 86 00:05:50 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Community of Nations
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
If we move up one level of abstraction, we can discuss the pros
and cons of the libertarian ideology with respect to the community
(i.e.society, group...whatever term you wished to use to describe
such a set) of nations that we now have on earth. Such a society
has a free market economic system and no effective government (the
U.N. doesn't make and can't enforce laws).
Libertarians aren't anarchists.
This is an interesting analogy. There are some major differences
between nations and individuals, though. One nation may invade
another nation because the latter is oppressing it's citizens. There
is nothing analogous with individuals. Two or more nations can merge
into one, and one nation can break into two or more pieces. A nation
can be a colony of another nation.
Another major difference is that a much greater proportion of
nations than individuals think that they are the center of creation.
... there is no effective judicial system to
resolve conflicts between nations. This leads to nations
resolving conflicts by force, coercion or negotiation.
Yes. For example the world court's ruling against the US support
for the Nicaraguan Contras has no effect. The world court's ruling
would make a lot of sense if Nicaragua and the US were individuals.
But they aren't. The US government believes that the current
Nicaraguan government does not represent the people of Nicaragua, and
thus we are in fact rescuing Nicaragua from an evil gang who have
taken over.
I do not know enough about the situation in Nicaragua to take sides,
except to oppose any taxpayer money being sent to either side.
Question: Will the libertarian system of government work for such
a society?
Anarchy is not libertarian. And the analogy doesn't really hold
that well, as I pointed out.
I do think that every individual has all rights that any government
has.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Date: Sat 16 Aug 86 00:11:56-PDT
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: sympathetic views of the PLO and Soviet Union
Did this Murray Rothbard character actually say that he regarded
the PLO and the Soviet Union as benign? And that the US was a worse
threat to world peace? Or did he simply advocate dovish policies
toward them, leading you to believe he must see them sympathetically?
I don't approve of Soviet foreign policy, but I don't want to become
like them in order to fight them. The libertarians I have known have
also had principles they were not willing to compromise in order to
protect the US from the Soviets, and so I have found myself working
together with both libertarians and socialists on anti-conscription
work. I see no inconsistency there. And, while the regimes we
oppose in our defense of "freedom" throughout the world are fairly
unfree, I question whether our method of opposing them really supports
freedom. We support groups which are also oppressive of human rights
in places where it is often doubtful that the people of that country
wish us there, on the grounds that these regimes are less unfree than
the ones we are opposing. Sometimes they are, but not always. In
order to support these regimes or groups of "freedom fighters", we
take money by force from everyone in the country, sometimes spy on
people who oppose these policies, and sometimes draft young men
to go off and fight in some war. Clearly a foreign policy which
was based on a consistent defense of liberty would look quite
different from what our foreign policy has been so far, even if it
were based on the same assumptions about the Soviet Union.
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 86 00:29:52 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Milk program
[ Just who are you expecting to defend this? (Besides a milk
farmer who contributes heavily to various political endevors to
keep the milk commision in business). Get serious. -CWM]
I am quite serious. The people on this list who are willing to
advocate small taxes and small government spending don't seem to
realize that they gradually turn into big taxes and big government
spending until you are left with boondoggles like this milk
millionaire project. I was curious whether any members of the list
think that such projects are a good use of taxpayer money.
I would like anyone who thinks that small taxes are acceptable but
who thinks that taxation to pay for projects like the one I described
is not, to explain how they propose to keep taxes and government
spending within reasonable limits.
Telling government it is ok to tax, but only a little bit is like
telling a child it is ok to steal but only a little bit. A little bit
of theft won't hurt anyone noticably but it is still wrong. And
virtually every major thief started out as a minor thief.
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Tuesday, 19 Aug 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 62
Today's Topics:
Arms Control &
Libertarianism and Racism? &
Money and Power & Taxes &
Governmental Accountability &
Duellism &
This Week in History Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1986 18:40 EDT
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: arms control and technology
I'm currently exploring the following question, and I would like
comments on it. This query also appears on ARMS-D, which I moderate.
Please forward responses to me directly, since I am not on POLI-SCI.
Also tell me if I cannot forward your responses to ARMS-D.
What are the circumstances under which it is possible to regulate
military technology by negotiated agreement (as in an arms control
treaty)? Some people say that the evolution of technology will
eventually vitiate any arms control agreement; others say that arms
control can be a useful tool for restraining or limiting technology or
making it more predictable.
Note too that there are at least 3 types of arms control. The
performance characteristics of weapons can be limited; their
deployments can be limited; their use can be limited.
The ABM Treaty is an example of this discussion. Some argue that the
evolution of BMD technology since 1972 has rendered the Treaty
obsolete. In other words, the Treaty no longer has the justification
that it once had, nor does it apply to new technologies upon which
regulations have not been agreed. Others argue that the Treaty is not
obsolete, and has meaningful utility in a world of lasers and particle
beams. In other words, the Treaty still has justification, and
prevents worst-case planning on the other side by making the strategic
environment more predictable. New technologies should be incorporated
into the Treaty regime as they come on line.
What are the technological characteristics of the ABM Treaty regime
that make either point of view valid?
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 86 00:53:37 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Racism?
To: T3B%PSUVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
From: < T3B%PSUVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA> (Tom Benson 814-238-5277)
I've been reading the Poli-Sci digest with growing disappointment.
Then you should contribute more often. This isn't TV. What you
read is simply what people, including you, choose to send to the list.
The impulse to be free people seems constricted into a narrow
selfishness by so-called libertarianism.
We aren't necessarily selfish. We simply don't think anyone should
be COMPELLED to donate arbitrarily large amounts of money to dubious
causes of someone else's choosing.
A recent (3 August) note by Keith Lynch about "Good English,"
arguing that minority dialects are good for gutter talk
Please re-read my message. It was phrased as a QUESTION. In any
case, I argued that while individuals are free to deal with people who
'talk funny' or not, as they see fit, government has no business
distingushing.
seems to reveal quite adequately the racism that's part of the
value system here.
I don't see how you can find racism in anything I've said, unless
you are one of those liberals who scream "Racist!" at anyone who
opposes affirmative action programs.
I'm going to send in a request to be removed from the mailing
list.
Please stay. You cannot affect the contents of this list by leaving
or by threatening to leave, but only by contributing more.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < campbell%maynard.UUCP@harvisr.HARVARD.EDU>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 86 18:17:34 EDT
From: campbell%maynard.UUCP@harvisr.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: Power
Reply-to: campbell%maynard.UUCP@harvisr.HARVARD.EDU (Larry Campbell)
KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU writes:
>
> From: < ucsbcsl!uncle@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
>
> ... money is simply indirect-addressing of power,
> money stands for a power over objects and services.
>
> You are confusing power over PEOPLE with power over objects and
> services. Certainly money is power over objects and services, but
> not over people. No amount of money can buy the power to make a
> person do something he doesn't want to do, give up something he
> doesn't want to give up, accept something he doesn't want to accept,
> etc.
What?!? Gimme a break... Can you get a rock to crumble by paying
it? Can you get a tree to fall by bribing it? Money is power over
people, and people only. Money and power are two sides of the same
coin, and they are convertible to each other the way matter and energy
are equivalent and convertible.
--
Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc.
ARPA: campbell%maynard.uucp@harvard.ARPA 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA
UUCP: {alliant,wjh12}!maynard!campbell (617) 367-6846
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 86 19:01:45 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Fixed taxes but choice among programs
To: SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
... [In this system] people pay the same taxes they do now but get
to allocate them as they will ... instead of allocating the money
on their tax forms (where the government could know what each
individual's preferences were), they could fill out separate,
anonymous allocation forms. This would preserve anonymity, at the
price of making it easy for people to lie on their allocation
forms ...
Actually, there is a way to guarantee that everyone pays the right
amount without allowing government to see what each individual
allocated his money to. Each taxpayer would be issued a number of
ballots proportional to the tax he pays, and would secretly fill them
out and put them in a ballot box.
I do not support this, but I do think it is better than the current
system.
The logical extension of this is to allow ANYONE to make up a new
government program. Since nobody would HAVE to pay for it, why not?
Why should taxpayers be compelled to choose among a limited
selection? Surely it is possible that someone morally objects to ALL
of the choices, so why not allow him to make up new ones? He has to
pay the same amount of money anyhow, right?
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat 16 Aug 86 23:18:16-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Accountability
It seems that libertarians and non-libertarians agree on the necessity
of government. It is the question of how much power the government
should have that is heatedly discussed on Poli-Sci. Given that
government is not going to go away, an important issue that must be
dealt with is how can government be made accountable. I have an idea
(as a first cut) that covers the presidency. Let's have a system that
puts in free market type incentives in making presidents accountable.
Perhaps we can evolve into something reasonable from the following.
Every presidential candidate must submit for public scrutiny a
presidential plan much like a business plan that every entrepreneur
looking for venture capital must submit. The document is essentially
the candidate's plan for achieving certain goals covering the economy
(e.g. yearly GNP, inflation, unemployment, etc targets), foreign
policy (specific policy and goals with a schedule for when those goals
will be achieved), social issue (e.g. what to do (including doing
nothing) about the poor, the young, the aged, the disfranchised,
etc.), defense (what to achieve, when, how and how much) and other
issues like science and technology, education, etc. It should also
give the credentials of the cabinet members. Once elected, the
president has to carry out the plan. The plan can be suspended in
time of emergencies like a nuclear war. We (the people) work out a
formula and schedule for reward and punishment (financial) for the
president. We sort of act like investors in the entrepreneur analogy.
The candidate has to give an indication to us that he/she does believe
in his/her plan e.g. take a substantial cut in salary or may be even
put some of his/her (or his/her supporters' or party's)
properties/wealth in escrow. If the targets are achieved, the
president gets a reward e.g. a few megabucks for that year plus
perhaps the return of some of the properties/wealth. A failure would
result in either no reward or loss of part of his/her
properties/wealth to the state (say, to pay for the maintenance of the
judicial system in the case of a libertarian society). The duration
and amount of the properties/wealth that are held in escrow depends on
the schedule presented i.e. they can be held beyond the term(s)
served. So can rewards be made after the term(s) served.
Note: For those of you who have never written a business plan, it
ain't easy to write. You have to present goals that are optimistic
enough to get the money (from the investors) or the votes (from the
people) and yet realistic enough so that you have a reasonable chance
of achieving them. Also, you never have all the necessary information
to make those projections. Venture capitalists always try to make
sure that if they lose, you lose more than them and if you win, you
and they win big. They expect you to show some commitment to the
venture. This usually means a salary cut or that you (or your
partners and associates) have already made a reasonable amount of
personal investment in the venture.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 86 02:52:23 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Duels
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
From the discussion on libertarianism, it seems that duels are
legal since they are formal combats between consenting individuals
in the presence of witnesses who also act as judges.
The short answer is yes. The long answer is:
Duels were still quite common for a long time after they were made
illegal, just as cocaine use is both common and illegal today.
How much dueling there is depends far more on people's attitude
toward it than on any laws. And few people who are not worried about
the even chance of getting killed would be talked out of it based on
the laws.
So if dueling was made legal, I don't think it would become more
prevalent. In any case, as long as it is only between consenting
adults, why worry about it?
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 86 00:55:44 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Renaissance
To: Poli-Sci@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
... I am one of those crazy historians who maintain that there
was no "Renaissance", no sudden "rebirth" of civilization.
Well, it wasn't sudden. But it was real. Just because there is no
split second when a man who needs a shave becomes a man with a beard
doesn't mean beards aren't real.
...Keith
[ If it wasn't sudden, where do you put the dividing line? To carry
your analogy further, if the man grows a beard, is he not the same
man? (Jeez, I sound like an episode of "Kung Fu"!) - CWM
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Wednesday, 20 Aug 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 63
Today's Topics:
Diversity of TV Opinion &
Medicine &
"Conflicting" Rights &
Libertarian Societies: Who pays?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < dmw@unh.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Sunday, 17 August 1986 14:21:05 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: diversity of TV opinion
On our cable system it is possible to switch back and forth between
"Reefer Madness" and Pat Robertson, or between "Rambo" and Jane Fonda.
Personally I leave it on MTV most of the time.
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 86 19:50:49 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Medicine
[ So no one should test drugs for carcinogenic properties? Long
term effects?
I am sure it is in the drug companies interest to do so. I don't
think it should be done at taxpayers expense, is all I am saying. Nor
should a drug be illegal just because such tests have NOT been done,
though certainly potential users should be informed that no tests have
been done.
A drug for AIDS is now undergoing testing. Nobody now gets it
except a handful in a research study. Is it dangerous? Could be.
Does it work against AIDS? Maybe.
Don't you think AIDS patients have a right to buy the drug, given
that they are warned that it has not been tested? This is admittedly
an extreme case, since everyone agrees that untreated AIDS is certain
death. In every case the risks of the drugs must be weighed against
the risk of the disease. This is clear cut with AIDS and terminal
cancer, though that doesn't seem to keep government from banning
UNPROVEN drugs for those invariably fatal conditions.
What about less serious diseases? Why do you assume that doctors
and/or the government should have a monopoly on weighing possible
risks against possible benefits? It seems to me that it should be up
to the patient to decide. The doctors, pharmacists, and government
should only play an advisory role.
...Keith
[ I am uncomfortable with the thought of a doctor coming along after 5
years and saying, "well, you shouldn't have been taking that allergy
drug, fella - it causes leprosy! Gee, I'm sorry, but you know, let
the buyer beware!" As usual, I am not so convinced about this sort of
thing as you are (this does *not* necessarily mean you should try and
convince me though! :-) -CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Date: Sun 17 Aug 86 15:50:04-EDT
From: ~joe testa~ < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Subject: Re: "conflicting" rights
To: Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM
Cc: KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU,
From: Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM
> I do not agree that rights can conflict. According to my
> understanding of the term, a right is something that a person can
> claim absolutely. In this particular case, you have a right to own a
> gun, and you have the right to use it safely. You have another
> right, which is the right not to be aggressed against. These rights
> do not conflict. There isn't a case where you have to decide which
> one is more important than theother. You can do whatever you like
> with your gun that doesn't involve aggression.
>
> (I hope you understand the distinction I draw between natural or
> inalienable rights, and legal rights. I speak here of the former. If
> you intended the latter, then you can take this as only pointing out
> that a distinction is meaningful and useful.)
I understand what you mean, but i'm not sure that i agree. I still
think that it is possible for "natural" rights to conflict. I've been
mulling this over, trying to think of an example. However, i think
that it would be more useful if we used the same criteria. If you
could send me a list of what you consider to be a person's natural
rights, we can proceed with the discussion from there. Your list
should contain whatever exceptions apply: i.e. don't say "you have the
right to use a gun", but rather "you have the right to use a gun
without harming anyone not trying to harm you first". If you provide a
list of rights, and i describe a situation where those rights DO
conflict, we could go on forever with you modifying the list, i come
up with another example, etc,etc. (Though you will not be "penalized"
for a limited number of oversights -- i'm not perfect, so i certainly
can't expect you to be.) I will be looking forward to hearing from
you again.
-joe testa-
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 86 03:35:24 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Who pays?
From: campbell%maynard.UUCP@harvisr.HARVARD.EDU
It is often the case that everyone, or nearly everyone, benefits,
and that it is impossible to quantify the individual benefit
received by any one person. The communications (telephone,
telegraph, post) and transportation (roads, trains, airline
industry) infrastructure are the best-known and most illustrative
examples of this.
I think it is quite possible to quantify the costs and benefits, in
these and all other cases.
> Tell that to Mexico. Or does the agricultural and mineral
> wealth of the continent stop abruptly at the Mexican border?
I failed to place enough emphasis on the agricultural part of our
wealth, which is NOT shared by Mexico (they have nothing like the
corn belt), and which is probably more important to us than our
mineral wealth.
Have you ever seen the Mexican border? It is quite abrupt. On one
side are skyskrapers and a few blocks to the south are hovels. Does
our corn belt extend right to the border? What percent of our GNP is
corn, anyway? And how does wealth from the corn belt get to the US
southwest? And why doesn't it go a few yard further, into Mexico?
The border between the US and Mexico is a political boundary.
Nothing mineral or vegetable suddenly changes at the border. Neither
does the intelligence of the people. Only the political system
changes. So what differences we do see on opposite sides of the
border are clearly due to differences in the political system. In
fact, since much of Mexico's wealth is due to trade with the US and
Japan, the difference is actually much greater than it appears from
looking at the border. Especially since residents of the border
cities in Mexico get much of their income from US tourism.
> Is Japan's recent success due to its adoption of free
> enterprise? Or is agricultural and mineral wealth responsible
> there too? Strange how no communist countries seem to have any.
Japan's economy is at least as regulated as ours.
Which is probably the explanation for why they are only the SECOND
most productive nation. The US is still in first place.
More heavily regulated economies do worse. Totally regulated
economies are total disasters.
They also have the substantial and peculiar advantage of having
been forced by a conqueror to have only a token military
establishment,
True. I am not sure what to do about this. I'm certainly not
comfortable with the idea of a rearmed Japan. Neither are most
Japanese these days. If the US did ask for tribute from Japan to pay
for the US defense umbrella, or if the US said it planned to phase out
its defense of Japan and was asking Japan to rearm, I think Japan
would call our bluff. They know as well as we do that our defense of
Japan is for OUR benefit, not theirs.
Any other country would have simply taken over much or all of Japan
after conquering it. For instance the Soviet Union took over
thousands of square miles of northern Japan despite the fact that they
were only at war with Japan for the final week of World War II, well
after Roosevelt (and spies) told Stalin we had developed the atomic
bomb.
while ours threatens to devour our entire GNP.
It is way too large, but that is an exaggeration. Less than 20
percent of tax money goes for defense. The vast majority of it goes
to various social programs.
> ... when telephones first started, there WAS competition,
> and it DID NOT WORK. ...
>
> You think this might have a little bit to do with the low level
> of 19th century electronic technology?
So what? Does that make my political argument invalid?
When you say something didn't work 100 years ago, and blame it on
capitalism, that is a little strange.
Well, I used a 30 year old computer once and it didn't work very
well. Does this mean that we should adopt socialism? I fail to
follow your logic.
Gotcha! I was NOT trying to argue that a particular industry
(telephone) should necessarily continue to be a regulated
monopoly. I was arguing, and I think you've conceded my point,
that there can be perfectly sound reasons for certain industries
to be composed of regulated monopolies. Electric power utilities
are an example that is still valid today.
I have conceded nothing. You have failed to present any evidence
that there is such a thing as a natural monopoly. In fact there are
several areas where rival electric companies compete, and the rates
there are LOWER than in the rest of the country.
> Now, many objectivists and libertarians like to moan and
> groan about how society has no right to "pick my pocket", or
> "force me to do something".
>
> See, here you are doing it. What you are talking about is
> called 'government'. Why not use the word? It isn't all THAT
> loathsome.
Government is an integral part of society. Either word would have
been valid in my sentence.
The part of society that robs people, excluding street thugs which
are clearly not who you are referring to, is called government.
Simply stating that government, meaning a government with authority
to tax people, is an integral part of society begs the very question
we are debating.
Baloney. Government provides or insures most of your physical
safety (police and defense).
I thought my safety had more to do with most people being honest,
the locks on my doors, most individual's strong disapproval of
burglary (equally harsh laws against drug use have had little effect
precisely because so many individuals do NOT strongly disapprove of
drug use), and the local voluntary neighborhood watch group. The
police are needed very rarely. I have never needed to call them.
National defense is needed only because of the many governments in
the world organized on the principles you advocate.
Government provides economic activity, or at least the tools and
framework within which economic activity occur.
Wrong.
Government creates money ...
Wrong again. They do print certificates and mint coins which
REPRESENT money. But most money these days is not in that form. They
cannot and do not CREATE even one cent.
If they COULD create money, why couldn't they do away with taxes and
with the deficit, by creating enough money to finance all their
programs?
Government funds an enormous amount of medical and scientific
research.
Which should be privately financed.
... Most importantly, government provides most of the rules of
the game.
The rule of the game is simply to never initiate the use of force
against anyone. Government's one true function is to be the referee.
Not to make new inconsistent rules.
How do you voluntarily trade what you can produce for police
protection?
There can be (and are) private police departments.
Or defense?
Defense should be supported by voluntary contributions. Remember
that even the bloated and wasteful defense system we have now takes
less than 20 percent of tax revenues.
Or environmental protection?
Costs of pollution control can be passed on to the consumers of the
products that require it for manufacture.
...Keith
[ Here we go again. All we have to do is get everyone to think like
we do and everything will be fine, eh? Some governments use their
armies for conquest. Saying that they shouldn't do that is a pleasant
but unworkable answer. Libertarian societies will not break out
simultaneously all over the world. What do libertarians do in the
face of naked aggression on a national scale?
How would an army-less libertarian France, lets say, defend itself
from Nazi Germany in 1940? Consider that voluntary contributions are
tied to perceived danger, so that in 1936 (or so) the contributions
would have had to have been very high indeed (when danger was
perceived to be low) to be able to build the factories to build the
tanks, artillery, ships, and so on and hire the men to be trained in
them. Remember, we cannot use hindsight and say "they could have seen
it coming". What everyone saw up until late 1939 was a war all right-
between Germany and Russia.
In answering this please don't trot out the old 'militia' or 'group
of small private armies' stuff - we both know that wouldn't work. And
don't say 'that was then this is now', because if anything, things
have changed for the worse war-wise. So what happens to libertarian
France? Down to defeat? (Don't say "we'll wait for the Amis" - in
this alternate history, the Americans turned isolationist and didn't
enter the European war at all). As usual, I don't have clever
answers, just long questions... - CWM]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Wednesday, 20 Aug 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 64
Today's Topics:
Is money power? &
The First Amendment &
Drugs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 86 19:25:01 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Is money power?
To: ucsbcsl!uncle@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: < ucsbcsl!uncle@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
... we did agree that money IS in fact, power,.
No, we agreed that power has many different meanings. To an
electrical engineer it means I squared R. To a politician it means
the ability to coerce others.
KFL ,however, does not agree that this implies power over people;
he maintains that the very organization which HE 'vilifies', viz.
guvmint,
I object not to government but to government coercion, in the form
of taxation and laws against victimless crime. I object equally to
coercion done by individuals and by corporations.
has made the abuses of wealth illegal, therfore they wont occur,
or they are susceptible of remedy through the legal system etc
etc...
Well, what is power? A person who can throw a stone or wield an axe
has the abililty to rob and to kill. This is power. Power over other
people. That is obviously what YOU mean by power, since otherwise
power is not objectionable.
What ADDITIONAL power does a person have who has plenty of wealth?
Anything? I can't think of anything, except that he can HIRE someone
to do evil deeds. But that IS illegal. The WEALTH is not. No USE of
wealth, except to hire people to do evil deeds, is illegal, nor should
it be. And it is equally illegal for a poor person to hire a killer,
whether or not it is likely he can do so, just as it is equally
illegal for a weak person to throw stones at people, whether or not it
is likely he can do so.
Very very few wealthy people DO hire killers. A more common crime
wealthy people commit is to bribe legislators to enact favorable
legislation. Under the political system I advocate, this wouldn't
even NEED to be illegal because no legislator COULD enact special
interest legislation!
I am not an anarchist. Government does have a purpose. That
purpose is to stop the axe wielders and the stone throwers. To
protect everyone's individual rights against all agressors, whether
they be individual criminals, corporations, or rival governments.
that line of reasoning is just more byzantium to me!
Please read Ayn Rand's books. She is able to explain much better
than I can.
...to maintain that the power of the state should be limited,
but that the power of wealth should not, is to invite plutocracy,
not freedom.
I still don't understand what you mean by power of wealth. I have
explained that all coercive power must be restrained equally. Whether
the perpetrator is a plutocrat or a bureaucrat or a plain old street
thug.
All I can figure is that you imagine that capitalism is a form of
coercion or fraud, that wealth is a fixed quantity, and the only way
some people can get more of it than others is by somehow cheating
others out of their fair share. This is absolutely false. Wealth is
created by individuals and corporations. The owners of the wealth are
those who created it, and those who benefited directly or indirectly
from others having created wealth. And, unfortunately, those who have
coerced wealth from others or who have convinced government to coerce
it for them. It is only this last group whose power I oppose.
.....AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT....
......did he ever return? no he never returned and his fate is
still unlearned, he may ride for ever 'neath the streets of
boston, he's the man who never returned!...
Despite my MIT net address, I am not in the Boston area. I am more
likely to be lost in the Washington DC 'Metro' than in the Boston 'T'.
Nevertheless, I do attend Boskone, and can be seen in person there
this coming February (if I do not become trapped in the Boston subway
on the way there :-) ).
If 'ucsbcsl!uncle', whatever his real name is, is no longer on the
net, would someone who knows him please give him a copy of this
message? Thanks.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < campbell%maynard.UUCP@harvisr.HARVARD.EDU>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 86 21:51:01 EDT
From: campbell%maynard.UUCP@harvisr.HARVARD.EDU
Subject: Re: First Amendment, RIP
kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@mc.lcs.mit.edu writes:
> Hustler Magazine has been found liable for $200,000 for publishing
> a fake interview with Jerry Falwell. The magazine pointed out that
> the interview was obviously fake and that nobody had been misled by
> it. The court and Falwell conceded that this was a sufficient
> defense against libel. So how Falwell win his case? Hustler
> Magazine has been found liable for 'inflicting emotional distress' on
> Falwell.
> This is an amazing doctrine! A whole new exception to the First
> Amendment! Think of the doors it opens. Perhaps the administration
> can silence critical journalists because they are causing emotional
> distress to the President. Perhaps some of the liberals on this list
> will sue me because my arguments cause them emotional distress. Can
> you think of ANY writing that does not cause SOMEONE emotional
> distress? ...
> ...Keith
I'm surprised -- I actually agree with Keith 100% on this one. This
court ruling stinks, and I hope it's appealed and overturned.
Keith's posting went on to defend the tobacco companies's right to
advertise, and again I agree with him. It is precisely the unpopular
views, even (especially) the repugnant ones, that the First Amendment
was designed to protect. The case of the neo-Nazis in Skokie Illinios
is another example. The ACLU lost lots of members for its defense of
their right to march in Skokie. I contend that those who cancelled
their membership over this were simply hypocrites.
I forgot who said it -- Voltaire? -- but "I may disagree with what you
say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is an
especially important aphorism to recall these days.
--
Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc.
ARPA: campbell%maynard.uucp@harvard.ARPA 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA
UUCP: {alliant,wjh12}!maynard!campbell (617) 367-6846
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 86 19:43:09 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Drugs
To: Poli-Sci@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
[ Firstly, you cannot simply whisk away the issue of drugs and
children. I am not satisfied with just ignoring the problem.
I am not ignoring the problem at all. There should be laws against
selling drugs to minors just as there are now laws against selling
alcohol to minors.
Is the present system working? Does it keep drugs out of the hands
of children?
To what extent do we have an obligation to child-proof our world?
Opponents of pornography often use the dangers of children being
exposed to porn as an argument against adults being allowed to have
it. Gun control proponents argue similarly. The same argument can be
extended to argue against ANYTHING being legal for adults that ought
to be illegal for children. What do YOU see the solution as being?
..."in fact this crime REDUCES the cost of cigarettes" - I take it
then that you approve of any criminal act that lowers prices, or
just those that make government the victim?
No. I do oppose this law, but I certainly sympathize with those who
want to put heavy taxes on tobacco to make tobacco users pay a higher
proportion of the tax load their diseases, carlessness, and
productivity loss adds to nonsmoking taxpayers. But the real solution
is for NO tax money to be used to pay for these things.
I do not advocate breaking unjust laws. Except for laws which I
would have to do great evil to obey. I am not aware of any such laws
in this country at this time.
Reducing the price of drugs will 1) increase the number of
overdoses - if there's more (and better) of it people will take
more;
The vast majority of overdoses are due to variation in
concentration. That would go away if drugs were legalized. The
concentration would be printed on the package just as the proof of
alcohol is printed on containers of alcoholic beverages.
I don't think there are large numbers of people who are just waiting
for heroin to be legalized so they can start using it. The use of
marijuana may increase, though probably not to 1960s levels. I think
the use of most drugs would decrease considerably.
... consider how many teenagers smoke legal, cheap cigarettes ...
Fewer than in past years. News of the health hazards of substances
and behaviors sadly seems to make little difference in the behavior of
existing users, but it does have a very real effect on the behavior of
potential new users. Making a substance legal or illegal does not
seem to have much effect on either.
... Why should anyone want to receive help to kick the habit of a
drug which is legal, cheap, and stigma-free?
Because it is dangerous. And possibly because their employer or
their school requires them to not use it, and tests for it. Millions
of dollars are paid every year for help quitting tobacco and alcohol.
... If you really think organized crime will just 'dissappear',
I'm sorry but the cure-all won't cure this one. They'll just move
on to other things - they said that about organized crime and the
repeal of Prohibition too. - CWM]
Organized crime thrives by providing goods and services there is a
high demand for but that legitimate businesses won't supply because
they are illegal. During prohibition, alcohol was in this category.
Mobsters lobbied against repeal of prohibition as did prohibition
police. They lost that battle, but were able to get many drugs made
illegal at the same time as prohibition was repealed. So the taxpayer
subsidized game of cops and robbers, or rather narks and pushers,
continued. What is sad is not just the billions of dollars that it
consumes, but the thousands of lives. Narcotics officers shot. Drug
pushers imprisoned for life (at taxpayers expense). Drug users who
rob and kill innocent people for their next fix. Teenagers who are
enticed into using unknown drugs of unknown quality by pushers who
need money for THEIR next fix.
Reagan has recently announced a major crackdown on illegal drugs.
We will show that it is NOT tolerated, says he. It is the same
message that every president since Eisenhower has sent. And it is no
more likely to succeed now then before, no matter how many billions of
dollars more of our money he proposes to throw down the sinkhole. No
matter how many more narcotics agents are to be hired. At best, he
will cause the price of street drugs to increase. Is that an
improvement? When there are users who will do anything, ANYTHING, for
their next fix? So they will have to rob two convenience stores each
week instead of one?
And government has the power to eliminate ALL of this lossage
OVERNIGHT. Usually government cannot eliminate a bad thing at all,
certainly not just by fiat, and not without spending many millions or
billions. This is a rare exception. The crime rate will plummet, the
deficit will be reduced, millions of nominal criminals will be made
law abiding citizens again, and prison overcrowding will become a
thing of the past.
Who pays for this? Only the drug users. How much do they pay? Far
less than they do now. Who has to be a drug user? Nobody who doesn't
choose to be one.
It is true that organized crime will not go away if we JUST legalize
drugs, any more than it went away when we JUST legalized alcohol. But
if we also legalize all other victimless crimes; gambling (already
legal in New Jersey and Nevada), prostitution (already legal in
Nevada), Usury (already legal in several states), and pornography
(whose definition keeps changing) organized crime WILL just go away.
...Keith
[ Who pays for the cops who keep drugs out of the hands of kids? Do
these laws that keep drugs out of kids hands include their parents?
If a parent chooses to give drugs to his child, is it legal?
On you argument of "less new smokers than before": I recall
statistics showing a rise in women smokers (these statistics could be
out of date by now, but I've heard no new ones). In any event, "less
than before" doesn't really mean a lot. There are still millions, and
there will be millions of new ones. Your statistics on weed usage in
the 1960's is incorrect: a much larger number of people smoke mj now
than did then.
Your argument of "employers and schools will still test for it": I
can see a lawsuit coming - how could an employer fire an employee for
using a drug that is legal and stigma-free - perhaps there will be
'snorting' and 'no-snorting' zones in office buildings and cafeterias?
If you think people quit a drug (including tobacco, which you have
reviled as the lowest of the low) because its "dangerous", why don't
all the smokers in the world quit? Because they like it! They
(beleive it not) enjoy it. The 'enjoy' factor of heroin, or cocaine
is tremendously higher than for cigarettes - if its legal, there's
going to be a dramatic rise in addicts. Every addict in the world has
at least some point said to him/herself, "I can handle it, I can quit
any time I want", usually early on in their addiction (and continuing
for some - other wise up). I doubt this pattern will change. If
harder drugs are cheap and legal, the number and severity of addicts
will rise.
If you think that legalized gambling will make the mob go away, go
look at who OWNS the casinos in Atlantic City. Look who takes
protection money from the prostitution houses in Nevada, look who owns
the big loan sharks. They won't go away; they're making too damn much
money to stop. You underestimate the mob: they're smart and mean.
- CWM]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Wednesday, 20 Aug 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 65
Today's Topics:
Sending Mom to Jail &
Voluntary Taxes &
Cost of Justice &
Natural rights &
Press Censorship
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < pixar!upstill@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 86 11:22:28 PDT
From: pixar!upstill@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Steve Upstill)
Subject: Nancy Reagan: Red Menace
When I was in junior high school Civics class, one of the ways
they scared us about the Soviet system was with the 1984 image of
children turning in their parents to the State. Now I come to read
this weekend about a girl who did just that: turned her parents in to
the police for drugs. They are now under indictment, and Hollywood is
clamoring to turn her story into a movie. The best part is the
reaction of our First Lady. Does she express any qualms about
children turning in their parents to the State? Of course not. She
even offers us this classic bit of NewSpeak, which would fit
comfortably on the pages of Pravda:
"She must really love her parents to do what she did.
I hope they realize just how much she loves them."
I guess they'll have plenty of time to think about it.
Steve Upstill
------------------------------
Return-path: < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Date: Mon 18 Aug 86 14:29:03-PDT
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Fixed taxes but choice among programs
To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
Yes, that would work. I can't think of any reason to adopt that
system and not allow people to make up new choices. It's less
convenient for the government to allow that, but if one cares more
about the convenience of the government than people's freedom to
choose where their money goes, then there would be no reason to adopt
fixed taxes with choice among programs to begin with.
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 86 19:03:35 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Cost of Justice
To: TESTA-J%OSU-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA
From: ~joe testa~ < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Well, i see *some* difference, but not to the level you do.
Should a criminal convicted of some minor crime end up paying for
some huge murder trial?
Reasonable maximum sentences for each crime can be set by the
legislature.
It is interesting to see that you DO think that rights are
not "inalienable" for everyone.
A person has the right not to be shot. But if he starts shooting at
someone else, he has no business complaining when his intended victim
starts shooting back.
And it is not just violence that people have the right to defend
themselves against, but any violation of rights.
If people do not have the right to prevent criminals from violating
their rights, then the violated rights are meaningless since anyone is
free to violate them.
... the government should pay the overhead costs of maintaining
the judicial system so that ACCESS to the system is available to
everyone, regardless of how much money they have.
Yes. And government should get the money for this from voluntary
contributions. These would not have to be very large, since:
1) The justice system takes up only a tiny percentage of tax money.
If taxes were eliminated, people would have many times this amount
extra to spend or donate as they saw fit.
2) The justice system can be largely streamlined. Do juries really
have to be 12 people rather than, say, 6? And instead of requiring
unanimity, how about 5/6 vote? And where in the constitution does
it say that the jurors must have heard nothing about the case? The
result of this peculiar doctrine is that jurors can be selected for
a well publicized case only from the uninformed minority, which is
NOT a jury of one's peers. Potential jurors who have made up their
minds as to the guilt of the defendant should be excluded, but not
those who simply admit to having read something about the case in
the paper.
3) The great majority of serious crimes are directly or indirectly
related to illegal drugs. Legalize the drugs and the crime rate
will drop by at least a factor of ten.
4) A fair number of crimes are, or are related to, other victimless
crimes, i.e. prositution, pornography, smuggling, sodomy,
loitering, etc. These would all be legal.
5) Much of crime is due to poverty. If the tax rate is reduced to
zero, prices and rents will drop, salaries will increase, employees
get to keep ALL of their paycheck, and voluntary charity will
increase.
6) Much of crime is due to unemployment. If employers are more free
to fire people they will be more inclined to risk hiring people.
If minimum wage laws are repealed more people will be hired. If
the complicated paperwork government requires employers to fill out
to hire people is eliminated more people will be hired. If
employers are not required to determine whether a potential
employee is an illegal alien, more people will be hired. If
employers are not required to search for equal numbers of employees
of each race and sex, more people will be hired. If employers are
not required to contribute money to unemployment insurance and
social security for each employee, more people will be hired. If
employers are not taxed, more people will be hired.
7) Much of crime is due to repeat criminals. If someone has served
two major felony sentences and is convicted of a third, he should
be put away for good.
8) A fair amount of crime is tax evasion. This would no longer be a
crime, since there would be no more taxes.
9) Much of the cost of the justice system, possibly all of it, can be
supported by fines. Certainly prisons should be self supporting.
And things used in the commission of a serious crime should be
confiscated and auctioned off.
There is also another difference between civil and criminal
trials. In a criminal case, if you lose, you could end up in jail
or lose money. In a civil case, you can lose only the money. So
it is more vital that access to the court system in a criminal
case be available.
I think they are equally important. I would rather spend a week in
jail than pay a $10,000 fine. You can't just say that any jail
sentence is worse than any fine.
> You can't put a monetary value on rape (unless the victim was a
> prostitute).
What??? It is more ok to rape prostitutes???
No. I didn't say that.
Prostitution should be legal. (It already is in Nevada.)
Conservatives oppose prostitution. Liberals sometimes advocate it,
but are confused by the contradiction:
1) Nobody should be forced to have sex against their will.
2) Any business person should sell their wares to anyone with money,
as has been pretty generally agreed to since the 1960s lunch
counter boycotts.
3) Anything two consenting adults choose to do is ok.
There is no way to believe both 1 and 2 and to advocate legalization
of prostitution. But there is no way to believe 3 without advocating
legalization of prostitution. A paradox.
Everyone agrees on point 1. Where liberals go wrong is with point
2. Not everyone agrees that any customer must be served.
Libertarians are the only ones to advocate both freedom and a
consistent political system.
One should not have to rely on voluntary contributions determining
whether or not the court will be in session this year.
If voluntary contribution are insufficient, the courts can raise the
fines. I don't think this is likely. For the reasons I gave above, I
think administration of justice will not be too expensive. I don't
mean it will be dirt cheap, but it will cost less than, say, the
restoration of the Statue of Liberty. The latter was paid for
entirely by voluntary donations. And I think anyone willing to pay
for a statue representing our way of life would be willing to pay at
least as much to guarantee the way of life itself. Especially since
the elimination of taxes would result in considerably more money being
available to everyone.
...Keith
[ It is interesting that the employment laws you decry were enacted to
redress the very greivances you say that their repeal will solve...
Also, is it necessarily good that a judge can levy fines based on how
much money he wants? "I need a new car. Fine is one Ferrari ."
- CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 86 19:35:26 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Natural rights
To: foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA
From: foy@aerospace.ARPA
... Some seem to say that people have a right to do anything
they want economically, but also have a right to be free from
phyusical agression. They seem to imply that these are natural
rights.
Yep. Read Ayn Rand. And the Declaration of Independence.
I would like to understand where they think these rights come
from. It seems to me that these "rights" are arbitrary sets of
rules defined by arbitrary methods, by arbitrarily selected groups
of people.
Nope. Read Ayn Rand.
To illustrate my concern with a little story: Suppose;
... He asks me to sign a piece oaf paper ... It has lots of big
words that I don't understand ... deeds and mortgage and
interest... One day a man in a Uniform ... tells me I have to
move off my farm tomorrow. ...
A contract is not a piece of paper. It is a meeting of minds. A
contract is not binding if one of the parties did not understand it.
Opponents of libertarian philosophy often bring up stories in which
the population does not consist of rational adults, but of children,
feebleminded people, criminals, insane people, or people in a sinking
lifeboat. Do we really want a system which treats everyone as if they
were like that? Is that the most realistic view of the people of this
country?
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < cramer@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 86 23:34:49 PDT
From: cramer@Sun.COM (Sam Cramer)
Subject: Re: Press Censorship - really anti-Zionism
My recent description of Gore Vidal's noxious essay in the 120th
anniversary edition of the "Nation" as "blatantly anti-semitic" seems
to have thrown Larry Campbell into an anti-zionist tizzy. He writes
> Here we have yet another case of the inability of so many people to
> distinguish Jews from Zionists. Yes, Gore Vidal (and Alexander
> Cockburn, and I, if you care) disdain Zionism. But Zionism is not
> the same as Judaism. Cramer, like so many Zionists, figuratively
> waves the red flag of the holocaust at anyone who dares question
> Zionism, or the policies of the Israeli government. Fortunately,
> there are writers like Vidal and Cockburn who don't instantly fall
> apologetically to the ground every time this well-worn bit of
> innuendo is trotted out.
Let's look at this fun-filled paragraph bit by bit.
"The inability of so many people to distinguish Jews from Zionists...
Zionism is not the same as Judaisim":
Here Campbell presumes to tell Jews what they are, and what they
believe. Fortunately, the American Jewish community, which is
virtually entirely pro-Zionist, understands the centrality of Israel
to the Jewish religion, not being as ignorant of Judaism as Mr.
Campbell. Did you know, for example, that a religious Jew prays
*three times a day* for the restoration of the Jewish homeland? Or
that he says, in grace prayers *after every meal*, "rebuild Jerusalem,
the holy city, speedily in our days"? Do you recall the "I am a
Zionist" buttons that were distributed in the vast majority of
American synagogues after the UN passed the notorious "Zionism is
racism" resolution?
To quote Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern political Zionism,
I do not bring you a new idea but an ancient one... it is
as old as our people who never ceased, even in the periods
of bitterest suffering, to meditate upon it. This idea is
the establishment of the Jewish State.
"Cramer, like so many Zionists, figuratively waves the red flag of the
holocaust at anyone who dares question Zionism, or the policies of the
Israeli government":
I'm glad that Mr. Campbell is at least able to differentiate between
support for Zionism and support for all the policies of the Israeli
government. Being a Zionist implies endorsement of the notion of a
homeland for the Jewish people, not unwavering support for every
policy made by every Israeli goverment. The idea of knee-jerk support
by Zionists for every Israeli policy is a myth - I, for one, have
never met a Zionist who does not disagree with some policy of the
Israeli goverment. Similarly, I have never met a supporter of the US
who does not quarrel with some policy of its' government.
Now, on to "waving the red flag of the holocaust": This is a revealing
remark. In the posting which seems to have so unbalanced our friend,
I said *nothing* about the Holocaust. Why does Mr. Campbell bring up
this *Jewish* tragedy? After all, he has already told us that
"Zionism is not the same as Judaism." Peculiar.
"Fortunately, there are writers like Vidal and Cockburn who don't
instantly fall apologetically to the ground every time this well-worn
bit of innuendo is trotted out":
How about the imagery here? - writers falling to the ground before the
decieving Je.. I mean Zionists. Actually, I rather wish that Mr.
Vidal was a bit more circumspect in his anti-semitism. I don't
particulary enjoy reading in mass circulation magazines that American
Jews are in America in order to "make propaganda and raise money for
Israel" while their "predatory" co-religionists in the Middle East are
"busy stealing another peoples' land in the name of an alien
theocracy." Or that American Jews constitute an "Israeli Fifth
Column." Or that "significantly, the one yiddish word that has gained
universal acceptance in this country is chutzpah [nerve]."
Anti-Zionism is an unusual movement. Of all the peoples in the world,
it finds the Jews uniquely undeserving of a state. Of all the
injustices in the world, it focuses solely on those present in the
Jewish state, the only democracy in the Middle East. Martin Luther
King, Jr. may have been on to something when he said "when people
criticize Zionists, they mean Jews."
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Saturday, 23 Aug 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 68
Today's Topics:
Private arsenals &
Hard to Digest &
Duellism &
Natural Rights &
Libertarian Viewpoints (2 msgs) &
Libertarianism
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 86 00:04:04 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Private arsenals
To: sdcsvax!ncr-sd!stubbs@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
[ This seems to be my week for administrative errors! I accidently
left this message out of a digest a while back. My apologies to Keith
and M. Stubbs - CWM]
From: sdcsvax!ncr-sd!stubbs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
This amendment would not allow prohibition of the following
activities which I personally think should be prohibited ...
Building a nuclear reactor or bomb in my back yard.
I am not comfortable with priavte ownership of nuclear bombs.
Neither am I comfortable with government ownership of nuclear bombs.
As the world becomes a wealthier place we are likely to see more of
both, whether it's legal or not. I wish I had a solution. I don't.
But the problem with nuclear bombs has nothing to do with private
vs. government ownership. The problem has to do with their enormous
destructive capacity and the fact that they have no legitimate use
whatsoever, no matter who owns them.
Manufacturing, possessing or selling handguns, Thompson submachine
guns, artillery, dynamite, nitroglycerine
(insert many dangerous chemicals, processes, activities)...
These ARE privately manufactured and owned. And I see nothing wrong
with it.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Date: Tue 19 Aug 86 17:22:35-EDT
From: ~joe testa~ < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Subject: Libertarians & the Digest
Just out of curiosity, how long has this digest been dominated by
discussions about libertarianism? I'm not complaining at all; it just
seems fascinating that a medium with such a potentially large subject
range tends to be restricted to one topic. (Perhaps it should be
renamed the "libertarian-arguments-digest", or better yet the
"Keith-Lynch-and-a-few-friends-take-on-the-world-digest"? :-)
-j.t.
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed 20 Aug 86 22:36:09-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Duels
To: Hibbert.pa@XEROX.COM
From: Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: Duels
Speaking as a libertarian, I would agree that there's no reason to
ban duels. Would you like to propose a moral basis for banning
them?
No, would you? There are other problems. Suppose A and B agree to a
duel but unknown to A, B had a bet with X such that if B wins, X will
pay B lots of $$$. Suppose A is killed in the duel, did B and/or X
commit a fraud? Suppose B got killed instead and there comes another
duelist C who also had a bet with X. If C loses, another duelist D
appears, etc. all having bets with X. Now suppose A found out about
the bets and decided not to duel since the odds are against him/her.
He/she would really want to if the odds are better. Did X have
influence on A's behavior using X's own wealth?
Can groups get involved in duels? If so, is there any limit on the
number and size of the groups? Can members of the military and police
participate? Can any citizen or non-citizen have a duel with the
president who just happens to have a gunslinger mentality and loves to
have a duel with anybody?
I like Keith Lynch's answer better than yours. He at least just make
the right assumptions to make the problems go away. What happens when
those assumptions are wrong? According to libertarian
fundamentalists, there ain't no way the government is going to (or be
allowed to) fix it.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 86 01:39:54 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Natural rights
To: foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA
From: foy@aerospace.ARPA
Most [Libertarians] only wanted to get the government to quit
doing things for underprivaledged.
The main problems with government are:
1) Overregulation, for instance victimless crime laws, and
2) Taxation
The objection is not to money being spent on the poor, but on
money being coerced from all of us. Most social spending goes
UP the economic ladder, not down. Government is an inverse Robin
Hood.
You are free to donate your money to the poor. You are free to try
to talk others into donating their money. All I oppose is anyone
forcibly taking money from me or from anyone.
They had a hard time even seeing the freebies that goverment
handed out to the competent, or wealthy, or powerful.
I am very much aware of these. It is a myth that libertarians favor
big business. No business should get any special favors. Nor should
any wealthy or competent people. Nor should anyone. Government's
only purpose is to ensure a level playing field, i.e. to deter
criminals and foreign invaders.
Since then I have discovered that very few people really make
decisions in a rational manner. Most of the time we make decisions
based on our gut feel. We then select the evidence to rationally
support our decision.
So? Does this mean that we must abandon the only rational political
system? Because many people sometimes act against their self
interest?
It is strange that you would use this assertion to oppose a
libertarian system. Ayn Rand makes the same assertion but draws the
opposite conclusion!
I no longer agree that there is a natural distinction between the
usew of economic power and physical power ...
I don't understand why so many people have a problem with this
distinction. It is purely an accident of the English language that
the same word is used for both.
Government power is the power to rob, to enslave, to imprison, to
torture, and to kill. Our government is one of the better ones, we
don't have concentration camps where millions are killed for no
reason. We do have government theft on the order of hundreds of
billions of dollars per year. We do have laws against victimless
"crimes".
Economic "power" is the power to gain what one wants by uncoerced
exchange with another person or group. Both sides perceive that they
have gained in the transaction.
Perhaps part of the reason for the confusion is that many wealthy
individuals and corporations spend much of their money attempting,
with some success, to influence government to legislate special favors
for them. The amount of special interest legislation in this country
would fill a large library.
Libertarians strongly object to special interest legislation. There
would be no Chrysler bailouts, no windfall tax, no tax deductions, no
taxes, no mandated monopolies, no subsidized rates, no paying farmers
not to farm, no mandated closed shops, no special license
requirements, and no import tariffs.
I still think that the government is involved in far too much of
our daily lives but I think that the way to start getting it out
is by working on the things that government uses to justify its
power, such as the arms race etc.
The arms race is perceived as being needed because of the actions of
OTHER governments.
Government has many excuses and rationalizations for its too
pervasive involvement with individuals lives, but I have never
heard the arms race being used as an excuse. In fact, usually
it is the arms race itself which is seen as REQUIRING an excuse,
not as BEING one.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < genrad!teddy!mxc@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 86 11:32:23 edt
From: Marc Campos < genrad!teddy!mxc@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Libertarian viewpoints
To: mit-eddie!kfl@mx.lcs.mit.edu
KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (Keith F. Lynch) writes:
> From: Eyal mozes < eyal%wisdom.bitnet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
>
> Libertarians take as a basic assumption that government
> intervention is evil. They can't (and don't want to) use reason
> and morality to support this assumption, since that would require
> advocating absolute truth and absolute values, and that's
> anathema to libertarianism; ...
>
> I strongly disagree. Libertarians do use reason and morality.
> Heck, our magazine is called _Reason_. Who says there are no
> absolute values? Slavery, robbery, torture, and murder are evil.
> Those are absolute values. One can argue that they aren't, that
> they are sometimes justified. If one does, I have no argument. I
> just want no part of the system founded on the notion that slavery,
> etc, are ok.
Eyal is taking the hard-line Objectivist stance on Libertarianism. A
prominent Objectivist writer, Peter Schwartz, wrote an article on
"Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty" that is well worth reading
because it brilliantly rips to shreds the supposed "liberty" oriented
stand of the Libertarian Party and many so-called "libertarians". And
while _Reason_ tends to have good ideas, it lacks any moral
justification for them.
But I don't think such condemnation is deserved for those who just
believe in a truly libertarian (small, not capital L) political
system. They have the right idea. However, Objectivism is a complete
philosophical system that offers a system of morality that justifies a
libertarian political system. After all, to be complete and
consistent, there must be some reason *why* slavery, robbery, and
torture are wrong.
> The result is that they have no answer to those who say "I don't
> regard your position as moral".
>
> I have lots of answers. Many kilbytes of them so far. As do
> several other contributors to this list.
Yes, but they're probably based on some idea of absolute individual
rights, right? Many Libertarians would not have such an explicit
moral basis. Some, lacking a consistent morality, go on to make the
mistake that *all* government is bad.
> ... if you read, for example, Murray Rothbard, who is widely
> regarded as the intellectual leader of libertarianism,
>
> Not by me. I've never heard of the guy. These are not my
> positions, and I doubt they are the positions of any other
> libertarian on this list.
Obviously, then, Keith is not a Libertarian, but a libertarian. Are
there any "card-carrying" members of the Libertarian party on the
list?
> [Ayn Rand's] writings (particularly "Atlas Shrugged", "The Virtue
> of Selfishness" and "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal") are the only
> antidote both to libertarianism and to socialism,
>
> Huh? She never uses the word, but it is clear that she IS a
> libertarian.
Ayn Rand despised libertarians, thinking that they had "perverted" her
ideas of political liberty into a political system without morality.
I think she made an error in lumping all of them together. Not only
does libertarianism have a basis in the works of other writers, such
as von Mises, but Libertarian Party people shouldn't be confused with
people who want liberty but lack a consistent moral basis.
--
Marc Campos, GenRad Inc. {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!mxc
Mail Stop 6, 300 Baker Avenue, Concord, MA 01742 USA (617)
369-4400 x2336
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 86 04:22:31 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Fragmentation
From: < Someone on usenet - address did not come through>
Obviously, then, Keith is not a Libertarian, but a libertarian.
Are there any "card-carrying" members of the Libertarian party on
the list?
It is true I am not a member. But I strongly object to this
fragmentation. Objectivist vs. Libertarian vs. libertarian. What
will it accomplish? There are many good ways to justify a libertarian
system, and Objectivism is an especially good one. But not the only
one.
The way I have always thought of it is that libertarianism is a
political system, or rather a large set of fairly similar political
systems, while objectivism is a philosophical movement from which one
form of libertarianism can be derived. I suppose I consider myself to
be both a libertarian and an objectivist.
I do not object to any part of Ayn Rand's philosophy. I do object
to her implicit metaphilosophy that one must believe all of her
philosophy as a first step to libertarianism.
When I try to convince an active Christian of libertarian ideals, my
first step is not to try to convince him that Christianity is bunk. I
think that is what Ayn would have me do. My first step would be to
show that Christianity and libertarianism are perfectly compatible.
Ideally, to show that libertarianism can be derived from the Bible.
She spends several pages ridiculing logical positvism. Well, some
of my best friends are logical positivists. I think she would have
done better to explain why a logical positivist must support a
libertarian system, rather that implying that if you are an LP you
might as well go whole hog and join the communist party or something.
She mentions ESP on many occasions, to lambast its supporters as
nonobjective twits. Well, I don't believe in ESP myself. But I
regard it as an experimental question. In other words, I would not
change my political beliefs one bit if ESP was proven real tomorrow.
Ayn Rand seems to imply that I should.
And I think there are some weak points. For instance Rand mentions
in passing the right to an abortion, as if it was obvious how that
follows from the rest of her work. Maybe I'm just not very swift, but
I don't see how to derive that from the rest of the book. If someone
had made a mistake in typesetting and put in that she opposed
abortion, it would have fit just as well. The only thing which would
NOT seem to have fit is a non-vehement assertion either way.
Libertarians are split pretty evenly on the abortion question, just as
is the general population, and for mostly the same reasons.
Ayn Rand despised libertarians, thinking that they had "perverted"
her ideas of political liberty into a political system without
morality.
I can only find two places where Ayn Rand ever mentioned
libertarianism. Both are negative, but it is not clear in context
whether she is opposing libertarians or whether she is opposing
certain groups falsely identifying themselves as libertarians.
On second thought, I am not really sure there is a distinction!
She doesn't seem to think it worthy of much notice, for such a
life and death issue as Eyal Mozes thinks it is. As I said, she
seemed to mention the word 'libertarian' only twice that I can find.
And she is certainly not short of words for anything else she feels
strongly about. For instance she spends 25 pages debunking B. F.
Skinner's silly _Beyond Freedom and Dignity_ when it could have
been done in one.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 86 11:07:57 PDT
From: Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: libertarianism
To: power.Wbst@Xerox.COM
"Two - I don't seperate people's talk from their actions, or
rather I feel that what people say is only meaningful when one
also knows how they act. The few libertarians I know are
racist, although they talk a good non-racist argument."
It's hard to refute personal experience. Few of the many libertarians
I know are racist. It seems similar to the proportion of the
population at large. All of the libertarians I know defend people's
right to be racist, which is unlike the proportion at large.
"The basic tone of the libertarian philosophy has strong
elements of social darwinism in it, long used as a scientific
veneer for racist thinking. (I'm perfectly willing to defend
this assesment of social darwinism if anyone wants to debate
it.)"
As far social darwinism goes, I'd argue that a better approach to
defeating racism is to let the market act. Racism is an inefficient
business practice, and is self-defeating.
"Three ... To me [liberttarianism] has a very fundamental flaw
in its premise; the same flaw as in true Marxism, ... among
others. It's a very simple flaw: ... In libertarianism the
false picture is to deny the existance of society as a sum
greater than the whole of its parts (people) ... "
This is an interesting argument. I don't claim that individuals don't
gain anything from society, but I do believe that groups of
individuals have no rights they aren't ceded by their members. I'd be
interested to see a further explanation of what rights groups should
have over their members and why.
Someone else asked about the applicability of libertarian principles
to "the community of nations". My response to that is that nations
aren't rational creatures, and that's the root from which I draw human
rights.
Chris
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Friday, 22 Aug 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 66
Today's Topics:
Cost of Justice &
Libertarian Viewpoints &
Press Censorship &
Drugs (2 msgs) &
Press Bias
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Date: Sat 16 Aug 86 00:59:16-EDT
From: ~joe testa~ < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Cost of Justice
To: KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU%MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
[ Due to an administrative error, this reply from Keith to this
message has already appeared in the last digest. My apologies to Joe
Testa. - CWM]
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> From: ~joe testa~ < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
>
> What? Are you saying that some criminals should be forced to
> subsidize the trials of other criminals?
>
> Yes.
>
> How is this different from non-criminals being forced to
> subsidize the local phone rates of other non-criminals, which
> you have already objected to?
>
> Because the latter aren't criminals, of course! Do you really see
> no difference?
> It is ok to violate the rights of a convicted criminal, to the
> extent necessary to prevent crime from violating other people's
> rights to a greater extent.
Well, i see *some* difference, but not to the level you do. Should a
criminal convicted of some minor crime end up paying for some huge
murder trial? It is interesting to see that you DO think that rights
are not "inalienable" for everyone.
> I can't imagine many people being victimized by someone also
> volunteering to pick up their trial tab.
>
> They pay the cost of CIVIL trials, nobody finds anything strange
> about that. So why not the cost of CRIMINAL trials as well?
I think you misunderstand what i mean by the "cost" of a trial. We
were discussing the GOVERNMENT'S expenses in conducting a trial. The
government spend money to set up the judicial system, pay judges, etc.
The government does NOT pay for the attorney fees, costs of legal
research, etc. for an individual case (unless, of course, the
government is a party to the case). I do not suggest that people
should have these costs paid by the government, and they do not now --
either civil or criminal. However, the government should pay the
overhead costs of maintaining the judicial system so that ACCESS to
the system is available to everyone, regardless of how much money they
have. Once they can access the system, then it is up to them how they
will utilize the system.
There is also another difference between civil and criminal trials.
In a criminal case, if you lose, you could end up in jail or lose
money. In a civil case, you can lose only the money. So it is more
vital that access to the court system in a criminal case be available.
> Yes, i am aware that convicts have to work. BUT, are the lengths
> of their sentences dependent on their ability to pay for
> something?
>
> Perhaps they should be to some extent. The idea convict should
> make things right again if possible. Someone who steals a thousand
> should get a more severe sentence than someone who steals a hundred
> dollars.
This is not the same thing. I said that sentences should not depend
on the ABILITY to pay. I also said elsewhere that the sentence should
depend on the crime; stealing a thousand dollars is different than
stealing a hundred dollars.
> You can't put a monetary value on rape (unless the victim was a
> prostitute).
What??? It is more ok to rape prostitutes???
> I think that the sentence should be determined strictly by the
> crime committed.
>
> I agree that the punishment should not depend at all on the wealth
> of the convict, if that is what you mean. I am not convinced that
> the punishment should depend only on the crime. For instance I
> think it should be more severe if the convict has a long criminal
> record.
Agreed. I had overlooked that.
> You have a right to a jury trial. You don't have a right to dozens
> of expert witnesses and psychiatrists and high priced attorneys
> unless you can pay for them yourself or talk someone else into
> voluntarily paying for them.
Right. As i said before, ACCESS must be available; beyond that, you
choose with your own resources how you will use the court system. One
should not have to rely on voluntary contributions determining whether
or not the court will be in session this year.
-joe testa-
------------------------------
Return-path: < Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 86 13:32:19 PDT
From: Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: Duels
To: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Speaking as a libertarian, I would agree that there's no reason to ban
duels. Would you like to propose a moral basis for banning them?
------------------------------
Return-path: < cramer@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 86 23:10:24 PDT
From: cramer@Sun.COM (Sam Cramer)
Subject: Re: Press Censorship - really Cockburn
Reply-to: cramer@sun.UUCP (Sam Cramer)
Both Jeff Myers and Larry Campbell seem to have missed the rather
elementary point that I tried to make regarding Alexander Cockburn.
Cockburn, currently a columnist for the Nation (among other
publications), was fired from his post at the Village Voice after it
was discovered by his editor that Cockburn was under a $10,000
contract with the Institute for Arab Studies.
The Institute, which incorporated in 1979 as a "scientific,
educational, cultural, and charitable organization", is a
psuedo-academic propaganda mill in the service of the anti-Zionist
cause. It is active politically; for example, in September 1982 it
co-sponsored an anti-Israel demonstration in Boston.
In August 1982, Cockburn was given $10,000 by the IAS for research
which was to culminate in a book about the 1982 Lebanon war. Cockburn
never wrote the book, and insisted, when the "research grant" was
discovered by his editor, that he was just about to give it back!
(This after holding on to the money for a bit less than a year and
half).
Now, what I was trying to suggest in my posting was that Mr. Cockburn,
who has written at length on the evil influence of filthy capitalist
lucre on the profession of journalism, may just be a bit of a
hypocrite.
This suggestion evidently confused Messrs. Myers and Campbell, with
Myers retorting "you must believe, Sam, that anti-capitalists should
just starve rather than make money", and Campbell, after finding my
writing "bizarre", asking
> What does "the influence of the evil capitalist system" (or decrying
> same) have to with being hired by an Arab cultural organization for
> research?
Allow me to restate my point for the benefit of these gentlemen:
Cockburn accepted a non-trivial sum of money, which he did not
disclose to his editor, for doing "research" which was meant to end in
publication. He has complained in the past of the pernicious effect
of money on American journalism. He is a hypocrite.
This all seems straightforward enough to me; it may, however, be a bit
too unembellished for readers of the "Nation", accustomed as they are
to the lurid and byzantine tales of capitalist and imperialist
conspiracy which appear in that magazine.
PS: Mr. Meyers has asked for references on this matter. I advise him
to take a look at the "Village Voice" of January 24, 1984 for the
editor's statement on Cockburn's suspension.
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 86 19:45:45 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Drug testing
To: mcgurrin@MITRE.ARPA
From: mcgurrin@mitre.ARPA (Michael Mcgurrin)
... I am concerned about the current move to require mandatory,
universal drug tests of gov't employees and defense contractor
employees. I feel that this is a violation of basic rights on
several grounds.
I think employers do have the right to require such tests. The real
issues are:
1) Are the tests reliable? What recourse does a person have who tests
positive but who swears he takes no drugs?
2) Should government be allowed to require this of their contractors?
I work for a government contractor, so I am very much aware of the
loss of productivity and efficiency that is due to having to meet
various and contradictory government regulations.
3) Does this apply only to employees seeking a security clearance?
The government is allowed to ask many questions of people seeking a
clearance that employers are not allowed to ask employees. I think
this is a reasonable precaution to reduce the chances of espionage.
Yes, I do have such a clearance myself. No, I don't use drugs.
No, I have never taken a drug test, though my employer does now
require it of new employees.
I do not support your petition, because I believe that employers
have the right to set any rules they want for potential employees,
just as the potential employees have the right to set any rules they
want for their potential employers.
A company should have the right to not hire or to terminate anyone
for any reason, just as an employee has the right to not seek work at
a given place or to resign for any reason.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 86 13:31:37 PDT
From: Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: re: a 'bad batch' of cigarettes
[[Having drugs regulated ... doesn't stop illegal activities
(e.g. cigarettes, in which there is a multi-million dollar
activity to illegally move cigarettes without paying taxes
on them ...)]]
And having banks regulated doesn't stop illegal activities there
either. :-) What I object to is the government declaring particular
actions which don't infringe the rights of non-consentors to be
illegal. It's okay with me (when I'm willing to concede that
government is okay for some things) if agressive acts are made
illegal.
[[Amphetimines and depressants, which are regulated by
doctors (the government allows them to give the stuff
out pretty much as they please) are a megabuck illegal
business.]]
I think a better characterization is that the government allows the
doctors to regulate those drugs. There is still a lot of government
control in this area; doctors aren't allowed individually to give it
out as they please, they are allowed to give it out pretty much as the
AMA pleases.
[[Clearly, making such drugs legalized would lower the
prices and raise quality, but would the increased
availability (I think it likely that if prices go down,
people will simply buy more of it) damage us as a society
more than the value of the removal of the criminal
element? Unfortunately, I don't have any good answers
for that. - CWM]]
I think the evidence is at least equivocal about the effects of
increased availability. The experience of Britain and the
Scandinavian countries shows that legal use of drugs can be much more
benign than (this country's experience of) illegal use. I can look
for references if you like.
I will also argue that much more important than the undefined and
unknown "benefit to society" of the change is letting people use their
bodies as they see fit. The argument is similar to that in "a free
press isn't worth anything if it only protects _popular_ speech".
Chris
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 86 20:04:00 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Bias
To: Poli-Sci@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
[ Well, I have noticed that people think print is biased, I've
seen the letters.
Certainly print is biased. The Bible doesn't give equal time to
Darwin. The Communist Manifesto gives short shrift to Adam Smith.
Ayn Rand clearly disagrees with Karl Marx. :-)
I guess you don't read the same newspapers I do.
The only newspaper I read on a regular basis is the Washington Post.
For the most part it seems to be pretty balanced, except for a clear
editorial bias in favor of gun control legislation.
Books, magazines, newsletters, and newspapers vary all over the
political map.
One of my main complaints about TV is that it has a bland sameness.
There is no diversity at all. In fact there doesn't seem to be any
intellectual content whatsoever. This, I believe, is partly due to
the notorious so called 'fairness' doctrine. And it is partly due to
the very nature of the medium. Words are much more capable of
conveying meaning than images. And people can READ words much more
rapidly than they can HEAR them.
Ayn Rand makes the point that the majority choose not to use their
minds. These are the people who choose to spend more time watching TV
than reading. People with their minds in neutral seem to become
liberals by default. Probably because liberal politics can be well
presented in colorful 30 second spots and in short vehement speeches.
The original point was that giving guns to everyone would be
dangerous for a lot of reasons ...
I don't advocate GIVING guns to anyone. I advocate letting
individual adults choose for themselves whether or not to be armed.
- one of which is that most people don't know how or when to use
them.
Probably because they aren't armed and don't need to know. Before
most people had cars, most people didn't know how to drive. Was this
an good argument against letting people have cars?
I would support warning labels for guns, pointing out how often
untrained gun ownership ends in disaster. I would support similar
labels for cars.
... There are a lot incredibly complex of reasons we lost in
Vietnam.
Complexity is the last refuge of someone losing an argument.
That the Cong and the NVA had guns was the reason there was a war
at all, not the reason we lost.
Well, if they were unarmed, I suppose it wouldn't have been called a
war, nor would France and the US have gotten involved. It WAS the
reason we lost, if only in the sense that we would not have lost had
they not been armed.
In general, guns in the hands of the people will not deter a
government ...
Of course, whoever wins retroactively calls themselves the
legitimate government of the time, so there is a lot of bias there.
Like the tales of stranded sailors who were pushed to shore by
dolphins - obvious proof of dolphin intelligence, right? After all,
there are no tales of stranded sailors being pushed AWAY from shore by
dolphins!
... Dozens of governments are currently fighting wars with
internal dissenters. Does the fact that the anti-government
forces have guns stop the governments?
No. Did the fact that George Washington's troops have guns stop the
British? Not at first. Was he an internal dissenter, or a great
hero? The latter, of course. Mainly because he won.
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Friday, 22 Aug 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 67
Today's Topics:
Conflicting Rights &
Ayn Rand and Libertarianism &
Libertarianism &
Press Bias (originally, anyway)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 86 20:47:49 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: "conflicting" rights
Cc: Hibbert.pa@XEROX.COM
From: ~joe testa~ < TESTA-J@OSU-20>
... If you could send me a list of what you consider to be a
person's natural rights, we can proceed with the discussion from
there.
... don't say "you have the right to use a gun", but rather "you
have the right to use a gun without harming anyone not trying to
harm you first".
1) You have the right to mind your own business. You are never
required to rescue anyone, feed anyone, pay taxes, etc.
2) You have the right to do anything with any adult that he or she
does not object to.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < EYAL%WISDOM.BITNET@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
From: Eyal mozes < eyal%wisdom.bitnet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 86 17:15:29 -0200
Subject: Re: Was Ayn Rand a Libertarian
> My point was that in politics (or philosophy if you
> prefer) some things are axioms. There is no proof for them, any more
> than there is proof for Euclid's axioms of Geometry.
> I would take the axioms as being:
>
> 1) Minding one's own business is never evil.
>
> 2) Non-coercively interacting with another person is never evil.
>
> There are not derivable from simpler axioms, and, as with geometry,
> one can use the negation of these axioms as axioms, and come up with
> a different and equally self-consistent system. However, just as
> non-Euclidian geometry is not useful to architects, the resulting
> political system, in which slavery and torture and murder are
> considered good, is not useful to people who prefer happiness and
> productivity to pain and starvation.
This exactly illustrates the profound difference between the
Objectivist and the libertarian approach to politics.
It is definitely not true that some things in politics are axioms. You
can't choose axioms arbitrarily. A philosophical axiom must be
SELF-EVIDENT - it must be a fundamental principle known by direct
sense-perception; only basic principles in metaphysics and
epistemology can have such a status.
Your two "axioms" are not just not self-evident; they're completely
false. Suicide, for example, involves "minding one's own business";
but, if you're familiar with Ayn Rand's writings, you can demonstrate
objectively that it IS evil. Selling and using drugs involves
"non-coercively interacting with another person", but, again, you can
demonstrate objectively that it is evil. What is true is that both
these activities, when they involve consenting adults, should not be
interfered with by the government; you have taken correct POLITICAL
principles and arbitrarily transferred them to the field of ethics.
This sort of mistake is really inevitable if you start creating
"axioms" for ethics or politics, and it undercuts the strength of any
otherwise valid argument you may present.
The proper principles of political theory must be supported by more
fundamental principles in ethics and epistemology - the supremacy of
reason, and the ethics of rational self-interest; without such
support, they become arbitrary, out-of-context assertions, and you are
left with no standard for justifying them, for deciding whether they
are "useful", or for applying them in practice.
> It is clear that you and I are
> using the word libertarian in a very different way. Can you provide
> some justification for your unusual use of the word?
I use the word in exactly the same way it's used by the candidates of
the Libertarian party, the editors of "Reason", etc.; libertarianism
is the movement that unites in a "common cause" anyone who says that
initiation of force is evil, regardless of how or whether he justifies
it or how he applies it in practice.
> You quote some guy I never heard of as saying that libertarians
> support PLO terrorism and Soviet foreign policy. This is utterly
> opposite to libertarianism as I understand it. You then say that
> his views are a logical result of taking "initiation of force is
> evil" as an axiom. This makes no sense at all. PLO terrorism and
> Soviet foriegn policy are excellent examples of initiating the use
> of force, not of refraining from doing so. Please clarify.
Whether you've heard of Murray Rothbard or not, it is still true that
he is widely regarded as the intellectual leader of libertarianism.
And the same views are expressed by many other libertarians, in
"Inquiry", "Reason" and several other publications, and are also
accepted by one major wing of the Libertarian party (the "Radical
Caucus").
Why do I say these views are a logical result of libertarianism?
Because, if you take "initiation of force is evil" as an axiom, rather
than as a principle supported by reason, then you have no objective
standards for practically applying it. Is the PLO initiating force, or
is Israel initiating force against the Palestinians, with the PLO
using force only in retaliation? If the main villain is STATE
coercion, doesn't the second view seem plausible? Is soviet
expansionism initiation of force, or is it retaliation against
initiation of force by the USA? Once you abandon reason as your base,
there's no objective way to answer these questions. And also, as Peter
Schwartz demonstrates, a demand for "freedom" not based on reason is,
at root, a call for nihilism, and will therefore naturally lead to
looking on any genuine, rational proponents of freedom - and both the
USA and Israel, with all their inconsistencies, are paragons of reason
and freedom compared to most of today's world - as the real enemy.
> [Ayn Rand wrote against libertarians] in 1972, and it is not clear
> that the wor same thing then as now. In 1972 there was no
> Libertarian party.
Well, the Libertarian party was created at a time when Ayn Rand has
already stopped writing; but she did strongly oppose the Libertarian
party, and spoke against it in several public speeches and lectures.
> I don't know many libertarians who are literally anarchists. I
> sent a message very recently opposing anarchism - perhaps it hadn't
> yet reached the list at the time you sent this message.
I did see that message, after I sent my last posting. Anyway, I'm
certainly aware that libertarians are divided on the issue of
anarchism; the fact that people, who don't even agree on whether the
institution of government should exist at all, can belong to the same
political movement, is a clear example of the anti-intellectual
approach which characterizes libertarianism.
> Even if libertarians and objectivists do have their differences,
> don't you think we should band together for the common cause?
No, because I see no common cause. As I already said, I know that some
genuine advocates of liberty call themselves libertarians; but by
making a "common cause" with anyone who would say he agrees about "the
evil of initiating force" - including anarchists, PLO sympathizers,
supporters of the New Left, "pro-life libertarians", and many other
groups incompatible with genuine liberty (as well as with each other)
- such people are damaging the cause of liberty, depriving the concept
of its rational meaning.
> There have been Libertarian candidates in the last three
> presidential elections, and in 1980 Clarke came out well ahead of
> Anderson and only just behind Carter in some states. But I have
> never heard of an Objectivist candidate.
And for a very good reason. First of all, Objectivism is a philosophy,
not a political movement; and from the political aspect, Objectivists
realize that the way to fight for freedom is by education, not by
running for office. A political campaign is, by its nature, not a
forum for a serious, fundamental discussion of issues; it can be
effective only AFTER the ideas of individual rights and laissez-faire
are widely accepted. The purpose of those who support individual
rights should be to persuade people - to win minds, not votes. And
for this, it is essential to have a clear rational and moral base for
your ideas; that's why libertarianism can do only damage.
Eyal Mozes
BITNET: eyal@wisdom
CSNET and ARPA: eyal%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA
UUCP: ...!ihnp4!talcott!WISDOM!eyal
------------------------------
Return-path: < Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 86 14:47:42 PDT
From: Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #51
Just to add a few things to Kieth Lynch's reply to Eyal Mozes...
To start with, I'd summarize my reaction thusly: Eyal said a lot of
things that don't seem even remotely true. A reply seems needed only
because the author spoke with such certainty.
"Murray Rothbard, who is widely regarded as the intellectual leader of
libertarianism, you can see that most of the views he holds on
concrete issues - such as his praise for the PLO, his sympathetic
evaluation of soviet foreign policy, and his view of the USA as the
world's "main danger to peace and freedom" - are totally incompatible
with genuine advocacy of individual rights, and identical with the
views of most socialists."
I would place Murray Rothbard as an intellectual leader among
Libertarians, but one who holds many opinions that are quite
controversial among libertarians. The ones you mention in particular
are (mostly) ones that I don't agree with. Most of the times that I
have heard Murray speak, he was specifically introduced (to
libertarian audiences) as someone with whom everyone would have some
disagreement. I believe his main claim to authority in in the field
of economics.
Eyal goes on to explain that "the correct approach to political theory
is the one diametrically opposed to libertarianism's," and mentions in
particular Ayn Rand's as one who follows this model. Rand is much
more widely regarded as THE person who set out the principle's on
which libertarianism is based.
Chris
------------------------------
Date: 22 Aug 86 21:13:30 EDT
From: Charles < MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Bias
To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
[ Once again I take to the netwaves to argue about something or
other... - CWM]
me:
[ Well, I have noticed that people think print is biased,
I've seen the letters.
Keith:
Certainly print is biased. The Bible doesn't give equal time to
Darwin. The Communist Manifesto gives short shrift to Adam Smith.
Ayn Rand clearly disagrees with Karl Marx. :-)
... a vacuous counter-argument. The original context was 'liberal
bias', as you well know.
me:
The original point was that giving guns to everyone would be
dangerous for a lot of reasons ...
Keith:
I don't advocate GIVING guns to anyone. I advocate letting
individual adults choose for themselves whether or not to be
armed.
... another vaccuous counter-arguement. How they get the guns has
nothing to do with the point.
me:
- one of which is that most people don't know how or when to
use them.
Keith:
Probably because they aren't armed and don't need to know.
Before most people had cars, most people didn't know how to
drive. Was this an good argument against letting people have
cars?
... say what? You're saying that everyone who will get a gun will
instantly know how to use one? The many people who have them NOW
don't know how to use them... Knowing that the sharp end of the bullet
goes toward the front and where the trigger is is not enough, sorry.
Keith:
I would support warning labels for guns, pointing out how
often untrained gun ownership ends in disaster. I would
support similar labels for cars.
... you're saying people don't know that guns are dangerous? Give me
a personal break... Using a gun properly is not something you learn
by watching Miami Vice.
me:
... There are a lot incredibly complex of reasons we lost in
Vietnam.
Keith:
Complexity is the last refuge of someone losing an argument.
...and oversimplification the refuge of those who don't know what they
are talking about. Sorry, but there are a lot of things that are
complex, and waving your hands at problems and pronouncing them to be
a certain way doesn't necessarily mean anything.
me:
That the Cong and the NVA had guns was the reason there was a
war at all, not the reason we lost.
Keith:
Well, if they were unarmed, I suppose it wouldn't have been
called a war, nor would France and the US have gotten involved.
It WAS the reason we lost, if only in the sense that we would not
have lost had they not been armed.
... we can carry this into endless digressions, but I won't bother.
We can talk about the root causes of the war, going back to the
Chinese and the north-vs-south issues of a long time ago. Its silly,
and it doesn't prove a thing. Go read up on the Phillipine
insurrection.
Keith:
Of course, whoever wins retroactively calls themselves the
legitimate government of the time, so there is a lot of bias
there. Like the tales of stranded sailors who were pushed to
shore by dolphins - obvious proof of dolphin intelligence, right?
After all, there are no tales of stranded sailors being pushed
AWAY from shore by dolphins!
... say what? You've gone one allegory too far into left field on
this one...
me:
... Dozens of governments are currently fighting wars with
internal dissenters. Does the fact that the anti-government
forces have guns stop the governments?
Keith:
No. Did the fact that George Washington's troops have guns stop
the British? Not at first. Was he an internal dissenter, or a
great hero? The latter, of course. Mainly because he won.
... say what? What does what you say have to say have to do with what
I said? It sounds like you agree with me, then say something about
George Washington? You're out in the left-field bleachers now.
Charles
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Saturday, 23 Aug 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 69
Today's Topics:
Rights of Minors &
Rights of the Mentally Ill &
Property Rights and Neighbors &
Voluntary Taxes (2 msgs) &
Libertarian Viewpoints (2 msgs) &
The Cost of Justice
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < lear@topaz.rutgers.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 86 00:45:25 edt
From: lear@topaz.rutgers.edu (eliot lear)
To: info-law@sri-kl.arpa
Subject: personal rights of minors
I heard on the radio that the Warwick NY education administration has
taken preliminary steps to allow strip searches of students. The
report said that the measure would still have to go to the public of
before actually going into effect.
1) Does anyone know anything more about this?
2) Under what conditions would a strip search be considered legal?
eliot lear
[{seismo|allegra|pyramid}!topaz!lear]
[lear@topaz.rutgers.edu]
------------------------------
Return-path: < elroy!smeagol!gorbag!earle@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 86 16:36:26 pdt
From: elroy!smeagol!gorbag!earle@csvax.caltech.edu (Greg Earle)
Subject: Mental Illness
> From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
> I used to agree with a lot of what Libertarians espouse, but what
> really turned me off to them was their position on mental illness.
> [The position is] we shouldn't judge what is normal or abnormal
> behavior, and hence shouldn't restrain mentally ill people until they
> have or are in the process of committing a crime.
I can personally attest to Hank's in-depth knowledge of mental
illness.
After all, he went to Caltech.
------------------------------
Return-path: < Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 86 16:46:26 PDT
From: Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: Property rights & neighbors
To: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI < wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA>
You can offer to pay him to not cut the tree down. If you've got a
greenhouse, you can offer to make a contract to protect your access to
the sun.
Length of residence doesn't seem important to me, but other
libertarians disagree on this point. One point of view is that the
first devoloper of a resource gains some property rights in it. This
implies that later-comers must buy the rights to build a skyscraper
that would block the light from someone who is depending on access to
the light.
I'm not sure which of these views I'd rather defend, but I don't see
this as a weakness that completely rebuts my position. I guess this
is one of the things that pushes me toward a minarchist position
(minimal government to adjudicate property rights is okay. That's
versus the anarchist view that says that governments can only
accomplish things with stolen money (taxes), and so they are immoral.)
Chris
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 86 01:16:16 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Fixed taxes but choice among programs
To: SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Yes, that would work. I can't think of any reason to adopt that
system and not allow people to make up new choices. ...
What would keep a person from making a direct government grant to
himself a government project, and earmarking all of his tax money
for that project?
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Date: Wed 20 Aug 86 23:33:33-PDT
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Fixed taxes but choice among programs
To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
Well, that particular choice could simply be ruled out. But then
people could do the same thing indirectly by exchanging taxes, each
giving a direct grant to the other. You could rule out direct grants
to individuals. But to some extent the ability to use your tax money
selectively to benefit yourself is inherent in any system which allows
you to choose where your tax money goes, even if people aren't allowed
to make up their own programs. Another problem with having people
create their own programs would be that you could wind up, for
instance, with some people spending their tax money on military aid to
the Sandinistas while others spent theirs on military aid to the
contras. I guess that individual programs could only be allowed if
there were restrictions. Allowing individual groups of citizens to
give military aid to any country or terrorist organization of their
choice would not be acceptable. (I am still only thinking of things
it is now legal for our government to do, and I am not thrilled about
the fact that our government can give any weapons it chooses to any
government or terrorist group it chooses. So don't throw back at me
the argument that individuals have the same rights as the government.)
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic
------------------------------
Return-path: < power.Wbst@Xerox.COM>
Date: 20 Aug 86 17:53:27 EDT (Wednesday)
From: power.Wbst@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: libertarianism
To: Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM
"This is an interesting argument. I don't claim that individuals
don't gain anything from society, but I do believe that groups of
individuals have no rights they aren't ceded by their members.
I'd be interested to see a further explanation of what rights
groups should have over their members and why."
I've found it very hard to explain this position, yet it seems very
obvious to me. I think it's because the things which I take for
granted are slightly different from the things that other people take
for granted. One of these things is that there are no such things as
rights, and individuals can't cede to groups what never existed in the
first place. What is a right? Freedom of speech? It doesn't exist.
People are murdered every day for saying the wrong thing. If your
tongue is cut out, you can't talk. Freedom from oppressors? Supply
your own list of 100 counter examples. Rights don't really exist. It
seems fundamental to me, so I don't know how to explain it any better.
When we talk about the way to make a society better (having defined
better), we have to start from the way humans act and interact, not
the way they 'should'. And because of the type of animal that a human
being is, his life is dominated by the groups around him. People
behave very differently when they are in groups. The bigger the
group, the more the difference. People are still individuals in a
group, but they perform different functions - leader, conscience,
facilitator, worker. The human animal is very flexible and can
perform more than one of these at a time, or even be one for a given
group and another for a different group. Human beings fall into this
interactive pattern very naturally, because this is the way we are
made. Society is the natural way for people, perhaps inevitable.
Individuals only rarely, extremely rarely, remove themselves
completely from society (small s: a group of people larger than the
immediate family). To say that this society, which forms naturally,
is a figment while contending that only people acting on their own
means anything, is just wrong. Society does force individuals to do
things, it always has and it probable always will. Arguing against it
is like argruing that people shouldn't fall in love, or shouldn't be
sad if someone they do love dies. Valid arguments can be made given a
set of values, but it doesn't change the facts.
As I said, this seems obvious to me. Libertarians seem to deny this.
The system of a powerful central governing body (Government, church,
employer) is a central part of most peoples lives. The exceptions
tend to be the leaders of these governing bodies (I guess it can be
argued that they are more dominated than anyone else. . .) or the
people that serve to fill the cracks between groupings - the wheeler
dealers, eccentrics, etc. The system of a strong central Government,
with the heads democratically elected, has evolved because people,
even the workers, want to be hassled as little as possible, pure and
simple. But they also don't want to concern themselves day in and day
out with the running of the society (because they're not leader or
conscience or facilitator). The removal of power from the immediate
(employer, parish priest) to the far away (Washington) does a lot to
realize this ideal. If you weaken the government enough, this system
falls apart. The libertarians think they can weaken the government to
an amazing degree, but still have it be able to control the
corporations, the Mafia bosses. I contend that if you weaken the
government this much, it will be unable to enforce due process, unable
to enforce the right of property, etc.
I guess if I had to sum it all up, I'ld say that libertarians are
reductionists, and see only the individuals. I say that people behave
differently in groups, and society actually forms a meta-being. This
isn't some subtle philosophical point, but (to me) an obvious truth.
Society (groups of people) has mores and values, habits and methods
that may or may not be similar to what individuals think or do. -Jim
------------------------------
Return-path: < @lll-tis-a.ARPA:mcb%lll-tis-b.ARPA@lll-tis-gw.arpa>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 86 17:51:41 pdt
From: Michael C. Berch < mcb%lll-tis-b.ARPA@lll-tis-gw.arpa>
Subject: Re: Question for Libertarians
Reply-to: mcb%lll-tis-b.ARPA@lll-tis-gw.arpa (Michael C. Berch)
foy@aerospace.arpa writes:
>
> It is hard for me to understand some of the Libertarian attitudes
> about rights. Some seem to say that people have a right to do
> anything they want economically, but also have a right to be free
> from phyusical agression. They seem to imply that these are natural
> rights.
>
> To illustrate my concern with a little story: Suppose;
>
> [A "libertarian" con man defrauds an illiterate farmer into deeding
> away his farm, telling him he is merely signing an installment sale
> for farm equipment...]
>
> Why do the Libertarians think that one of these individuals has a
> natural right to do what he did and that the other individual does
> not?
Nowhere does libertarianism condone fraud. The essence of fraud is
misrepresentation, which occurred in the scenario Mr. Foy posted.
The aggrieved farmer should have the right to collect damages and
have his property returned to him. What we DON'T need is a barrage of
regulations that restrict, tax, encumber, and interfere with the
freedom to engage in real estate (or rototiller!) transactions.
The farmer's private right to sue is a sufficient remedy.
The key distinction is between relief from actual fraud versus relief
from having made a bad economic decision. The first is quite
legitimate under both libertarian and statist theory; the second seems
quite prevalent in the US today, but has no place in a libertarian
system.
Michael C. Berch
ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA
UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb
------------------------------
Return-path: < brad%looking.waterloo.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
From: brad%looking.waterloo.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
Subject: How to pay for the courts without state force
Date: Fri Aug 22 00:06:57 1986
Courts provide a service - judgement, just as the police provide
protection from the initiation of force.
Now what is protected is your person and property. While (most)
everybody has the same amount of person, property varies. Thus the
amount paid should increase with the amount of property protected.
[This conclusion has the nice property of being saleable even to
Socialists]
It's quite easy to get people to pay for the protection of police and
courts if they don't get the protection without paying. Don't wanna
pay your court fee? No problem, you're now totally responsible for
your personal safety. If somebody guns you down in the street, it's
perfectly legal.
Now you may call this coercion, but it's not by the state.
The secret to making this easy (and not too different from today) is
to make court services come as a package. You can't buy them on a
case by case basis, only on a yearly basis.
No need for a strict monopoly, either. Any court agreeable to both
parties could judge a case. Some system could exist when the parties
subscribe to different courts and can't agree on a common ground. The
simplest such system is the one we have today - the default court is
the state court. (This is an imperfection, one that I'm working on.)
I feel that the basis of society should be an explicit contract, the
signing of which is an individual's act of majority. Part of this
contract includes the agreement of the signer to accept the authority
of certain courts.
Those who don't want to join may either join a sub-society, (which no
doubt has reciprocal agreements of various kinds with other compacts)
go on their own, or leave the area. Those who go on their own are
totally free, but it's also open season on them.
Sounds rough, but it demonstrates (with drama) exactly what the
government is doing for you (protecting you from anarchy) and why you
should pay for it. There would be not trouble getting people to pay.
Governments would only have trouble collecting funds where their
services are not so obviously valuable. And that's fine by me, too.
Brad Templeton
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Saturday, 23 Aug 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 70
Today's Topics:
Natural Rights &
Money and Power &
Libertarian Viewpoints (2 msgs) &
National Defense &
Organized Crime
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Date: Fri 22 Aug 86 00:40:46-PDT
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: general principles vs. peripheral issues
Gee, if I am being robbed I sure don't consider the question of
whether the robber is likely to kill me peripheral. I consider
it quite important.
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic
------------------------------
Return-path: < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Date: Fri 22 Aug 86 00:52:23-PDT
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: what power money buys
Well, a person with enough money could bribe everybody not to hire me,
so that I would not be able to make money to eat. As long as all the
land is taken and there are people who can't afford any land of their
own, money involves the power to deprive people of their livelihood.
If the economic system is sufficiently decentralized, and if enough
people make decisions independently of each other, then I will always
be able to look elsewhere for employment, a place to live, and so on,
whatever I may suffer by being turned down. If a small enough clique
of people own everything, or if everyone shares the same prejudice
against me, then I am out of luck, whatever I do. That is the power
that money has.
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 86 02:02:48 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Racism? Social darwinism? Anti-survival?
To: power.Wbst@XEROX.COM
From: power.Wbst@Xerox.COM
... The few libertarians I know are racist, although they talk
a good non-racist argument.
How did you determine that they are racist? If they are truly
racist, then they aren't libertarian, since libertarians all advocate
a completely colorblind government.
The basic tone of the libertarian philosophy has strong elements
of social darwinism in it, long used as a scientific veneer for
racist thinking.
People who advocate "survival of the fittest my any means" are not
libertarians. They may be anarchists. Libertarians believe that
certain things are just plain wrong no matter who does them, even if
it is a government that does them. These things include robbery,
slavery, rape, torture, and murder. A social darwinist considers all
of these acceptable if you can get away with them.
A consistent a social darwinist ought to support whatever the
current system happens to be. Given their hypothesis, the current
system, whatever it is, is due to the more fit surviving. Many Nazis
were social darwinists. They had no business complaining when we won.
We beat them fair and square by their own rules.
If you do not support social darwinism and racism, fine. Neither do
I. But don't say you don't support libertarianism for that reason.
Those are good reasons *TO* support libertarianism!
(I'm perfectly willing to defend this assesment of social
darwinism if anyone wants to debate it.)
I assume you mean the assertion that social darwinism can be used in
support of racism. I agree completely. It can be used in support of
anything anyone can get away with. Read Nietzche.
It is hard to imagine a philosophy more opposed to libertarianism.
... to evaluate all 'rights' as belonging only to individuals and
never to society goes to the other extreme. The answer lies
somewhere in the middle, but I'm not sure where.
This is one of those sayings that sound good at first, but that are
meaningless or even hateful on closer study. Just who is this
society? There is nobody here but individuals. Can you give some
examples of a societal right?
I contend that the concept of 'rights' are a conveniant tool, a
useful fiction that serves the survival of our species. They are
an abstraction, ...
They are just as real as matter and energy.
and to give all rights to the second abstraction called
'indivdual' (libertarianism)
I am not an abstraction. I am an individual.
Would you justify robbery and murder on the grounds that the victim
was only an abstraction?
is as anti-survival as giving all rights to another abstraction
called 'society' (Socialist communism?).
In socialism the government is everything and the individual is
nothing. So I conclude that by "society" you mean government.
I don't know what it means to "give" rights to someone. People HAVE
rights. They are not GIVEN rights by any government. A government
may recognize those rights or it may fail to do so. But it doesn't
GRANT any rights.
I am trying to figure out what it would mean to "give" rights to a
government. Who is doing the giving? And what does it mean for a
government to have rights, anyway?
A government has the right to do anything that an individual may do.
This right is implicit in the fact that government is made up of
individuals. A socialist government also assumes the "right" to rob
and to imprison innocent people. Is this what you are advocating?
Why?
You assert that the two extremes, total liberty and total slavery
are equally anti-survival. You also assert that "HUMAN BEINGS DON'T
WORK THAT WAY". You fail to provide any evidence for this. To me it
seems as silly as asserting that total accuracy and total inaccuracy
are equally bad, i.e. 2 + 2 = 4 and 2 + 2 = 65,537 are equally bad,
and the best answer lies somewhere between them. Are you trying to
support compromise for compromise sake? Are you one of those who
believe that the US is just as guilty of everything as the USSR and
the Nazis?
Socialists, when confronted with the abysmal failure of all attempts
at socialist utopias often assert that people just aren't good enough.
That socialism would be possible if only people were better, more
selfless, more hard working, more determined to make it all work.
I have no opinion on whether or not a more perfect slave could
someday be bred (for whose benefit?) but it is clear to me that as of
today, at least, human beings really DON'T work that way. Socialism
is doomed to failure if its subjects are humans rather than mindless
unselfish untiring robots.
It is clear that people are interested in their own personal self
interest, and in benefit to their family and close friends. The
libertarian system is the only system that works even in the face of
human selfishness.
In fact, Ayn Rand makes a good case that selfishness is GOOD and
altruism is EVIL. By altruism she doesn't mean doing good deeds for
other's benefit and for no benefit to oneself, she means the
philosophy that says one is MORALLY COMPELLED to sacrifice one's self
interest to the benefit of others.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < ATTENBERGER%ORN.MFENET@LLL-MFE.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 86 13:25 EDT
From: ATTENBERGER%ORN.MFENET@LLL-MFE.ARPA
Subject: definition of libertarianism
The message from Barry Fagin defining libertarianism was very
educational. Let me see whether I have things in perspective now.
In the old days, there were only liberals and conservatives.
Liberals wanted change, conservatives wanted status quo. Then maybe
under the "new deal", the term liberal came to mean someone who
supported welfare payments and other government aid programs. Later
the term liberal also became synonymous with "pacifist" during the
era of George (get out of Viet Nam) McGovern and Barry (bomb the
Chinese) Goldwater. So now there is a new movement which is
pacifist but is against government aid, so they have coined a new
phrase: "libertarian".
Let me anticipate objections to equating "pacifist" with
"libertarian". If I directly use Fagin's definition of valuing
"individual liberty, the free market, and social tolerance", then
my conservative brain conjures up an image of Ronald Reagan...
Is President Reagan a libertarian? (That ought to stir 'em up!)
------------------------------
Return-path: < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Date: Fri 22 Aug 86 00:35:40-PDT
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: national defense
Although Charles's question was how a libertarian society would defend
itself, I will also respond, since his question would seem to also
apply to a pacifist society.
To begin with, I hold the belief that there are certain things that
are inherently wrong, and should not be done, even for a good cause,
and even if this particular time the consequences of doing these
actions seem better than the consequences of refraining from them.
War is one of these things. I believe that people who are not
committing violent acts against other people have an inherent right
not to be violently attacked themselves. War as I know it necessarily
includes some indiscriminate attacks on the populace, men, women, and
children, of another country, even though they are not all aggressors.
I could support some limited use of force in self-defense, but I can
think of no cause which could justify the wanton destruction of
innocent people which is inflicted even by soldiers who are not trying
to direct their attacks at civilians. I am also opposed, on religious
grounds, to killing anyone. I am not going to give the justification
for these beliefs in this message, but will just give them as axioms.
It is hard, both on a personal and a national level, to break out of
violent ways of resolving disputes, but I believe that someone needs
to be the one to show the way. Nonviolent methods of conflict
resolution and defense don't always succeed, of course, but neither do
violent ones. In fact, violence very often, even when it succeeds in
the short term, breeds more violence in the long term. Nations also
grow to justify all kinds of bloated military spending, aggression
against other nations, and repression of their own citizens, all in
the name of "defense".
I think that a major part of our defense should be to try to get at
the roots of war. That part is fairly complicated, and involves many
things, including developing techniques of negotiating and maintaining
agreements with people we don't trust, just dealings with people of
other countries, support for organizations like Oxfam which attack the
problem of poverty and for organizations like Amnesty International
which attack the problem of human rights violations, lifting trade
restrictions and immigration restrictions, and promoting exchanges
with other countries. I am sure there are other things I haven't
thought of now.
Of course, dealing justly with other people does not guarantee that
they will deal justly with you, so there is still the possibility that
another country will attack us. In that case, I would organize a
nonviolent defense. Governments rely on the cooperation of their
citizens. If enough citizens refuse to recognize the authority of a
government and persist in disobeying, it would be very difficult for
an invading power to govern.
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic
[ I'd really like to beleive this, but I don't. Its still the meanest
guy in the valley that runs the valley, and its going to be that way
for a while yet. It would seem to me that in a contest of peoples who
beleive in war and those that don't, the 'beleivers' will win every
time. Non-violent defence didn't work for the Jews (which is one of
the reasons the Isrealis act the way they do - they learned the lesson
at an incredible cost), and won't work for anyone up against a
determined aggressor. On a separate tack, does anyone care do discuss
the political effects of the exploitation of space? One possible
solution out of the present struggle of the have/havenots is to become
so prosperous with new raw materials and energy sources and a
population 'safety-valve' so that nobody wants to be killed fighting,
and would rather than sit around and have a good time. Is this
possible? Likely? - CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < ANDY@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Thu 21 Aug 86 09:21:16-PDT
From: Andy Freeman < ANDY@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: The Mob and Atlantic City
Our beloved moderator, Charles McGrew writes:
[who, me? - CWM]
If you think that legalized gambling will make the mob go away,
go look at who OWNS the casinos in Atlantic City. Look who takes
protection money from the prostitution houses in Nevada, look who
owns the big loan sharks. They won't go away; they're making too
damn much money to stop. You underestimate the mob: they're smart
and mean.
Atlantic City is an example of artificial scarcity. (Las Vegas is
also artificially scarce, but there is much less govt involvement.) A
better example would be gambling and Nevada. Are the slot-machines in
the service stations mob-run? What about the blackjack tables in most
restaurants?
I see nothing wrong with the Mob owning casinos in Atlantic City. If
they are committing real crimes, then they should be prosecuted for
those crimes.
"Mob" paranoia is more dangerous to most of us than the mob itself.
One example is the racketeering laws. Smart lawyers add RICO charges
to civil software licensing lawsuits. (Yes, Virginia, that adds a
powerful incentive to settle out of court. Imagine the publicity,
"MocroHard Rackeering Trial in Third Week.")
When the Mob is doing something illegal, like extortion, then that's
something to worry about. We have gone too far; it is illegal to be
in the Mob even if you haven't done anything. Try to defend yourself
against that.
-andy
-------
[ Lepke, Capone and all those other 'businessmen', wherever they are,
must be smiling at this. "I'm a legitimate businessman" is the
traditional answer to people who worry about organized crime's
heavy-handed techniques.
As I understand it, organized crime owns most of the slots
companies, so I'd say yes to your question on those.
I don't know much about the racketeering laws, so I can't comment
on those. I still stand by my original point that making gambling,
etc. legal will not make organized crime disappear. They own a lot of
stuff, and use their on charming and subtle techniques to ensure that
business stays good. I *do* agree with you on the matter of misusing
laws by lawyers, but I don't think that laws directed against OC are
completely without justification. - CWM]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Sunday, 24 Aug 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 71
Today's Topics:
The Death Penalty &
On Communism (2 msgs) &
War and Peace &
Candidate's Business Plans &
Libertarian Viewpoints &
Money and Power
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < ll-xn!scubed!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!seamus@caip>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 86 17:01:29 pdt
From: ll-xn!scubed!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!seamus@caip.rutgers.edu
From: (Jim Garrison)
In response to :
> Can you reference any study which establishes that the death
> penaly(sic) deters crime (primarily murder)? This is an often stated
> defence of capitol punishment which is seldom backup (sic) with
> evidence.
>
> david
> _______
I am aware of three studies worthy of mention. One by a
criminologist, Sellin, and two by economists, Ehrlich and Wolpin
(references at end). The Economist Werner Hirsch (whom I highly
respect) provides an excellent commentary on these studies in his
text, "Law and Economics, An Introductory Analysis".
NOTE- The following summary is mine and should not be blamed on anyone
else.
The studies attempt to determine if capitol punishment acts as a
deterrent to the crime of murder. The study by Sellin indicated no
correlation between capitol punishment and homicides while the studies
by Ehrlich and Wolpin both indicated a deterrent effect.
Sellin based his findings upon an analysis of clusters of neighboring
states "closely similar" to each other. However, he failed to
identify specific variables that influence the homicide rate and thus
he could not show that the "closely similar" states were actually
closely similar with respect to these variables. Hirsch comments,
"...his clustering technique is a very weak attempt to hold other
influences constant while examining differences in homicide rates."
Ehrlich, using a simultaneous equation model, investigated the
influence of three law enforcement variables on the number of
homicides (probability of arrest per homicide, probability of
conviction per arrest, and the probability of execution per homicide).
He pointed out that "on the average the trade-off between the
execution of an offender and the lives of potential victims it might
have saved was of the order of magnitude of 1 for 8 for the period
1933-67 in the United States."
Wolpin's study, utilizing English data, arrived at a ratio of 1 : 4
for executions to lives saved.
-seamus
references:
1. T. Sellin, "The Death Penalty", Philadelphia: American Law
Institute, 1959
2. I. Ehrlich, "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question
of Life or Death", American Economic Review 65 June 1975
3. K. L. Wolpin, "Capital Punishment and Homicide in England",
American Economic Review 68 May 1978
------------------------------
Return-path: < SMITH%SLACVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
Date: 20 August 86 15:24-PST
From: SMITH%SLACVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #56
More on Commutheism:
Keith Lynch says that communism has all the characteristics of a
religion and listed some of those characteristics. He should have
added two important dogmas of the philosophical underpinnings of
communism (i.e., Marxism) to his list:
1) All human attributes (even the moral sense --what one thinks
is right and wrong) are the result of economic evolution.
2) Uncompromising belief in the labor theory of value.
I have often had difficulty in believing that human action could
ever be understood in such terms, but still many people think
that such dogmas could form the basis for a `scientific' view
of `organizing' humanity. To me it just looks like a way of
disguising the more believable goal of `controlling' humanity
(for the sole gain of the Party). This is because 1) can be used
to discredit opposition because they `grew up that way'. As Marx
said in the manifesto--"those who disagree with communism on
religious, philosophical, economic, or ideological grounds are
not worthy of serious consideration". Also 2) is basically
an application of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to the
citizenry in the form: You can't win--you can only break even &
we (i.e., the Party) won't let you break even either. Value is
really too subjective to be computed just on the basis of labor
involved --- unless making choices is `not allowed'.
J.R. Smith
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 86 22:06:45 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Addition to your list of attributes of Communism
[ In reply to the above message from Smith%Slacvm.bitnet@wiscvm -CWM]
I am not quite sure what your message was for. My list of communist
attributes was to show how communism was really a religion. So I only
named attributes shared by most religions.
It is a waste of time to ridicule communism on this list. There are
as far as I know no communists on this list. And if they are, they
aren't going to be swayed by logic.
It is better to argue against bogus beliefs that many people on the
list actually have.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 86 22:53:12 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Pacifism, Wrong is wrong.
To: SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
... It is hard to continue to believe in nonviolence when it is
met, as it often is, with violence, and when there doesn't seem to
be a practical nonviolent alternative. But I see that a mentality
of violence, war, and terrorism is perpetuating itself in this
world ...
I believe that the only justification for violence is self defense.
But that IS a justification. If people are not allowed to defend
themselves, then their rights are worthless since anyone is free to
violate those rights without fear of opposition.
Historically, the only pacifists who were not enslaved or killed
were those for whom someone less pacifistic was willing to fight.
You could argue that if only everyone on Earth (and beyond Earth)
was pacifistic, that pacifism would work. This is true, but it is
also true that if there was just one exception, just one person
willing to use violence, he could take over the world and enslave
everyone.
Also, if everyone WAS pacifistic, in practice it would be equivalent
to everyone believing that violence in self defense is justified, so
there wouldn't really be any difference.
I strongly dislike war. That is not to say that I can imagine
nothing worse. The Nazi death camps weren't war. The Soviet gulags
aren't war.
How can war be prevented? History and common sense show that there
is only one technique that works: To avoid war, be prepared for war.
In other words, I strongly disagree with your opinion about
violence. But I do support your contention that you should not be
compelled to pay taxes to help support the defense budget.
... Keith, when you say that something which is wrong is always
wrong do you mean that the only moral rules are absolute ones?
That's right.
Are there no actions you would consider moral or immoral that
depend on the situation?
Of course there are. If you see someone walking down the road
minding his own business it is wrong to shoot him. If you see someone
rapidly driving a van full of high explosives through a closed gate
towards a building with people inside, and reaching for a detonator on
the seat next to him, it is ok to shoot him.
And where do you derive your beliefs about right and wrong to
begin with?
From the idea that freedom is better than slavery, life is better
than death, and keeping one's property is better than being forced to
give it up to whoever threatens you. Read Ayn Rand for more details.
... I still don't understand what is going to make someone who
isn't libertarian become libertarian.
Knowledge of mankind, the world, and what libertarians advocate.
You seem to be saying that these beliefs are not just your own
whim or personal value judgment, but are somehow inherently true.
Why are they inherently true?
Why indeed? Why should 2 plus 2 be 4? Some things just are.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 86 22:31:34 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Business plans for presidential candidates
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Intriguing idea. But I believe that individuals should have the
right to vote for whoever they please regardless of whether the
candidate has filed a plan or not. If a large group of voters makes
it clear that they won't vote for any candidate who refuses to file
such a plan, then such plans are more likely to be filed.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 86 10:48:01 PDT
From: Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: libertarianism
To: power.Wbst@Xerox.COM
Jim Power said the following, in reply to something I wrote:
"When we talk about the way to make a society better (having defined
better), we have to start from the way humans act and interact, not
the way they 'should'. And because of the type of animal that a human
being is, his life is dominated by the groups around him. People
behave very differently when they are in groups. ... To say that this
society, which forms naturally, is a figment while contending that
only people acting on their own means anything, is just wrong.
Society does force individuals to do things, it always has and it
probable always will.
... Valid arguments can be made given a set of values, but it doesn't
change the facts.
I guess if I had to sum it all up, I'ld say that libertarians are
reductionists, and see only the individuals. I say that people behave
differently in groups, and society actually forms a meta-being. This
isn't some subtle philosophical point, but (to me) an obvious truth.
Society (groups of people) has mores and values, habits and methods
that may or may not be similar to what individuals think or do.
-Jim"
I don't argue that society is non-existent or unimportant. My claim
is that it is not a useful concept in the current context. By that I
mean that societies can't be said to have goals and values. These are
attributes of individuals, and ascribing the goals of a majority or a
plurality to the whole group is not true to the concept of a goal.
At a very low level, the goal I'm trying to argue should be uppermost
is that individuals should be free to pursue their own ends as long as
they don't interfere with the similar freedom of other individuals. I
claim this is important because of the nature of individuals. The
system of government I argue in favor of is intended to further this
goal. I am willing to discuss either whether a libertarian government
is a good way of serving this goal, or whether this is a good goal.
If you can express your goal in terms of groups and societies and
their attributes, then it will make sense for you to argue about
systems of government in terms of how they serve that goal. If you
have to appeal to the notion of a majority in order to talk about the
needs, decisions, desires, mores, etc. of a group, then I think you
should say why they are important to your explanation. I can see no
way to describe the values of a society without appealing to the
values of the individual. In the end the values of a society can be
no more precisely specified than as the values of a majority of their
members. I can see no argument for lending moral weight to the
concept of majority.
Chris
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 86 22:28:06 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Is money power?
From: campbell%maynard.UUCP@harvisr.harvard.edu
... Money is power over people, and people only. Money and power
are two sides of the same coin, and they are convertible to each
other the way matter and energy are equivalent and convertible.
Sigh.
Suppose you want to make me a slave. You want me to pick cotton.
You can get a gun and point it at me and threaten to kill me if I
don't pick cotton. Probably I would then do so, as slowly as I could
get away with - any you had better never turn your back on me or that
gun is going to end up where the sun don't shine.
Another approach is to offer to PAY me to pick the cotton. Offer me
something worth more to me than my time and inconvenience and risk,
and I will cheerfully pick cotton for you. And I will end up feeling
that I have GAINED by the transaction. Of course this isn't slavery
any more. This is employment.
Note that it doesn't matter whether you are an individual or a
government in either case. Individuals and governments are both
capable of either way of treating people.
If you still insist that money is coercive power, please give an
example of its coercive use. Don't bother to list:
1) Hiring a killer. This is as illegal in a libertarian system as in
any other.
2) Bribing legislators. This wouldn't even NEED to be illegal in a
libertarian system, since legislators wouldn't have the power to
enact special interest legislation.
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Sunday, 24 Aug 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 72
Today's Topics:
Libertarians and Poli-Sci &
Rights of Minors &
The Cost of Justice (2 msgs) &
TV or not TV &
Drugs on the (Free) Market
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 86 01:45:49 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Libertarians & the Digest
To: TESTA-J%OSU-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA
From: ~joe testa~ < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Just out of curiosity, how long has this digest been dominated by
discussions about libertarianism?
Well, the current round goes back about six weeks. It started on
the MetaPhilosophers list on which various philosophers were being
discussed and I tossed Objectivism into the ring. The discussion
turned inevitably from Rand's philosophy to her politics, so I started
CCing to this digest, which was pretty moribund at the time.
I recently looked at the oldest archives I could find online, which
are five years old. At that time JoSH@RUTGERS (J. Storrs Hall) sent
many messages propounding libertarianism. None of those messages
would seem out of place if they appeared today. I was on the list at
that time, but didn't send very many messages. JoSH handled the
unbelievers quite well, and he was twice as eloquent as I am.
This list was originally a spinoff from the then very active and now
nearly inactive HUMAN-NETS list in 1980. The original subject was how
to make voting more representative of the will of the people.
I'm not complaining at all; it just seems fascinating that a
medium with such a potentially large subject range tends to be
restricted to one topic.
It's not just one topic. The libertarian position about virtually
everything has been discussed. As have the various non-libertarian
positions. Libertarianism is the most important thing that is
happening in politics. The Republicans and Democrats are
intellectually bankrupt. The Socialist program is hateful to all free
people. And all the other third parties are one issue parties.
This list is not "restricted" to one topic. Anyone can send any
sort of message they want.
(Perhaps it should be renamed the "libertarian-arguments-digest",
or better yet the "Keith-Lynch-and-a-few-friends-take-on-the-
world-digest"? :-)
This isn't the only list which would qualify for the latter
designation. I am quite active on several other lists. :-)
I think my "friends" are more numerous than you might think. Almost
all of the messages seem to at least implicitly advocate moving the
country in the libertarian direction. Some just don't want to move it
as far as others. Nobody, for instance, has defended Social Security
as it now exists. Nobody has put in a good word for the milk
millionaire boondoggle. Nobody has suggested that higher taxes would
be a neat idea. Nobody has had a favorable word for the Meese
pornography commission.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < abc@BRL.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 86 9:42:07 EDT
From: Brint Cooper < abc@BRL.ARPA>
To: eliot lear < lear@topaz.rutgers.edu>
Cc: info-law@sri-kl.arpa
Subject: Re: personal rights of minors
I don't know about strip searches, but in Harford County, Maryland,
students are not judged to have any civil rights. They can be
suspended from school without confronting their accusers. They can be
arbitrarily hauled out of class and forced to reveal the contents of
their pockets and wallets. They are suspended first and have their
hearing with a representative of the Superintendent later. The
Superintendent decides on long term suspension and expulsion
(therefore acting as judge) but he does not preside over the hearing.
The hearing is tape recorded and he is presented with a transcript!
It's an irony that Maryland requires or soon will require a student to
demonstrate a basic knowledge of 'citizenship' before being graduated
from high school!
Brint
------------------------------
Return-path: < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Date: Fri 22 Aug 86 20:47:55-EDT
From: ~joe testa~ < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Subject: The Cost of Justice, and more
To: kfl@mx.lcs.mit.edu%mc.lcs.mit.edu
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> Much of crime is due to repeat criminals. If someone has served
> two major felony sentences and is convicted of a third, he should
> be put away for good.
Finally :-), something we agree completely on.
> [the justice system in a libertarian system] will cost less than,
> say, the restoration of the Statue of Liberty. The latter was paid
> for entirely by voluntary donations. And I think anyone willing to
> pay for a statue representing our way of life would be willing to pay
> at least as much to guarantee the way of life itself.
I think that the success of the restoration of the Statue was mainly
due to the hoopla and media attention given to the project. It was
made to be *exciting*, an *event* that one "had" to participate in. I
can't see such excitement being generated by a fund to pay to run a
court; after all, courts make unpopular but constitutional decisions
-- such as defending First Amendment rights. If a court has to rely
on voluntary contributions, then might it not feel compelled to make
popular but unjust decisions?
I suppose that is my basic problem with libertarianism -- i don't
share your confidence that people will volunteer funds to support
vital government functions. Even though these functions benefit
potentially everyone, people won't contribute unless it's for an
"exciting" cause.
And convincing people to contribute drains resources. A similar
situation exists with the health-care industry today. In Ohio, we are
flooded with commercials on TV showing us pictures of helicopters
flying around particular hospitals. This is a waste of money; it
doesn't cure a single disease; if they spent their time and money on
health care, perhaps the cost wouldn't be so high.
The same would go for a judicial system, only much worse. I want
judges to be honest arbiters, not concerned with slick advertising
techniques and public opinion polls.
And from another message:
> Opponents of libertarian philosophy often bring up stories in which
> the population does not consist of rational adults, but of children,
> feebleminded people, criminals, insane people, or people in a sinking
> lifeboat. Do we really want a system which treats everyone as if
> they were like that? Is that the most realistic view of the people
> of this country?
No, but SOME people ARE like that! Would the libertarian system
ensure their protection? Or would they just get run over in the mad
rush of everyone looking out for him/her self, ripe for exploitation
by those who are more clever or intelligent or sane or rich than they
are?
-joe testa -
[ Another point on the Statue of Liberty project is that it had a
definite ending point. People have visible proof of their
contribution. The courts go on and on, and there is no end of the
cases they would have to hear. I suspect that the futility felt by
not a few policemen would soon be felt by many potential contributors
to Keith's proposed justice system. - CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < king@kestrel.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 86 23:00:16 pdt
From: king@kestrel.ARPA (Dick King)
Subject: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #65
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 86 19:03:35 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Cost of Justice
To: TESTA-J%OSU-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA
From: ~joe testa~ < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
. . . [omitted point-counterpoint]
> You can't put a monetary value on rape (unless the victim was
> a prostitute).
What??? It is more ok to rape prostitutes???
No. I didn't say that.
Prostitution should be legal. (It already is in Nevada.)
Conservatives oppose prostitution. Liberals sometimes advocate it,
but are confused by the contradiction:
1) Nobody should be forced to have sex against their will.
2) Any business person should sell their wares to anyone with
money, as has been pretty generally agreed to since the 1960s
lunch counter boycotts.
3) Anything two consenting adults choose to do is ok.
There is no way to believe both 1 and 2 and to advocate
legalization of prostitution. But there is no way to believe 3
without advocating legalization of prostitution. A paradox.
Everyone agrees on point 1. Where liberals go wrong is with
point 2. Not everyone agrees that any customer must be served.
Libertarians are the only ones to advocate both freedom and a
consistent political system.
I don't understand. 1> 2> and 3> taken together don't lead to a
contradiction, anymore than
a> nobody should be forced to cook for others against their will
b> A lunch counter should sell to any customer with money
c> Selling lunches is okay
I don't necessarily agree with 2> , but it does not strike me as
inconsistent to codify a principle that if you are in a certain
business you should serve all customers. It is not nonsensical to say
that a prostitute can't refuse customers.
-dick
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 86 23:02:25 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: TV
... I see lots of opinions I don't like on TV. I take this
as a good sign. - CWM]
I see lots of opinions I don't like in books and magazines. I also
see lots of opinions I *DO* like in books and magazines. There is a
great deal of diversity. There is little diversity on broadcast TV.
I don't know enough about cable TV to comment.
Anyone on this list can write a book or at least write articles and
short stories for magazines. How many people ever get a chance to
write for TV? It's just a much smaller demand. Since producing a TV
program costs so much more than producing a book or magazine, every TV
program must appeal to many millions of people just to break even.
If I wrote a book and it sold ten million copies I would be famous
and probably rich. If I wrote a TV program which was watched by ten
million viewers it would be cancelled before the end of the season.
Because of this big audience requirement, producers tend to be
extremely cautious and always aim for the lowest common denominator.
This means the same old set of tried and true westerns, police shows,
sitcoms, etc. In politics, the lowest common denominator is a sort of
watered down liberalism, and this is the political view that is
presented on TV almost exclusively.
...Keith
[ Well, like I said before, cable TV's diversity is where TV is going.
The 'establishment' of TV said that narrow-interest stations like MTV
and CNN (and ESPN, and CBN, and MSG, and CNN2, and HBO, Showtime,
etc., etc.) would never make it. Nevertheless, they survive and
prosper. I'm surprised that you are so down on TV shows 'sameness'.
The producers of most TV shows operate on the principles you hold
dear: sell what people want. If people don't want what they sell,
they watch something else. If a show stays on the air, people are
watching it. If the producers of TV shows don't have much
imagination, well, that's too bad. As to a 'liberal blandness',
perhaps it is the people who run the stations that have this bias.
Jesse Helms, before he became a Senator, was vice-president of Capital
Broadcasting in North Carolina (Channel 5, Raleigh). He gave an
editorial every night. If you think that was a 'liberal blandness',
think again. - CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 86 23:32:57 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Drugs
[ Who pays for the cops who keep drugs out of the hands of kids?
Do these laws that keep drugs out of kids hands include their
parents? If a parent chooses to give drugs to his child, is it
legal?
Well, this all seems to work pretty well for alcohol and tobacco.
I never said ALL of the world's problems will go away if we adopt a
libertarian system. Kids will still get drunk. Teenagers will still
try marijuana and cocaine. At least the marijuana won't contain
paraquat, and the cocaine won't contain strychnine.
I read a few weeks ago that a 4 year old kid playing on the front
steps of his apartment downtown pricked himself on a discarded needle.
He got AIDS apparently from that needle.
If drugs and drug paraphernalia had been widely available this would
not have happened.
It is also true that if illegal drugs weren't used this would not
have happened. But do you have any ideas how to deter drug use? The
current methods aren't working. Do you think spending billions more
on narcotics police will change anything? The drug laws aren't
working. The tons of marijuana and kilos of cocaine that the Coast
Guard keep intercepting are only a small percentage of the amount that
is not intercepted. The smugglers treat it as a business expense.
And it probably costs them less than taxes would if they paid taxes.
People's attitudes aren't very anti-drug use. Very very few people
would turn in an acquantance for drug use.
... Your statistics on weed usage in the 1960's is incorrect: a
much larger number of people smoke mj now than did then.
The drug laws aren't working. Would you call the cops if you saw
someone smoking marijuana? Would anyone? Would the cops even bother
to arrest him? What use are laws which everyone ignores? Don't they
simply breed disrespect for the law?
Your argument of "employers and schools will still test for
it": I can see a lawsuit coming - how could an employer fire an
employee for using a drug that is legal and stigma-free ...
The same way they can fire people for excessive alcohol use now.
As you know, I support an employers right to set any conditions
for employment. Many employers still have dress codes. So why not
drug codes?
- perhaps there will be 'snorting' and 'no-snorting' zones in
office buildings and cafeterias?
Perhaps. But the reason for non-smoking areas is because the smoke
enters the air and affects non-smokers in the vicinity. Except for
drugs that are smoked, this won't be a problem.
If you think people quit a drug (including tobacco, which you
have reviled as the lowest of the low) because its "dangerous",
why don't all the smokers in the world quit? Because they like
it!
No. Because they are addicted. But government has not seen fit to
forbid this extremely addictive and deadly substance. Few people
would support an attempt to ban tobacco.
... The 'enjoy' factor of heroin, or cocaine is tremendously
higher than for cigarettes -
Enjoyment and addiction don't have much to do with eachother.
Anyway, I have been told by people who have quit both tobacco and
heroin that quitting heroin was much easier.
The extreme addiction of heroin is largely a myth. Most users go
several months each year without using any, and continue this pattern
for years. Most users who are forced to go through withdrawal (for
instance who spend time in a prison or a hospital) resume using heroin
as soon as possible even though they are not physically addicted
anymore.
if its legal, there's going to be a dramatic rise in addicts.
Since steadily harsher penalties don't seem to result in any fewer
users, how can you conclude that more lenient (or nonexistant)
penalties will result in more users?
Remember that we are discussing policies for the real world, not for
some ideal world. In an ideal world nobody would use the drugs and so
it wouldn't matter whether usage was legal or carried the death
penalty or anything in between. Here in the real world we can take it
as given that people will continue to use the stuff, and the only
question is should they pay a lot for cruddy stuff or should they pay
much less and get much better quality stuff? Should needles be widely
available, or should drug users share needles and catch AIDS and
Herpes? And give AIDS to innocent children playing with their drug
debris?
If you think that legalized gambling will make the mob go away, go
look at who OWNS the casinos in Atlantic City. ...
Have you any evidence for this? A friend of mine owns a lot of
stock in an Atlantic City casino, and he is no mobster.
They won't go away; they're making too damn much money to stop.
You underestimate the mob: they're smart and mean. - CWM]
I'll bet they can't outcompete honest businessmen in a free market
economy. And if they can, without breaking any laws, more power to
them!
...Keith
[ ... I'll bet you they can because they don't let little things like
laws stop them from making a buck. Legitimate businessmen don't rob
competitors or burn down their warehouses. Does you friend think that
organized crime does NOT own a substantial part of his casino? Last
time I was in Atlantic City, it was not an idyllic libertarian
community.
On drug laws: no, they don't work well, mostly because enough
people are willing to pay very high prices for the stuff (the free
market at work, eh?) The original point was, and still is, that I
don't think it will be such a good and valuable thing to have it all
cheaper, more plentiful, and easier to get. I don't think that
getting the paraquat out of mj and the milksugar out of heroin is that
all-fired important. AIDS won't go away, and getting it from a
discarded needle won't go away either (needles aren't the only way
AIDS gets spread, you know) from your plan - so your child would still
get it, unfortunately. But I digress (we digress? Use digress
toothpaste for a whiter, more libertarian smile? :-) How can YOU say
that we'll have fewer addicts? I think my arguments are stronger on
that point than yours (but then, I would!)
I guess I don't have your ability to be quite so sure about such
things as you. I have a natural suspision of anyone who says,
"The answer is simple. Just trust me and it will all be alll
right..." Because usually it isn't, and it won't be. - CWM]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Wednesday, 27 Aug 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 73
Today's Topics:
Drug Programs &
Sending Mom to Jail &
Medicine Testing &
Press Censorship (3 msgs) &
I Want You for the Libertarian Army
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < dmw@unh.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Sunday, 24 August 1986 12:06:41 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: new drug programs
The difference between Eisenhower and Reagan's statements on drugs is
drug testing. The military has already shown that extensive drug
testing results in a major reduction (something like two-thirds
reduction) in drug usage. Whether you agree with drug testing or not,
it does appear to have the desired effect.
------------------------------
Return-path: < dmw@unh.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Sunday, 24 August 1986 12:17:35 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Ratting on Mom and Dad
Suppose your parents are hired killers. Is it okay to turn them in to
the police? Suppose your parents run the stop sign at the corner. Is
it okay to turn them in to the police? Clearly most people would
answer yes to the first and no to the second question. Drug dealing
presumably lies somewhere in-between. Since the majority see drug
dealing as fairly bad, I don't see why the case of the girl turning in
her parents for dealing should immediately be labeled as some horrible
evil.
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 86 23:40:10 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Medicine
[ I am uncomfortable with the thought of a doctor coming along
after 5 years and saying, "well, you shouldn't have been taking
that allergy drug, fella - it causes leprosy! Gee, I'm sorry, but
you know, let the buyer beware!" ... -CWM]
This is the real world. Drugs do have side effects. The risks and
benefits of a drug must be weighed by SOMEONE. I say that someone
should be the person at risk. You imply it should be doctors and/or
government bureaucrats, and the patient should have no say in the
matter.
It isn't fair to use the existence of side effects against my
position. The side effects would be just as great whether the risks
and benefits were weighed by a doctor or by a patient. In fact, you
never say in your leprosy scenario just who selected that allergy
drug. I could have used the very same paragraph and said "by the way,
this drug was suggested by the doctor" to bolster MY case.
...Keith
[ Clearly, it doesn't matter who suggested the drug: it could be
nobody beyond the ad for the drug ("clears sinuses and whitens teeth",
or whatever). In a purely libertarian society, the seller of the
drug is within his rights to sell anything to anyone who will buy,
with things balancing out afterward. A typical rejoinder to
unregulated medicine is that word will get around and the seller will
not be able to sell any more. This is not so good for the people who
get zapped before word gets around. Is this such a good thing? - CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < campbell%maynard.UUCP@harvisr.HARVARD.EDU>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 86 11:46:29 EDT
From: campbell%maynard.UUCP@harvisr.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: Press Censorship - really anti-Zionism
Reply-to: campbell%maynard.UUCP@harvisr.HARVARD.EDU (Larry Campbell)
Apologies for the length of this; those uninterested in truth in
reporting can skip it. Summary: Cramer misquotes and misconstrues
Gore Vidal's article, and I correct his mistakes. I wonder if he
actually read the article, or if he only read some out-of-context
quotes published in an anti-Vidal flame somewhere.
cramer@sun.com writes:
> Here Campbell presumes to tell Jews what they are, and what they
> believe. Fortunately, the American Jewish community, which is
> virtually entirely pro-Zionist, understands the centrality of Israel
> to the Jewish religion, not being as ignorant of Judaism as Mr.
> Campbell. Did you know, for example, that a religious Jew prays
> *three times a day* for the restoration of the Jewish homeland? Or
> that he says, in grace prayers *after every meal*, "rebuild
> Jerusalem, the holy city, speedily in our days"? ...
No, I didn't know that. Lots of religions include formulaic and
outmoded jargon in their worship that no one really believes or
examines. It's been a long time since I've been to communion, but the
mumbo-jumbo goes something like "Drink of my blood and eat of my
flesh" -- you're supposed to be eating the body of Christ. And yet no
one seriously believes that Christians practice symbolic ritual
cannibalism. Also, for what it's worth, most Jews I know (even the
Zionist ones) don't pray three times a day for *anything*, and also
eat ham and sausage. If you're talking about Orthodox Jews, I could
believe you, but they're essentially a crank minority, about as
central to American politics as the Amish or the Mennonites.
> Now, on to "waving the red flag of the holocaust": This is a
> revealing remark. In the posting which seems to have so unbalanced
> our friend, I said *nothing* about the Holocaust. Why does Mr.
> Campbell bring up this *Jewish* tragedy? After all, he has already
> told us that "Zionism is not the same as Judaism." Peculiar.
I brought it up because it is often (perhaps not in this case though)
implicitly stated whenever the emotionally-charged phrase
"anti-Semitism" is used. The corollary goes like this: Anti-Semite =>
Nazi => holocaust.
[Aside: why does "Semite" mean "One of a people of Caucasian stock
comprising chiefly Jews and Arabs but in ancient times also including
Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, and others of the eastern
Mediterranean area", while "anti-Semitic" means "anti-Jew"? The
dictionary would make Rabbi Kahane an anti-Semite.]
OK, here come some wildly out-of-context quotes I must laboriously
clarify -- the way Cramer excerpts them makes them seem anti-Semitic
while they're really anti-Midge Decter and Norman Podhoretz (and their
other right-wing cohorts).
> ... I don't
> particulary enjoy reading in mass circulation magazines that American
> Jews are in America in order to "make propaganda and raise money for
> Israel" ...
Vidal didn't say "Jews are in America in order to..."; he said "Yet
he and Midge stay on among us, in order to...". He was referring
specifically to Midge Decter and Norman Podhoretz. His larger point
was that Podhoretz and the American Jewish Committee have
...moved from those liberal positions traditionally occupied
by American Jews (and me) to the far right of American
politics. The reason for that is simple. In order to get
Treasury money for Israel (last year $3 billion), pro-Israel
lobbyists must see to it that America's "the Russians are
coming" squads are in place so that they can continue to
frighten the American people into spending enormous sums for
"defense", which also means the support of Israel in its
never-ending wars against just about everyone.
> ...while their "predatory" co-religionists in the Middle East
> are "busy stealing another peoples' land in the name of an alien
> theocracy." ...
"Co-religionists" is Cramer's term, not Vidal's. Here's the actual
section in question (explanatory comments in [] are mine):
We [the U.S.] stole other people's land [California, Hawaii,
Puerto Rico, the Philippines]. We murdered many of the
inhabitants. We imposed our religion -- and rule -- on the
survivors. General Grant was ashamed of what we did to
Mexico, and so am I. Mark Twain was ashamed of what we did in
the Philippines, and so am I. Midge is not because in the
Middle East another predatory people is busy stealing other
people's land in the name of an alien theocracy. She is a
propagandist for these predators (paid for?), and that is what
this nonsense is all about.
> Or that American Jews constitute an "Israeli Fifth Column."
He never said that. The two sentences containing the phrase "fifth
column" are:
The Lunts of the right wing (Israeli Fifth Column Division),
they [Decter and Podhoretz] are now, in their old age, more
and more like refugees from a Woody Allen film: 'The Purple
Prose of West End Avenue'.
and
But then, like most of our Israeli fifth columnists, Midge
isn't much interested in what the _goyim_ were up to before
Ellis Island.
He is specifically talking about the Jewish/Zionist right wing, not
"American Jews" as a whole. In case that's not clear, here's another
quote:
Since spades may not be called spades in freedom's land, let
me spell it all out. In order to get military and economic
support for Israel, a small number of American Jews, who
should know better, have made common cause with every sort of
reactionary and anti-Semitic group in the United States, from
the corridors of the Pentagon to the TV studios of the
evangelical Jesus-Christers.
> Anti-Zionism is an unusual movement. Of all the peoples in the
> world, it finds the Jews uniquely undeserving of a state.
First, Anti-Zionism is not a "movement". It is not particularly
organized, at least not in the U.S., while Zionism is clearly a
well-organized movement -- heck, it's got a state!
Now, if Anti-Zionism finds Jews "uniquely undeserving" of a state,
then I assume Zionists find that Jews "deserve" a state. Well, then.
Do Catholics "deserve" a state? Shall we restore the Holy Roman
Empire? Do Moslems "deserve" a state? Shall we restore the Ottoman
Empire? What makes Jews so unique in all this? As far as I can see,
it's because they have the only religion that thinks it deserves a
state. Somehow I thought that this was the twentieth century, and
that theocracy was an outmoded concept. Frighteningly, Israel and
Iran are proving me wrong.
--
Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc.
ARPA: campbell%maynard.uucp@harvard.ARPA 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA
UUCP: {alliant,wjh12}!maynard!campbell (617) 367-6846
------------------------------
Return-path: < bzs@BU-CS.BU.EDU>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 86 13:17:31 EDT
From: Barry Shein < bzs@BU-CS.BU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Press Censorship - really anti-Zionism
From: cramer@SUN.COM
> Fortunately, the American Jewish community, which is
> virtually entirely pro-Zionist...
That's quite a statement, I don't believe that. There are (at least)
two significant groups who are not pro-Zionist (at least not in any
sense that is being used here.)
1. A segment of the Orthodox who believe that the return to Israel
will occur upon the coming of the Messiah. I was raised by people who,
although sympathetic to Israel for political reasons (read: fear) were
deeply troubled by this contradiction.
2. The traditional leftist Jewish community who deeply questions the
validity of the current Israeli state and the methods by which it came
into being (note, of course there are Zionist leftists, many in the
Israeli Kibbutz movement.) If I remember correctly (it's been a while)
the Jewish leftist newspaper Freiheit expresses these feelings as
editorial policy. At any rate, just looking for an example. I
certainly have known many such people in my life.
I don't believe these people are insignificant, just perhaps in Mr.
Cramer's experience as neither group tends to be socially affable with
Jews they fundamentally disagree with.
Perhaps he will claim this was adequately covered by his use of the
word "virtually". I don't think so. If he had said the "majority" I
would have to agree, but I believe the point I make is important as
the press etc seems to believe in this unanimity also. It t'aint
necessarily so.
-Barry Shein, Boston University
------------------------------
Return-path: < campbell%maynard.UUCP@harvisr.HARVARD.EDU>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 86 11:46:13 EDT
From: campbell%maynard.UUCP@harvisr.HARVARD.EDU
Subject: Re: Press Censorship - really Cockburn
Reply-to: campbell%maynard.UUCP@harvisr.HARVARD.EDU (Larry Campbell)
cramer@sun.com writes:
> Both Jeff Myers and Larry Campbell seem to have missed the rather
> elementary point that I tried to make regarding Alexander Cockburn.
> Cockburn, currently a columnist for the Nation (among other
> publications), was fired from his post at the Village Voice after it
> was discovered by his editor that Cockburn was under a $10,000
> contract with the Institute for Arab Studies.
> ...
> Now, what I was trying to suggest in my posting was that Mr.
> Cockburn, who has written at length on the evil influence of filthy
> capitalist lucre on the profession of journalism, may just be a bit
> of a hypocrite.
Somehow I find it difficult to find any of this particularly evil.
Are socialists living and working in a capitalist country not allowed
to be paid? Are they supposed to feel "hypocritical" for accepting
money? Should Cockburn have refused to accept paychecks from the
Voice? I am really confused here. Which part of Cockburn's actions
was wrong?
- Accepting the money in the first place?
- Omitting to tell his editor about it?
- Failing to write the promised book?
- Or accepting money from greasy Arabs?
> Allow me to restate my point for the benefit of these gentlemen:
> Cockburn accepted a non-trivial sum of money, which he did not
> disclose to his editor, for doing "research" which was meant to end
> in publication. He has complained in the past of the pernicious
> effect of money on American journalism. He is a hypocrite.
Oh come now. Somehow we are expected to believe that accepting money
from a cause WITH WHICH COCKBURN IS ALREADY IDENTIFIED is going to
sway or influence him "perniciously", and that this is hence evil. I
can't find anything more insidious than procrastination in Cockburn's
actions.
Now, if the money was from The Heritage Foundation, or the Jewish
Defense League, or the Cato Institute, that would be pernicious...
Interestingly, I first heard of Cockburn in Alan Lupo's series of
articles in The Boston Phoenix a few years back. I remember thinking
at the time, "What's Lupo so exercised about? So he never got around
to writing a book. What's the big deal? Lupo must have some kind of
grudge here or something." Later, when Cockburn began writing for The
Nation (to which I was already a subscriber), I discovered that (1)
he's a superb writer, and (2) he's pro-Palestinian, which explains why
Lupo would foam at the mouth about him.
--
Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc.
ARPA: campbell%maynard.uucp@harvard.ARPA 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA
UUCP: {alliant,wjh12}!maynard!campbell (617) 367-6846
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 86 23:45:25 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Libertarian army
... What do libertarians do in the face of naked aggression on a
national scale?
Join the Army.
How would an army-less libertarian France, lets say, defend
itself from Nazi Germany in 1940?
Who said there would be no army? I only said it wouldn't get men
via a draft and it wouldn't get money via a tax.
This is a poor example anyway, since the non-libertarian France of
1940 did NOT succeed in defending itself against the Nazis.
Consider that voluntary contributions are tied to perceived
danger, ... - CWM]
I think enough people realize that the way to prevent a war is to be
prepared to fight it that the contributions will be sufficient. Note
that the level of per capita defense spending in this country, while
not under individual control, is approximately in the range the
majority want it to be in. If it wasn't, a different set of
candidates would have been elected unless the current set had
advocated a lower defense budget.
...Keith
[ I'm going to give up my profitable business of selling widgets and
join the army while my compeditor keeps selling widgets and stealing
my business? I thought a libertarian society was high-employment and
high prosperity. Who's going to give all that up to be a soldier? I
don't buy that any such society is going to be so clever that it will
pick exactly the right time to re-arm (pick the wrong time, and you
spend big bucks on weapons that will be obsolete when you need them).
Certainly in times of low perceived threat, contributions to the army
will be miniscule. If a threat appears suddenly, there won't be time
to rearm.
On a purely historical level, France could have defeated a German
attack in 1940. The French had a similar-sized army, more (and
better) tanks, and a strong industrial base. They made a series of
bad decisions that lost them the fight, but with the material at hand
(which included the BEF) they could have won out. But if they hadn't
been building all along they wouldn't have had even that chance.
I picked France because of the circumstances of the perceived threat.
Would you rather me pick a capitalist, socialist or tyrannized society
that won? I can't see the point of that... - CWM]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Wednesday, 27 Aug 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 74
Today's Topics:
Libertarian Viewpoints &
Drug Testing &
Constitutional Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < @HI-MULTICS.ARPA:Lippard.Multics@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARP
Return-path: A>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 86 13:46 MST
From: "James J. Lippard" < Lippard@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Was Ayn Rand a Libertarian?
Reply-to: Lippard@MULTICS.MIT.EDU
> From: Eyal mozes < eyal%wisdom.bitnet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 86 17:15:29 -0200
> Your two "axioms" are not just not self-evident; they're completely
> false. Suicide, for example, involves "minding one's own business";
> but, if you're familiar with Ayn Rand's writings, you can
> demonstrate objectively that it IS evil. Selling and using drugs
> involves "non-coercively interacting with another person", but,
> again, you can demonstrate objectively that it is evil.
I don't believe that it can be "objectively demonstrated" that suicide
and drug use are evil. Could you provide such a demonstration, or
give me a pointer to the place in Randroid writings that does so?
Jim (Lippard at MULTICS.MIT.EDU)
------------------------------
Return-path: < hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 86 9:43:46 EDT
From: James B Hofmann < hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #66
> From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> Subject: Drug testing
Kieth writes:
> I think employers do have the right to require such tests. The
> real issues are:
[ check past issues for his arguments which are valid]
> I do not support your petition, because I believe that employers
> have the right to set any rules they want for potential employees,
> just as the potential employees have the right to set any rules they
> want for their potential employers.
> A company should have the right to not hire or to terminate anyone
> for any reason, just as an employee has the right to not seek work at
> a given place or to resign for any reason.
> ...Keith
However, Kieth, there is a question here of individual dignity. Where
does the employer stop before he has violated that? In order to do
urine tests fairly, someone must witness one peeing into the cup.
Tell me, are you so inclined to let people watch you pee or take a
dump? If there was a drug that induced some sort of high through anal
insertion and there was no way to check bodily fluids, would you allow
these employers to look up your butt and feel around?
Where do you draw the line and where do personal beliefs fit in here?
What if in some religions it is against the law to witness someone in
the act of defecation or urinating? If a person refuses testing on
the basis of religion, will he then not gain the job and isn't that a
form of discrimination?
HOFMANN
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 86 19:05:37 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Constitutional rights
To: foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA
From: foy@aerospace.ARPA
... I THINK, there is a fundamental problem if most people make
decisions on gut feel and rationalization. How do we know who
(including you and me) and when and on what issues is making a
rational decision as contrasted with a rationalized decision?
Does it matter, so long as each person makes decisions only for
himself and not for others?
Do we set up a parliment of the rational?
No.
Do we have a democracy?
Yes, to the extent that decisions cannot be made on an individual
basis. This is the heart of the dispute between libertarians and
others. Most non-libertarians in this country are small d democrats.
They think something is right if and only if the majority agree on it.
This species can be recognized by their insistence that free
elections in a country will result in (or is synonymous with) freedom
in that country. I don't think so. I am convinced that if there were
free elections in the Soviet Union, that the communist party would
still win. This does not make communism right.
If the majority of people in this country believe that a minority
should be enslaved - and they did once, and would have even if you had
counted the black vote - that doesn't make slavery ok. If the
majority of people in this country believe that the tax rate should be
100 percent above some income level, taxation is still robbery. If
the majority of people in this country think that you must believe a
certain religious doctrine or you will be damned, that does not mean
that such a doctrine should find its way into our laws - EVEN IF THE
DOCTRINE IS TRUE!
How do we implement a rational society or government? How do we
insure that the people who get into the position of passing,
enforcing, judging criminal laws are acting rational instead of
ratioalizing a grab for power.
Their power is limited by the Constitution. The Constitution, at
least the first few amendments, is a mostly libertarian document.
Even though the Supreme Court has interpreted most of it in an
unreasonable way, especially the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 6th amendments.
Those amendments should be clarified with additional amendments, and
there should be additional amendments banning taxes, the draft, and
victimless crime laws.
The First Amendment supports freedom of religion. This has been
interpreted by the courts to mean that no religious organization has
to pay any taxes or keep any records. The IRS, however, considers
some religious organizations to be merely tax dodges and not serious
religions at all. It is no doubt true that some groups were founded
for that reason, but who is to decide which is which? The IRS has set
itself up as supreme arbiter among ALL religions in this country.
This is just the opposite of what the writers of the First Amendment
intended. They wanted government completely out of the religious
sphere - instead we find government picking and choosing legitimate
religions, largely based on the political clout of the religious
group.
A Native American religion uses peyote for its religious rituals.
The government allows this. But peyote is illegal for everyone else,
including members of a religion formed in the 1960s, for which peyote
and other drugs are also used for religious rituals.
Who decides which religions aren't serious? Surely one founded in
the 1960s or more recently is a crock, right? Well, it isn't
necessarily so. Many people are attracted to Christianity and Judaism
at least partly because the origins of these religions is remote in
time and in place. If Moses lived down the street in the 1960s, and
if Jesus lived and preached downtown in the late 1970s, would as many
people take these religions seriously? Would the government? The
governments of the time certainly didn't. Look what happened to
Moses! Look what they did to Jesus and his followers!
And you think our country is any better? Look what happened to the
Mormons. They had to flee to the uncharted wilderness to avoid being
persecuted and killed. A religion founded in the 1830s seems
sufficiently remote to be legitimate today, even though it was founded
in mundane old upstate New York rather than in exotic Jerusalem or
Mecca. But it certainly didn't seem remote enough at the time. Do
you think it couldn't happen again today?
That same First Amendment supports freedom of speech, and of the
press. So by the same reasoning the press ought to be free from
taxes. Book stores should not have to collect sales tax or keep
records for the government. Not only should pornography be legal, it
should be tax exempt!
The Second Amendment proclaims "...the right of the people to keep
and bear arms, shall not be infringed". It seems to me that advocates
of gun control should have to get this repealed before they can have
any anti-gun laws enacted. Instead, this amendment is simply ignored.
By the same reasoning that says that church taxes are illegal
because they would infringe one's religious rights, and that says that
poll taxes are illegal because they would infringe one's right to
vote, the Second Amendment implies that guns should not only be legal,
they should be exempt from taxes and record keeping!
As for taxes themselves, the Fifth Amendment says "No person shall
be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law". For "life" and "liberty" this is universally interpreted as
meaning that those can be taken away only if a person is convicted of
a crime or found liable in a civil trial. What is the justification
for interpreting "property" in a different way? And if that isn't
clear enough, the Fifth Amendment goes on to say "nor shall private
property be taken for public use without just compensation".
The 13th amendment bans "involultary servitude" except for people
convicted of crimes. A federal income tax rate of 28% means you are
working more than three months each year without compensation. Is
this voluntary servitude? Not in my case. If I was able to isolate
the months I work just to pay federal income tax, the additional weeks
I work just to pay state income tax, and the additional month I work
just to pay social security tax (excluding the so called "employer
contribution"), I would choose not to work during that period.
It is clear, of course, that the writers of those amendments did not
intend to interpret them as banning taxation. But the courts have
never let the intention of the legislators stand in the way of their
interpretation of what the law actually SAYS, even when they are still
living and vehemently object to the court's interpretation.
They favored taxation, but the taxes in those days were very low.
Taxes today are much higher than the taxes that the British extorted
from the colonists, leading to the revolutionary war! I think if the
signers of the Constitution could see what tax rates are today, and
what the tax money is being used for, they would regret having not
added an anti-taxation amendment to the Constitution.
So it seems to me that taxes are already unconstitutional. But
since the courts do not share my interpretation, a new amendment
should be added that bans all forms of taxation in no uncertain terms.
How do we decide if it is an invasion or not for who who to enter
the country by what means etc?
This is something libertarians differ on. Some say that anyone
should be allowed into the country - that everyone has the same rights
whether they were born here or not. Others suggest that this would
make it impossible to legally stop an armed invasion until the
invaders actually shoot someone, and claim that these rights only
apply to our citizens, that citizens of other countries should attempt
to convert their governments into more reasonable forms rather than
flee to the protection of ours.
Another idea is to sell citizenships, for whatever price the market
will bear. This would provide revenue to government in lieu of taxes
from citizens.
But most of all how does one transition to a rational government?
Well, the first step is to convince people that it is possible. The
next step is to elect legislators who agree with these principles.
How does one decide the steps one takes in eliminating this
without creating a violent or non-violent revolution by people who
act on their gut feel.
Well, of course no libertarian president will be elected until the
majority supports the libertarian platform. I doubt the remaining
minority will start a revolution to ensure higher taxes! They are
free, after all, to continue as they have been. Anyone who wants to
pay taxes is free to do so. Anyone who wants to start a VOLUNTARY
welfare system is free to do so. All libertarians intend to take away
is their "right" to a free lunch at OUR expense, and their "right" to
regulate OUR private morality and behavior.
When weapons systems are discussed in terms off jobs is that a
perception of the actions of other governments?
Jobs should NOT be a criterion in defense spending. They aren't
real, anyway, since all of the money that goes to pay those people
came from others, meaning there would be the same number FEWER jobs in
other sectors of the economy. Actually, there ARE probably a few more
jobs, but only because the average defense worker is paid less than
the average worker. People who feel strongly about these few extra
jobs are free to ask for a lower salary, which will have the same
effect.
If defense spending was entirely voluntary, I think we would see a
lot less unnecessary spending and a lot less bogus accounting. DoD
and defense contractors would know they would have to clean up their
act if they want to get paid next year.
When the government wants to test people with security clearances,
it is an interference resulting from the arms race.
Oh, come on. Nobody is COMPELLED to get a clearance. It is purely
voluntary. Government asks applicants the same sort of questions that
I believe employers should be allowed to ask any potential employee.
If enough employees object to such questions, then employers would
become less inquisitive, since they would need no fewer employees. If
enough applicants for security clearances object, government will ask
less intrusive questions, since they would need no fewer cleared
people. I don't see that happening in the case of clearances. I have
one, and the questioning was not all that bothersome. And the only
consequence of not passing such a test is not getting a clearance,
it's not like they can send you to jail if they find a statue of Karl
Marx hidden in your closet. I don't think the level of scrutiny is at
all inappropriate, given the damage that an untrustworthy person can
do.
When the military tests weapons which release radiation into the
atmosphere in is an interference.
Which is one of the main reasons such tests have been banned for
over twenty years.
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Wednesday, 27 Aug 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 75
Today's Topics:
Administrivia &
Private Arsenals &
Card-Carrying Libertarians &
The Mob (3 msgs) &
Paying for Services
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 27 Aug 86 00:41:03 EDT
From: Charles < MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: As Arnold said...
... "I'll be back". I'm off to Atlanta for the World SF convention,
so there will be a slight interruption in poli-sci digest frequency.
Digests will resume again on Monday night.
Thanks,
Charles
------------------------------
Return-path: < oswald!jim@ll-xn.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 86 20:30:06 EDT
From: oswald!jim@ll-xn.ARPA
Subject: Private Arsenals
Reply-to: oswald!jim@ll-xn.ARPA (Jim Olsen)
In a recent article, Keith Lynch expressed his opposition to any
restrictions on private ownership of munitions, possibly excepting
nuclear weapons. This points up a crucial flaw in anti-gun-control
arguments: where do you draw the line between permissible and
impermissible weapons? There are two options:
OPTION 1: No restrictions whatsoever on ownership of weapons
------------------------------------------------------------
This would create a terrorist's paradise. The terrorist could, with
impunity, buy the latest instruments of death that modern technology
offers. Why settle for a puny pipe bomb when you can legally buy a
nice dirty nuclear device (heavy on the fallout, please).
Keith seems to say that, since governments now own nuclear bombs,
private ownership would make no difference. This is silly. Having a
dozen or so governments that can "push the button" is bad enough, but
if thousands of private citizens had their own nuclear devices (and
think of what kind of person would want a nuclear device) it would be
a very short time indeed before we saw another nuclear holocaust.
This may happen eventually, but there's no need to help the process
along by legalizing private nuclear bombs.
OPTION 2: Restrictions on private nuclear weapons
-------------------------------------------------
This is more reasonable, but how do you draw the line saying that
private nuclear weapons are illegal, but private ownership of anthrax
bombs or nerve gas or napalm is legal?
This raises the general question: which weapons should private
individuals be permitted to own?
---
Jim Olsen ARPA: jim%oswald.UUCP@ll-xn.ARPA
UUCP: ...!{decvax,lll-crg,seismo}!ll-xn!oswald!jim
------------------------------
Return-path: < Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 86 11:17:11 PDT
From: Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: card-carrying libertarians
To: Marc Campos < genrad!teddy!mxc@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>
I prefer the term dues-paying to card-carrying, since I try to keep my
wallet as empty as I can. :-) I am a libertarian, and a member of the
Libertarian party. You've seen at least a few things from me in the
list
I was an objectivist for a time as well, but since that term means
going along with everything that Rand believed, I've shed that label.
(She had a remarkably limited view on women's issues for a women who
believed in liberty.) I still use her ideas and arguments as a
starting point for my beliefs about the proper role of government.
These days I'm sometimes a minarchist (minimum government--police,
courts, national defense) but more usually an anarchist (no government
can function without coercing individuals.) I argue the minarchist
line when it's convenient and moral, because it's easier for people to
see how the economy could operate without intervention in a particular
arena than to concieve that it might be possible to operate without
any central government.
I worked at GenRad from 1980 to 1984. Ask the people who are still
around from back then if they remember me. (One of the last things I
did there was to help with the conversion of teddy from VMS to UNIX.)
It's too bad you arrived after I left. I would have enjoyed arguing
with an objectivist.
Chris
------------------------------
Return-path: < Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 86 11:48:17 PDT
From: Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: The Mob and Atlantic City
Charles,
Why don't the people who are victimized by the mob go to the
police? "legitimate" businesses don't seem to have as much trouble
with organized crime. Is it just possibly because legitimate
businesses don't have anything to fear from the police?
Businesses that are already afoul of the law (prostitutes, gambling
establishments that want to offer more or different games than the law
allows, purveyors of illegal substances, etc.) can't go running to the
law when someone asks for protection money. Most businesses don't
fall prey because the criminals know that some intended victims will
go to the police. (As long as those victims don't expect to be
arrested when they get there.)
Chris
------------------------------
Date: 25 Aug 86 16:26:12 EDT
From: Charles < MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Mob and Atlantic City
To: Hibbert.pa@XEROX.COM
Intimidation is the art of coercing someone without a visible
weapon. Lets say you're a green grocer supplier. You ship your
vegetables through a truck line. A man walks in to you one day, and
says he'd like you to change shipping lines to the one he represents.
You've heard that this shipping line may be 'dirty'. He looks you in
the eye and says, "You know, all sorts of things go wrong with trucks.
Flat tires, crashes, hijackings. I'll bet you that you have trouble
with this." Oddly enough, you have. Several shipments have been
damaged or spoiled. "I can assure you that if you ship with us, your
stuff will get to market with no problems." He quotes you a price
somewhat higher than you're paying now. After all, he says, all this
safety and security costs money. He's just trying to make a buck.
Have you been threatened? A matter of opinion. He's got a lot of
implied muscle behind him. You want to take the risk that he won't
use it? That's your decision to take. Can you go to the cops? What
if the cops can't (or won't) do anything about it?
I guess I'm just talking to no purpose, now. I'm not going to
convince you. I guess I draw different conclusions from you. I still
stand by the original point: that the mob won't magically disappear
under any circumstances.
Charles
------------------------------
Return-path: < Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 86 15:33:01 PDT
From: Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: The Mob and Atlantic City
To: Charles < MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
I agree, sometimes it's hard to prove coercion. In the situation you
describe, you'd probably have to catch someone in the act of "fixing"
one of your trucks, and then show some connection between the mechanic
and the shipper.
I also agree that the mob isn't going to magically disappear under any
reasonably likely circumstances.
I still would like you to address the question of whether the fact
that prostitution (gambling, drug sales, etc.) are illegal has
anything to do with their susceptibility to blackmail and
racketeering. If not, is there some other reason why the Mob
concentrates in these areas?
Chris
[ Hmmm... I agree with you that those who engage in illegal activities
are more susceptable to intimidation, for the reasons you give.
However, that doesn't mean that's the only people that get the
"businessman" treatment. But do we just say, "sorry, you use drugs,
you lose." Do we just leave the mob alone, and let them do what they
like to people we (whoever 'we' are - I guess the police) judge not
worth trying to help? - CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 86 19:26:04 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Paying for government services
To: TESTA-J%OSU-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA
From: ~joe testa~ < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
I think that the success of the restoration of the Statue [of
Liberty] was mainly due to the hoopla and media attention given to
the project.
Isn't more media attention given to the courts and to national
defense?
It was made to be *exciting*, an *event* that one "had" to
participate in.
Aren't the courts and defense and police work more exciting? Look
at how many TV shows and books are courtroom dramas, murder mysteries,
war stories, police shows, etc. Count the column inches given to
these subjects in your newspaper. And check on how many people
volunteered to fight in WWII or even in the relatively unpopular
Vietnam war.
Compared to these, the attention given to the Statue of Liberty, and
to other major recipients of voluntary donations such as United Way,
Live Aid, etc, is miniscule.
If a court has to rely on voluntary contributions, then might it
not feel compelled to make popular but unjust decisions?
Well, the "donations" are in a sense voluntary now. You think the
courts are NOT swayed by politics? You think their opinions do NOT
pretty closely match those of the general population?
Clearly, in order to get a libertarian system started, most of the
population must be in favor of it, anyway. For the courts to be
biased in a libertarian direction - if that even makes any sense - is
not a bad thing. In fact, whether you realize it or not, it is the
lack of just such a "bias" that you complain of the possibility of.
Isn't such a lack already far more prevelant in today's courts?
I suppose that is my basic problem with libertarianism -- i don't
share your confidence that people will volunteer funds to support
vital government functions.
Well, if a "vital government function" attracts few donations, then
perhaps people don't find it all that vital after all.
And convincing people to contribute drains resources. A similar
situation exists with the health-care industry today. In Ohio, we
are flooded with commercials on TV showing us pictures of
helicopters flying around particular hospitals. This is a waste
of money; it doesn't cure a single disease; if they spent their
time and money on health care, perhaps the cost wouldn't be so
high.
Well, this is the classic dilemma of advertising. Doesn't
advertising a product increase its cost? After all, the consumers
are then paying the cost of the advertising as well as the cost of
manufacture, distribution, and packaging.
The answer is no, not really. To the extent that advertising
increases purchases (or donations) it causes the unit cost to go
DOWN.
The same would go for a judicial system, only much worse. I want
judges to be honest arbiters, not concerned with slick advertising
techniques and public opinion polls.
Of course. A lot more people will be willing to donate to pay for
honest arbiters than for "slick" media types.
Please note that the crime rate would be FAR less under a
libertarian system, for reasons I gave in a previous message. So the
justice system would cost FAR less than it does now, even if it became
no more efficient, which it would. And the justice system consumes
only a small percent of tax revenues. Since everyone would become
wealthier by AT LEAST the amount of their taxes if those taxes were
repealed, they would be able to donate even more than the present day
costs of courts and national defense and still come out WAY ahead of
the game.
> Opponents of libertarian philosophy often bring up stories in
> which the population does not consist of rational adults, but of
> children, feebleminded people, criminals, insane people, or
> people in a sinking lifeboat. Do we really want a system which
> treats everyone as if they were like that? Is that the most
> realistic view of the people of this country?
No, but SOME people ARE like that! Would the libertarian system
ensure their protection?
The libertarian system does not ensure anyone's PROTECTION. It
is not like a monolithic government. What it ensures is everyone's
RIGHTS. There is no way to ENSURE both.
Individuals who are concerned about such people will be free to
donate to the appropriate cause. More free to do so than they are
now, in fact, since now MOST of their DISCRETIONARY income is taken
away as taxes and cannot be donated to ANYTHING.
The top tax rate next year may be "only" 28% if the tax bill passes,
but please note that:
1) This is the federal income tax only. There are two other income
taxes where I live (state income tax and social security tax) and
for lower income people these together often exceed the federal
income tax. In some areas there is a third or even a fourth income
tax.
2) The 28% is the top ABSOLUTE rate. The top MARGINAL rate is
greater.
3) You also pay sales tax, property tax, inheritance tax, phone tax,
electric power tax, and various excise taxes on numerous products.
3) Your employer has to pay an "employer contribution" of 7.35% of
your before-tax salary to social security. This is in ADDITION to
the social security deduction you see on your paycheck. He also
pays for mandatory unemployment insurance.
4) Your employer has to pay corporate income taxes, property taxes,
taxes on phone service and electric service, taxes and licensing
fees on company vehicles, etc, etc. These are passed on to
employees, stockholders, and customers: THERE ISN'T ANYONE ELSE.
5) Your landlord has to pay income tax and property tax. These are
mostly passed on to you.
6) The stores where you shop have to pay corporate income tax,
property tax, taxes on phone and electric service, taxes and
licensing fees on company vehicles, etc, etc. These are largely
passed on to you.
7) Most people have fixed expenses they have to pay out of their
paycheck. These may include rent or mortgage payments, groceries,
car payments, tuition loan repayments, phone service, gas service,
water, transportation, and electric power. The remaining income is
called discretionary income. All discretionary purchases, all
donations, and all savings, come from this remainder. So do taxes!
Calculated on discretionary income, tax rates are typically on the
order of 80 to 90 percent or more! THIS shows how much wealthier
people would be if taxes went away. Is it all that incredible that
people would be willing to make voluntary donations out of this
windfall?
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Tuesday, 2 Sep 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 76
Today's Topics:
The Causes of War &
Employment and the Judicial System &
Pacifism &
Serving Customers &
Bias and Guns
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < ANDY@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Mon 25 Aug 86 11:10:01-PDT
From: Andy Freeman < ANDY@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: War caused by misunderstanding?
I often see/hear statements that are roughly equivalent to:
"War is caused by misunderstanding."
Does anyone have an example of a war that was CAUSED by
misunderstanding? (I realize that WWI was triggered by a
misunderstanding over the murder of Archduke Ferdinand, but the causes
were there long before. I believe that WWI would have happened
eventually even if his driver hadn't screwed up.)
Please include some explanation of your use of "cause" and
"misunderstanding".
thanks,
-andy
[ Hmmm... well, let's see. I think that we could look at WWII first.
The Japanese misunderstood the American people's will to fight: they
calculated that a quick strike on the Pacific Fleet and other US
possesions would dishearten the populous that the US would negotiate a
peace in Japan's favor, and so they went ahead and attacked. It can
be argued then that this misunderstanding the war. England and France
misunderstood Hitler's intentions during the pre-war maneuverings and
by their actions (giving to or accepting his actions) caused him to
misunderstand their will to fight which led him to attack Poland and
trigger the beginning of the war. Hitler's misunderstood Russia's
will to fight, and this caused him to attack the USSR in 1941.
In WWI, most of the major participants misunderstood the power of
the forces they had at hand and so moved more boldly (or foolishly)
than they might otherwise (although you're right about the war being
inevitable as things stood. Serbia and Austria-Hungary were headed
for war in any case, and world war was a step a way from that).
Is this the sort of thing you're looking for, or am I on the wrong
track? - CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 86 19:33:07 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Employment laws, judicial income
[ It is interesting that the employment laws you decry were
enacted to redress the very greivances you say that their repeal
will solve...
No they weren't. They were enacted to protect the interests of
those already employed. Increasing the minimum wage, making it harder
to hire new people, causing salaries, layoff schedule, and promotion
schedules to based on seniority rather than merit, and of course
excluding some groups from employment consideration (for instance non-
union members, children, people over 65, and formerly blacks and
women) make things slightly better for those already employed at the
expense of making things much worse for those who are unemployed. And
at the expense of denying a fundamental freedom to all of us.
Anyone who decries unemployment has no business blaming it on
capitalism. The blame should be placed where it belongs - on the
anti-competitive anti-capitalistic laws that entrenched sepcial
interests managed to get congress to pass.
Also, is it necessarily good that a judge can levy fines based on
how much money he wants? "I need a new car. Fine is one
Ferrari." - CWM]
No, the judge's income would not depend on fines he levied. In any
case, the maximum fines would be established by the legislative branch
of the state or federal government, not by the judicial branch. Just
as is done now.
...Keith
[ Umm, how do equal employment laws (known to some as 'employment
quotas') favor those already employed? Its beginning to sound as if
your libertarian government would still be rather highly centralized,
with various bodies keeping an eye on each other. Where do you draw
the line? Can you please describe the actual structure of your
proposed governmental institutions? Rather than saying 'less of
this', and 'none of that' existing laws, I'd be interested in hearing
your actual plan. Different libertarians say different things, as
you'd expect, and I'd like to hear what you'd like to see. - CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 86 12:57:03 PDT
From: Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: Pacifism
Keith Lynch wrote:
"You could argue that if only everyone on Earth
(and beyond Earth) was pacifistic, that pacifism
would work. This is true, but it is also true that if
there was just one exception, just one person willing
to use violence, he could take over the world and
enslave everyone."
I disagree. All the non-pacificist could do would be to kill
pacifists. The point that pacifism makes is that if each of us
refuses to use violence, even on threat of violence to ourselves, then
none of us can be a tool for enslaving others.
This leads to a question I have for people might be worried about a
soviet attack on the US: What would they do once they had conquered
the government? If we all refused to go along with the government, it
would be powerless.
In a similar vein, the Feb 3 issue of The New Yorker has an excellent
and inspiring article on the Polish opposition movement, by Jonathan
Schell. For a period of a few years before and during the rise of
Solidarity, there was an active movement of individuals that attempted
to live as if they were free. Here's a short excerpt from the
article:
"The classic formula for revolution is first to seize state power and
then use that power to do the good things you believe in. In the
Polish revolution, the order was reversed....Its simple but radical
guiding principal was to start doing the things you think should be
done, and to start being what you think society should become.... The
opposition's style has been to act "as if" Poland were already a free
country. And once those in opposition began to act that way something
unexpected happened...the "as if" started to melt away.
... While this style of action was non-violent, "nonviolence" seems
both too restrictive and too negative a term with which to describe
it: too restrictive because, along with being non-violent, the
movement was also nondeceptive, nonsecretive, and non many other
obnoxious things; and too negative because the deepest source of its
strength was not any form of abstinence but, rather, the positive,
energetic, open pursuit of a free and just society through incessant
public action.
... Non-violent action, far from being helpless in the face of
totalitarianism, turns out to be especially well suited to fighting
it....The government crackdown has taken its toll, but the spirit of
opposition is alive....The arrests are made, but people are not
intimidated. They live now in what may be the most curious conditions
to have developed in Poland so far: autonomy without liberty--freedom
together with jail."
Chris
------------------------------
Return-path: < king@kestrel.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 86 08:51:02 pdt
From: king@kestrel.ARPA (Dick King)
To: king@kestrel.ARPA
Subject: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #65
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 86 23:00:16 pdt
From: king@kestrel.ARPA (Dick King)
a> nobody should be forced to cook for others against their will
b> A lunch counter should sell to any customer with money
c> Selling lunches is okay
I don't necessarily agree with 2> , but it does not strike me as
inconsistent to codify a principle that if you are in a certain
business you should serve all customers. It is not nonsensical to
say that a prostitute can't refuse customers.
-dick
I don't often reply to my own mail :-), but I hope I didn't throw an
impression that I advocate that a prostitute loses the right to have
her rapists arrested. Prositiutes have that right, as lunch counter
operators have the right not to be forced to cook on their own time.
I only claim that there is no immediate inconsistency in a principle
that owners of a public business must serve all comers AT THAT PLACE
OF BUSINESS.
-dick
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 86 20:13:25 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Bias & Guns
To: MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
From: Charles < MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
[ Well, I have noticed that people think print is biased,
I've seen the letters.
Certainly print is biased. The Bible doesn't give equal time
to Darwin. The Communist Manifesto gives short shrift to Adam
Smith. Ayn Rand clearly disagrees with Karl Marx. :-)
... a vacuous counter-argument. The original context was 'liberal
bias', as you well know.
Was it? Last I heard, about equally many people thought newspapers
had a conservative bias as thought newspapers had a liberal bias.
The real question is whether there is diversity. Do all political
opinions get expressed? In print they do. On TV, they don't.
The original point was that giving guns to everyone
would be dangerous for a lot of reasons ...
I don't advocate GIVING guns to anyone. I advocate letting
individual adults choose for themselves whether or not to be
armed.
... another vaccuous counter-arguement. How they get the guns has
nothing to do with the point.
No, this is important. I have noticed that people often phrase
things in ways that either beg the question under consideration or
misrepresent the position of their opponents. I think there is an
ENORMOUS difference between ALLOWING people who wish to have guns to
purchase them and simply GIVING guns to anyone, much less "everyone".
Getting back to the point, ALLOWING people to have guns IS
dangerous. Look at what happened in Oklahoma last week (and note that
NONE of the generally proposed gun control laws would have prevented
it! Something I haven't heard of ANY newspaper or radio or TV station
mentioning). Cars are even more dangerous. Letting people have
GOVERNMENTS may the the most dangerous risk of all!
People should be allowed to have dangerous things. They should not,
and are not, allowed to use those dangerous things to harm others.
- one of which is that most people don't know how or when
to use them.
Probably because they aren't armed and don't need to know.
Before most people had cars, most people didn't know how to
drive. Was this an good argument against letting people have
cars?
... say what? You're saying that everyone who will get a gun will
instantly know how to use one?
No. Did everyone who bought a car know how to use it? Owners of
roads can (and do) require that people pass certain tests before being
allowed to operate cars on those roads. Similarly, owners of shooting
galleries and hunting areas may require people to pass certain tests
before being allowed to shoot their guns their. Shooting a gun in
private, like operating a car in private, requires no tests to be
passed. Shooting a gun where others are likely to be harmed should be
and is illegal just as operating a car without a license where others
are likely to be harmed should be and is illegal. So what's the
problem?
Maniacs do exist, and there really isn't a damn thing we can do
about it without adopting a totalitarian government. The prevalence
of maniacs very small. They just generate news at a rate far greater
than if newspapers printed text in proportion to misery. If papers
did that, about half the paper would be devoted to the effects of
smoking. Most of the remainder would be evenly split between alcohol
and driving (with a lot of overlap). After you read the pages devoted
to the disabilities of old age, the one remaining page would contain
text on radon and acid rain, and on household accidents. A column
inch or two at the bottom of the page would contain news of gun
deaths, many of which were justified (i.e. self defense) intermixed
with clorox poisonings, falling down stairs, electroctutions, shark
attacks, and jet crashes.
If *ALL* handgun deaths were somehow eliminated, INCLUDING the
justified ones, and if NONE of the murderers thought to simplu use a
different weapon, the median life span in the US would be only about
12 minutes longer.
Is THIS a good reason to adopt a totalitarian system? Do you really
fear incidents like the recent one in Oklahoma where 14 people were
killed, or the one three years ago where 21 people were killed in a
McDonald's for no reason, or the one in Texas twenty years ago, so
much that you would throw away the Constitution, throw away the
Declaration of Independence, and vote us behind the iron curtain, on
the off chance that this MIGHT reduce the problem a little? We don't
have ANY reliable figures on handgun crime in the Soviet Union - for
all we know it might be WORSE there than here!
Of course, whoever wins retroactively calls themselves the
legitimate government of the time, so there is a lot of bias
there. Like the tales of stranded sailors who were pushed to
shore by dolphins - obvious proof of dolphin intelligence,
right? After all, there are no tales of stranded sailors
being pushed AWAY from shore by dolphins!
... say what? You've gone one allegory too far into left field on
this one...
Sorry. I will try to keep it simple.
During the revolutionary war, the US government fought the British
govenment and won. THAT is our interpretation. If the US government
had LOST we could say that the US government had fought the British
government and lost. But we wouldn't. Nobody would have. We would
instead say that a bunch of poorly dressed rebels illegally tried to
usurp the legitimate authority of the British Empire, and the
ringleaders were captured and executed, putting an end to the
treasonous insurrection.
It is the WINNERS of a war who write the history books. Just as it
is the SURVIVORS of a war that write the war stories. And just as it
is the SURVIVORS of shipwrecks, quicksand, tornados, earthquakes, and
avalanches that get their disaster stories published in Reader's
Digest.
... Dozens of governments are currently fighting wars with
internal dissenters. Does the fact that the anti-
government forces have guns stop the governments?
No. Did the fact that George Washington's troops have guns
stop the British? Not at first. Was he an internal
dissenter, or a great hero? The latter, of course. Mainly
because he won.
... say what? What does what you say have to say have to do with
what I said? It sounds like you agree with me, then say something
about George Washington? You're out in the left-field bleachers
now.
The use of guns does not NECESSARILY stop a government. But the
LACK of them certainly means the government will NOT be stopped. To
stop a government, guns are NECESSARY but not necessarily SUFFICIENT.
Saying that having guns will not always cause the good guys to win is
true. It is also true that having a car will not necessarily get you
where you want to go. Cars break down, run out of gas, can't cross
oceans, etc. But that is no reason not to allow cars.
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Tuesday, 2 Sep 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 77
Today's Topics:
Drugs &
The Cost of Justice &
Capitalism &
Libertarians and Defense &
Reagan and Libertarianism &
Guns and History
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < king@kestrel.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 86 08:38:51 pdt
From: king@kestrel.ARPA (Dick King)
To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Drugs
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 86 23:32:57 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
[ Who pays for the cops who keep drugs out of the hands of
kids? Do these laws that keep drugs out of kids hands include
their parents? If a parent chooses to give drugs to his child,
is it legal?
Well, this all seems to work pretty well for alcohol and tobacco.
I never said ALL of the world's problems will go away if we adopt
a libertarian system. Kids will still get drunk. Teenagers will
still try marijuana and cocaine. At least the marijuana won't
contain paraquat, and the cocaine won't contain strychnine.
I read a few weeks ago that a 4 year old kid playing on the front
steps of his apartment downtown pricked himself on a discarded
needle. He got AIDS apparently from that needle.
If drugs and drug paraphernalia had been widely available this
would not have happened.
Why? Freely available needles would never be discarded? I would
expect to see as many needles in the roadside litter as I now see
discarded cigarette packs and beer cans. Perhaps the state would
impose a deposit so I wouldn't lose too many bicycle tires to
discarded hypos :-)
-dick
------------------------------
Return-path: < Miller.pa@Xerox.COM>
Date: 26 Aug 86 11:07 PDT
From: Miller.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: The Cost of Justice, and more
To: TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA
Cc: Miller.pa@Xerox.COM
From: ~joe testa~ < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
> From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> [the justice system in a libertarian system] will cost less
> than, say, the restoration of the Statue of Liberty. The
> latter was paid for entirely by voluntary donations. And I
> think anyone willing to pay for a statue representing our way
> of life would be willing to pay at least as much to guarantee
> the way of life itself.
I think that the success of the restoration of the Statue was
mainly due to the hoopla and media attention given to the
project. It was made to be *exciting*, an *event* that one
"had" to participate in. I can't see such excitement being
generated by a fund to pay to run a court; after all, courts
make unpopular but constitutional decisions -- such as
defending First Amendment rights. If a court has to rely on
voluntary contributions, then might it not feel compelled to
make popular but unjust decisions?
[...]
The same would go for a judicial system, only much worse. I
want judges to be honest arbiters, not concerned with slick
advertising techniques and public opinion polls.
Any judicial system made up of people is subject to a system of
incentives largely determined by the political context it operates in.
Well-meaning architects of any political system would try to make it
such that the system of incentives in which judges operate provides
feedback that (at least) does not frequently penalize honesty and
justice.
The current American judicial system provides judges feedback through
the political process. This feedback is determined by the current
majority opinion (modulo special interests). Under THIS system the
courts might indeed "feel compelled to make popular but unjust
decisions". Witness the current fight that Rose Bird(sp?) has to
engage in to keep her job, despite making what she feels are just
decisions. It is not an answer to shield the courts from any
feedback: a) this is not possible, and b) would lead to tyrrany by the
courts.
Let us compare with a system based on voluntary contributions. If a
judge makes an unpopular but just decision, the majority may disagree,
but surely enough people will recognize the cause of true justice that
there will still be some contributions. Witness the continued
existence of the ACLU funded by voluntary contributions, despite
defending First Amendment rights in an unpopular case (Skokie).
Certainly the unpopularity caused them much hardship: their membership
went down, etc.... However, had they been subject to the tyrrany of
the majority they either would not have been able to take such an
unpopular stand, or they wouldn't have survived it.
[ Another point on the Statue of Liberty project is that it
had a definite ending point. People have visible proof of
their contribution. The courts go on and on, and there is no
end of the cases they would have to hear. I suspect that the
futility felt by not a few policemen would soon be felt by
many potential contributors to Keith's proposed justice
system. - CWM]
I suspect that contributors to the ACLU are feeling pretty frustrated,
especially now. Same goes for contributors to a thousand other causes
that seem to make little progress.
Some think that in a free-market, people in general would be driven by
the "profit motive", and that in a non-market system, people would
INSTEAD be driven by other motives; like the cause of justice or
helping the poor or whatever. This is because free-market economics
uniquely explains how individuals following a profit motive can result
in a society that works. All other theories have to start out by
postulating that people are motivated by other than personal profit in
order to seem to work. Postulated motives have become confused with
causation.
Free-market economics does not (and does not need to) postulate that
the set of human motivations change. It shows how a set of people
with a diversity of motives can efficiently compose their actions in a
way that generally satisfies them more than any other postulated way
of organizing society.
> Opponents of libertarian philosophy often bring up stories
> in which the population does not consist of rational adults,
> but of children, feebleminded people, criminals, insane
> people, or people in a sinking lifeboat. Do we really want
> a system which treats everyone as if they were like that? Is
> that the most realistic view of the people of this country?
No, but SOME people ARE like that! Would the libertarian
system ensure their protection? Or would they just get run
over in the mad rush of everyone looking out for him/her self,
ripe for exploitation by those who are more clever or
intelligent or sane or rich than they are?
In a market, if there exists a substantial desire on the part of many
people to see the poor helped, then they will be helped. In a
political system, this is only true if this desire exists among a
MAJORITY. Why do the oponents of the market always postulate that
people will express "good" intentions (for justice of charity) if they
get to express them politically, but not if they get to express them
through the voluntary decentralized mechanisms of the market?
I suspect that it is because it is clear that the market is a complex
system that works through its own logic. The same is often not clear
for political systems (though just as true). A market advocate cannot
get away with postulating that the market will do some arbitrary thing
(like feed the poor) without accounting for how the market would do
this. Advocates of political systems frequently do engage in such
arbitrary postulates, without accounting for how political incentives
could bring this about in a society that wouldn't have done so
voluntarily.
MarkM
------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 86 11:30:05 pdt
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
To: cit-vax!red.rutgers.edu!poli-sci
Subject: Capitalism
I'm back, after a long absence. I'm really too busy to put in a lot
which is original, so much of this is a quote from Lester Thurow's
review of a book called "The Positive Sum Strategy," a book which
advocates restoring American productivity growth primarily by "getting
the government out of the way of business."
A wihle back in Poli-Sci, someone mentioned that Henry Ford paid
his workers in his first factories the then-princely sum of $5 per day
in order to attract good workers, as an example of good business also
being good for workers. Manchester in "The Glory and the Dream"
points out that 5 years later, after their productivity had increased
by more than a factor of 10, those same workers were still getting $5
per day. Is it any wonder they unionized?
Here is the edited quotes from Thurow's article:
When they are examined, the productivity growth statistics form a
dismal picture of American technological progress. From 1948 to 1965
productivity increased at a rate of 3.3 percent per year. After 1965
a gradual but very persistent decline began. From 1977 to 1985
productivity growth averaged only .7 percent per year. In 1985
nonfarming business productivity actually fell .3 percent.
Productivity often falls during recessions, but 1985 was not a
recession year. It marked another kind of ominous event: it was the
first year since the data have been kept in which a fall in
productivity was not accompanied by at least one quarter of economic
decline.
Whatever is happening, it is happening only in America.
Productivity growth rates in every market economy fell after the first
OPEC oil shock in 1973. Yet the rest of the industrial world
rebounded after the second OPEC oil shock in 1979 and since then has
enjoyed productivity growth rates that are four to six times those the
U.S. has posted.
Put bluntly, the authors [of the book under review] recommend
that, with the exception of spending more on R&D, government should
get out of the way, reduce its role in the American economy and let
the market work its magic.
Where the analysis breaks down technically is its failure to
follow the advice of Harvey Brooks to "scan and adopt foreign"
practices. There is no scanning of Europe, although Europe has a
trade surplus with the U.S. that approaches the surplus achieved by
Japan. If too much American equity is the problem, for example, how
do the authors explain the fact that among industrial countries the
U.S. (with the exception of France) has the most unequal distribution
of income?
If excessive government spending is the problem, how do the
authors explain the fact that the OECD has just announced that the
Japanese government now spends a larger fraction of Japan's G.N.P.
than American governments (local, state, and Federal) does of the U.S.
G.N.P.? How do they square their analysis with the fact that since
the Japanese have only a small defense budget, social spending is now
a greater proportion of government outlays there than it is in the
U.S.? If overall government spending is the problem, why is
productivity worst in the country--the U.S.--that now has the smallest
government sector among all major industrialized countries?
Are high taxes the problem? What do the editors and authors who
call for lower taxes have to say about the contribution by Dale
Jorgenson, professor of economics at Harvard? Jorgenson shows that
the effective American corporate tax rates were far higher in the
1950's and 1960's, when productivity was growing at a rate in excess
of 3 percent, than they are now, when productivity is growing at less
than 1 percent per year.
Me again: To take another example, Thurow shows that during the 6
years from 1979 to 1985, blue-collar worker productivity (the same
unionized, lazy, overpaid people who've been so criticized in this
forum) had an average productivity INCREASE of 3 percent per year.
Overall business productivity fell largely because of the addition of
white collar middle managers, who are totally non-productive.
I don't think Thurow's productivity figures are the entire story;
nor I suspect does he, since he is specifically responding to a book
recommending ways to increase productivity. He does not mention, for
example, that America is also alone among Western industrial nations
in increasing the number of employed people during the last 5 years;
Germany has been essentially flat by this measure, and the number of
employed people in England is actually shrinking. Our GNP growth,
while slow, has been larger than in Western Europe as well.
However, I think he makes his central point eloquently: government
intervention in the market is not, in and of itself, bad, and it is
certainly not evil. It should be judged on the practical criterion of
whether it works.
Anyone who wants to flame on this should go get the September '86
issue of Scientific American and read Thurow's article for yourself.
It isn't long, and the magazine is widely available, so you've got no
excuses.
------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 86 11:41:58 pdt
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Subject: Libertarians and defense
Someone commented a while back that "Libertarians are generally strong
on defense issues." Well...
According to the excerpts of the Libertarian party platform in
Volume 1 number 2 of the Libertarian Party News, which I was given by
someone at work, it is Libertarian intent to withdraw all American
troops from all overseas bases, specifically Europe and Korea.
This sure seems foolhardy to me.
------------------------------
Return-path: < fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 86 20:54:55 PDT
From: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@berkeley.edu (Barry S. Fagin)
Subject: Reagan is obviously not a libertarian
attenberger%orn.mfenet wrote that my previous message on
libertarianism was educational. It obviously wasn't, since he later
claims that Reagan could be described as a libertarian, espousing the
free market, a noninterventionist foreign policy, and social
tolerance. I think this idea to be so ridiculous that it doesn't
merit refutation.
--Barry
[ Then I guess you won't convince him! - CWM]
------------------------------
Date: 2 Sep 86 23:25:47 EDT
From: Charles < MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Bias & Guns
To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
Last I heard, about equally many people thought newspapers had a
conservative bias as thought newspapers had a liberal bias.
... That's not what I heard. I've heard the conservatives say
that newspapers are to liberal, and the radical-left say that
newspapers aren't liberal enough...
Do all political opinions get expressed? In print they do. On
TV, they don't.
I'd say they do; I'd say that the liberals get more time, but that's
about all.
I think there is an ENORMOUS difference between ALLOWING people
who wish to have guns to purchase them and simply GIVING guns to
anyone, much less "everyone".
... and I think that that still isn't part of the point...
Getting back to the point, ALLOWING people to have guns IS
dangerous. Look at what happened in Oklahoma last week (and note
that NONE of the generally proposed gun control laws would have
prevented it! Something I haven't heard of ANY newspaper or radio
or TV station mentioning).
... since that's obvious, I shouldn't think they'd have to. They said
the guns were National Guard guns, and that's enough. Isn't this the
flip side of letting people do what they want, and think what they
want?
Cars are even more dangerous. Letting people have GOVERNMENTS may
the the most dangerous risk of all!
... and certainly letting governments have cars is the worst thing on
earth! :-) I'm still sticking to my point of guns being a dangerous
thing in the hands of silly people. I don't think that comparing
guns, which are a method of livelyhood and transport to 'normal folks'
and guns, which aren't (let's not digress into cops and the army,
please) is going to win you any points. I'd suggest you find another
allegory.
They should not, and are not, allowed to use those dangerous things
to harm others.
... did I lose something, or are you advocating guns that aren't
dangerous? What's the point of having a non-harmful gun?
Is THIS a good reason to adopt a totalitarian system? (etc)
Whoa! Since when did I advocate anything like that? I won't defend
something I didn't say, sorry. (Back in the bad old days, they used
to call this a 'straw man'.)
During the revolutionary war, the US government fought the
British govenment and won. THAT is our interpretation.
... I beleive you'll find that that's the British interpretation as
well...
If the US government (had lost) ... We would instead say that a
bunch of poorly dressed rebels illegally tried to usurp the
legitimate authority of the British Empire, and the ringleaders
were captured and executed, putting an end to the treasonous
insurrection.
... oh? Well, I'd say that is not always the interpretation. I
suspect that the rebels would be viewed as patriots trying to fight
for freedom. Many people down south still respect the rebels of the
American Civil War, many people respect the American Indian for his
fight, the Philippine rebels of the 1900's are revered in the
Philippines. They all lost.
It depends on who writes the history and when. I'll agree that some
histories simplify things to a ridiculous level, but I'd say that it
depends on who you read. But I think we're digressing again...
The use of guns does not NECESSARILY stop a government. But the
LACK of them certainly means the government will NOT be stopped.
To stop a government, guns are NECESSARY but not necessarily
SUFFICIENT.
... I'd be interested in seeing your explaination of the success of
India's non-cooperation campaign against the British, which used
economic non-profitability to force the English out. How many guns
are necessary amongst the American people to keep the government in
line?
Charles
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Wednesday, 3 Sep 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 78
Today's Topics:
Private Arsenals &
Death and Taxes &
Socialized Medicine &
Crime and Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < mcampos@ATHENA.MIT.EDU>
From: < mcampos@ATHENA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 86 23:35:10 EDT
To: kfl@mx.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Private arsenals
Keith F. Lynch writes:
> I am not comfortable with priavte ownership of nuclear bombs.
> Neither am I comfortable with government ownership of nuclear bombs.
> As the world becomes a wealthier place we are likely to see more of
> both, whether it's legal or not. I wish I had a solution. I don't.
> But the problem with nuclear bombs has nothing to do with private
> vs. government ownership. The problem has to do with their enormous
> destructive capacity and the fact that they have no legitimate use
> whatsoever, no matter who owns them.
A couple of small points. I could see supporting private ownership of
nuclear weapons for use in space mining and other applications. But I
agree in that they have no real use on Earth other than mass
destruction.
I'm not overly comfortable with government ownership of nuclear
weapons either, but I see no other good custodian for this destructive
power on Earth, especially when the bad guys have them as well. The
best we can do is try to make sure we have a government that will use
them properly, if at all.
--
Marc Campos, MIT Project Athena {decvax, mit-eddie}!mit-athena!mcampos
3 Ames St. Bemis 407 OR !mit-trillian!mcampos
Cambridge, MA 02139 USA (617) 577-8234 ARPA: mcampos@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 86 02:52:20 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: general principles vs. peripheral issues
To: SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Gee, if I am being robbed I sure don't consider the question of
whether the robber is likely to kill me peripheral. I consider
it quite important.
My peripheral I do not mean unimportant, I mean not central. If no
force or threat of force is used there is no robbery. If the
perpetrator does not steal anything or attempt to steal anything,
there is no robbery. But robbery is robbery whether or not the victim
is killed. And robbery is wrong whether or not the victim is killed.
Robbers often throw themselves on the mercy of the court saying that
they didn't actually hurt anyone. Do you think such people should be
automatically set free? But if a "robber" demonstrates that no force
or threat of force was used, then the court has to find him not guilty
of robbery. He may be guilty of theft or burglary, but not robbery.
And if a "robber" demonstrates that nothing was stolen nor did he
intend to steal anything, then the court has to find him not guilty of
robbery. He may be guilty of assault and battery, but not robbery.
This is all I mean by "central".
Taxation is thus robbery by definition. And is no more legitimized
by the fact that nobody is shot by the IRS on April 15th than an armed
robbery is legitimized if the robber's gun is found to not be loaded.
Nor is it any more legitimized by the fact that the money is put to
good use (in some people's opinions) than is street robbery if the
robber intended to use his loot to pay for groceries rather than
illegal drugs.
If you refuse to pay taxes you will be sent to prison. If you
attempt to leave the prison you will be shot and killed. Does failure
to pay taxes really deserve such a fate?
People often say "there ought to be a law" when they mean "people
should (or should not) do that". Next time you think "there ought to
be a law" replace that thought with "people who behave that way should
be confined to a very unpleasant and dangerous place and shot to death
if they attempt to leave". If that is what you mean, fine. There are
actions which do deserve such a fate. But if you really mean "I wish
people didn't act like that" then hopefully you will stop thinking
"there ought to be a law" instead. There ought to be a lot fewer
laws. When an average citizen can't possibly hope to know all the
laws he can be punished for breaking, something is seriously wrong.
Perhaps you think people should be ostracized for not paying taxes.
But imprisoned? Killed?
...Keith
[ I'd say that anyone in prison (for whatever reason) knows the
dangers of attempting to escape. I think you're pushing the point
rather too far. What would be the substance of this ostracization you
write of? - CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < ll-xn!scubed!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!seamus@caip>
From: ll-xn!scubed!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!seamus@caip
In regard to socialized medicine:
James B. VanBokkelen wrote:
> > ...what is so evil about socialized medicine?
Keith replied:
> Is it fair to doctors to have only one employer? Shouldn't doctors
> be free to make arrangements with patients without government
> approval?
Keith makes the erroneous assumption that under a system of socialized
medicine all private practices would cease to exist. This is not true
of socialized medicine in England where both public health doctors and
private doctors can be found.
(Keith again:)
> If government pays for something:
>
> 1) The price skyrockets.
> Government really has no control. Doctors say 'it costs this
> much' what are they going to do?
This is an unjustified and unsupported defeatist attitude. Here in
the United States our medical costs are higher than in England with
socialized medicine. Why should government have no control?
Government can set maximum prices for common procedures the same way
that Health Insurance carriers here in the United States do now.
Don't even bother to reply that there will be much waste and fraud
because that same waste and fraud exists in the United States today
under our present system.
(more Keith)
> 2) Competitors (if allowed at all) go out of business.
> How can they compete against someone offering 'free' service?
Wrong. For evidence I again use the British example. Private doctors
are free to practice medicine in England and they make a good living
at it.
(more Keith)
> 3) The level of service goes down.
> From personal experience I disagree, in fact I have found the
opposite to be true. If you wish to try to argue the issue please
provide some evidence (an objective comparative study of both systems
would be nice) rather than another anecdote.
(more Keith)
> 4) The level of convenience goes down.
Completely false. It is more convenient to walk into a hospital or
clinic and say 'I need help' than to use a system where billing has
proven to be a tremendous hassle.
(more Keith)
> 5) Trivial usage goes up. ... It costs more to everyone in the long
> run of course,...
I don't accept this. If people were more inclined to see doctors then
many problems could be corrected at an early stage before
complications set in. Many expensive cures for serious problems could
be avoided. We might in fact see costs decline.
What Keith has not even considered is the overall economic benefit
from a more healthy population. (I do not think Keith will argue that
if medical care is more readily available then the general level of
health would improve.) This economic benefit would be a benefit to
everyone, even those who do not personally use public health doctors.
...But...this would imply that socialized medicine is a "PUBLIC (or
collective) GOOD" and Keith has said many times that "PUBLIC GOODS"
don't exist. So I guess one of us must be mistaken.
-seamus
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 86 01:14:54 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Rights
To: power.Wbst@XEROX.COM
From: power.Wbst@Xerox.COM
... I take for granted ... that there are no such things as
rights, and individuals can't cede to groups what never existed in
the first place. What is a right? Freedom of speech? It doesn't
exist. People are murdered every day for saying the wrong thing.
If demonstrating that a right has been violated somehow proves that
that right never existed, then I agree, it is meaningless to speak of
rights.
It is also meaningless to speak of crime, since any criminal can
point out that he violated nobodies rights since he was able to do
what he did. Thus all criminals are allowed to go scott free. Unless
the judge (or bystanders) decide to kill the criminal. Which is also
ok, of course. As shooting an innocent bystander would be.
This is anarchy, or social darwinism. This is what libertarians are
often ironically accused of advocating. Actually, we advocate the
exact opposite.
When we talk about the way to make a society better (having
defined better),
And having defined society.
we have to start from the way humans act and interact, not
the way they 'should'.
Agreed.
And because of the type of animal that a human being is, his life
is dominated by the groups around him.
I am not sure what you mean by "dominated". I agree that man is a
social creature. That most people enjoy interacting with others.
Some people on this list have somehow gotten the idea that
libertarians think otherwise. This is not the case.
There is a big difference between freely interacting with others and
being "dominated" by others.
People behave very differently when they are in groups. ...
If people are always in groups, how can you say they act differently
in groups? Differently from what? From if they lived in a cave? So?
People are still individuals in a group, but they perform
different functions - leader, conscience, facilitator, worker.
Different functions than what? Than they would in a cave? There is
nothing un-libertarian about joining a group with (or as) a leader,
etc. But nobody is COMPELLED to be a leader or to follow a leader.
Everyone is free to leave the group if they don't like the leader, and
to join another group, or to form one of their own, or even to live
alone in a cave.
Individuals only rarely, extremely rarely, remove themselves
completely from society (small s: a group of people larger than
the immediate family).
Do you think you are arguing against me? You are arguing with a
straw man of your own devising.
Society does force individuals to do things, it always has and it
probable always will.
Society consists only of individuals. You think that some
individuals should be allowed to force others to do things? Why?
Or do you think it would be good if they didn't, but you don't think
this is possible because it has "always" been done this way? You see,
I can't figure out whether you are happily advocating a coercive
system as optimal, or whether you are saying "give up, it's hopeless,
there is no escape from our prison". If the latter, please realize
there IS a way out. Read Ayn Rand for more details.
Arguing against it is like argruing that people shouldn't fall in
love, or shouldn't be sad if someone they do love dies.
I am not sure if you are saying "these are also good" or "these are
also inevitable". Please clarify.
The system of a powerful central governing body (Government,
church, employer) is a central part of most peoples lives.
You are lumping employers and churches together with governments.
This is completely wrong. Churches and employers are VOLUNTARY
organizations. Government is NOT.
The system of a strong central Government, with the heads
democratically elected, has evolved because people, even the
workers, want to be hassled as little as possible, pure and
simple.
I agree that people want to be hassled as little as possible. Why
do you say "even" the workers? Do you expect that they might want to
be hassled more?
I am not sure what you mean by a "strong" government. If you mean
one that is competent at protecting people's rights from criminals and
foreign invaders, I agree that a strong government is good. If by
"strong" you mean a government that controls every aspect of
everyone's life, I think that a strong government is very bad.
But they also don't want to concern themselves day in and day
out with the running of the society (because they're not leader or
conscience or facilitator).
Sigh. You are obviously using the word "society" to mean
"government". Do you think Reagan runs everything? Are people
helpless puppets? If Reagan and Bush both went on a long vacation, do
you think everything would grind to a halt? Would food not grow?
Would factories not manufacture goods? Would trucks and trains not
deliver goods? Would TV and radio stations stop broadcasting? Would
air conditioning and heating systems stop running?
If society is the interaction of all the individuals, then we ALL
run society, and do so every day. You run society when you work. You
run society when you play. I am running society by reading your
message and replying to it.
The removal of power from the immediate (employer, parish priest)
to the far away (Washington) does a lot to realize this ideal.
Wrong, wrong, WRONG! Government power is the power to coerce.
Priests and employers have no coercive power. You are free to tell
them both to go jump in the lake.
If you weaken the government enough, this system falls apart.
What system? The only system you have described is a mass of
contradictions and fuzzy thinking.
The libertarians think they can weaken the government to an
amazing degree, but still have it be able to control the
corporations, the Mafia bosses.
I think the government can prevent the mafia, corporations, etc,
from violating other people's rights - at least to the extent they are
able to prevent this now - by voluntary contributions. The more
concerned people are with crime the more they will be willing to
contribute. And private security will grow in importance in places
where it is more practical than government security. People should
learn self defense.
Why do you put "corporations" with the mafia? What about plain old
street thugs? Do you believe that corporations violate people's
rights more than burglars and muggers do? Why?
I guess if I had to sum it all up, I'ld say that libertarians are
reductionists, and see only the individuals.
No, but we DO see the individual as being the most important thing
in the world. If there is to be a government its only purpose is to
protect the rights of individuals. No organization should exist
except to benefit individuals. The idea that organizations have
rights and privileges in and of themselves, independently from the
rights and privileges of their individual members, makes no sense at
all to me. It is a small step from saying that some organizations
exist to benefit other organizations to saying that individuals exist
to benefit some organizations, specifically government. This is the
central tenet of fascist and communist systems. We all know what sort
of tyranny such systems invariably quickly lead to.
I say that people behave differently in groups, and society
actually forms a meta-being.
This may be true in some metaphorical sense, but trying to apply it
literally, in particular, trying to say that the meta-being has the
same rights as individuals in and of itself, leads to very strange
conclusions. Is peacefully replacing our current government "murder"
of some meta-being?
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Wednesday, 3 Sep 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 79
Today's Topics:
Prison and Statues &
Dueling (2 msgs) &
The Constitution and Citizenship &
The Power of Wealth
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < dmw@unh.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Thursday, 28 August 1986 22:31:49 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Prison and Statues
Why let people OUT of prison after their first major felony
sentencing? Prison overcrowding? Use bunkbeds. Still overcrowded?
Use bunkbunkbeds.
Iacocca has said that the reason he served as chairman, and the reason
people gave money so readily, was that the donor, or the donor's
parents or grandparents had arrived at Ellis Island. Something like
67% of the US population is descended from people who came through
Ellis Island, and it only takes a few dollars from each to make a big
pile of money.
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 86 01:46:49 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Dueling and other unreasonable behaviors
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Suppose A and B agree to a duel but unknown to A, B had a bet with
X such that if B wins, X will pay B lots of $$$. Suppose A is
killed in the duel, did B and/or X commit a fraud?
No, what's wrong with that? A was not COMPELLED to accept the duel.
And B is a fool to accept any amount of money to do something that has
an even chance of getting him killed.
As I explained before, I seriously doubt there would be many duels
even if they were legal. Behavior depends far more on what is
accepted than on what is legal, as can be seen by the prevalence of
illegal drug use in this country, and its almost total lack in other
countries where it is not acceptable, and as can be seen by the very
low crime rate in Japan, and as can be seen by the almost total lack
of cannibalism in this country. I very seriously doubt cannibalism
would become prevalent if it was legalized.
Can groups get involved in duels?
If every member of the groups agreed. Which is extremely unlikely.
If so, is there any limit on the number and size of the groups?
No. If all members of two groups of one million people each decided
the universe isn't big enough for both of them and they will all duel
to the death of all members of one of the groups, this is perfectly
ok, so long as all members agree and so long as they can guarantee
that no innocent bystanders will be harmed. It is also about as
likely as everyone on Earth being simultaneously killed by lightning
at 2:09 pm tomorrow. Can we stick to debating about plausible things?
Can any citizen or non-citizen have a duel with the president who
just happens to have a gunslinger mentality and loves to have a
duel with anybody?
I can't see such a president getting elected. And since so many
people strongly hate ANY president or candidate, I can't see him
lasting long in any case. He would be dead by the end of the first
primary and would not live to be nominated, much less elected or
inaugurated. Can we stick to debating about plausible things?
According to libertarian fundamentalists, there ain't no way the
government is going to (or be allowed to) fix it.
Well the government, however big or small it may be, represents the
will of the majority. Or at least it ought to. So it is kind of
silly to imagine that most people will kill themselves off acting in
some bizarre fashion given no government control, but that these same
people would have government prevent these same actions.
Smoking is a good example. Smoking IS a bizarre (to me) way in
which large numbers of people destroy their health and kill themselves
off. Any rational PATERNALISTIC government would ban smoking. But
ours is not (totally) paternalistic, but representative. Smoking is
ok precisely because so many people think smoking is ok. How
dangerous or how disgusting it is has nothing to do with it. If large
numbers of people liked to duel or commit cannibalism or defecate on
the street, these behaviors would be sanctioned by our representative
government.
It is unreasonable to mention a behavior that few people find
acceptable and claim that given no government rules against it, it
would become extremely prevalent.
Integration of retail establishments is a perfect example. In the
early 1950s, segregation was considered perfectly acceptable by almost
everyone. As long as this remained the case, government was not going
to pass any laws against it.
Then there was a raising of consciousness in the late 1950s and the
1960s. A number of black leaders were able to convince the majority
of people in this country that segregation was unreasonable. These
leaders led boycotts that caused enormous numbers of establishments to
voluntarily integrate.
Once this was done, THEN the legislators, noticing a major change in
public opinion, and wanting to make themselves out as heroes, and
steal the credit rightly due to the black leadership, passed the
integration laws. These laws never really had much effect, but simply
endorsed the verdict of the majority. If those laws were all repealed
tomorrow, no place would segregate, and if one did, it would soon be
forced out of business by ruinous voluntary boycotts, and rightly so.
But this is NOT the way the integration story is usually presented.
With history books, you must always read between the lines.
Integration is also a good example of how the opinions of the
majority CAN be radically changed in a relatively short time span by
someone who can make a good case that they are RIGHT. 1950 to 1970
was NOT all that long. Might we have a fully libertarian system in 20
more years? Are we perhaps already several years into the transition?
...Keith
[ Are soldiers, policemen and firemen then fools for taking money for
doing something that can get them killed? Why should B be a fool?
Race drivers (especially in the past) make a similar bet. Risking
your life for money is an old honored pursuit. I suspect the
definition of 'fool' is rather subjective... On the subject of
group duels, I think we'd see streetgangs doing this on a regular
basis... If integration laws are as unecessary as you say, why do
black leaders fight so hard to keep them on the books and enact more
powerful versions of them? - CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat 30 Aug 86 20:03:59-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Dueling and other unreasonable behaviors
To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Can we stick to debating about plausible things?
Whether something is plausible or not is a subjective thing. In this
case, it is very dependent on exposure to other cultures. There are
people who feel that a libertarian system is highly implausible.
Would you stop discussing libertarianism just based on their gauge of
plausibility?
Whether duels will be more common or not depends on the society. In a
society like Japan where family honor very often ranks higher than
life itself, I can see duels becoming more common. Unlike other
things, there is always a loss of at least one life in a duel.
Ingenious individuals can devise clever ways of committing murder via
duels. Emotional arguments can very easily end up in duels. Gangs
can use duels as a way of legalizing their gang wars. Also who is
liable when an innocent bystander is killed by the loser in a duel?
The central question is whether there will be more laws to control the
abuses as a result of removing a law against duels.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Date: Wed 27 Aug 86 22:48:00-EDT
From: ~joe testa~ < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Subject: The Constitution and Citizenship
To: kfl@mx.lcs.mit.edu%mc.lcs.mit.edu
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> As for taxes themselves, the Fifth Amendment says "No person shall
> be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
> law". For "life" and "liberty" this is universally interpreted as
> meaning that those can be taken away only if a person is convicted of
> a crime or found liable in a civil trial. What is the justification
> for interpreting "property" in a different way?
Depends on what one means by "due process of law". Is a legislature
enacting legislation "due process of law"? I would think so. So a
legislative body can pass laws saying "you have to pay this tax we
just dreamt up", but some government official cannot call you up and
say "hey, you have to pay this tax that i just dreamt up".
Being "deprived of liberty" doesn't require being found guilty of a
crime -- at least it didn't -- what about the military draft? (note
that i am NOT arguing the merits of the draft; this is just an
example)
> And if that isn't
> clear enough, the Fifth Amendment goes on to say "nor shall private
> property be taken for public use without just compensation".
One could argue that the "just compensation" derived from taxation is
the range of government "services" -- military and police protection,
etc. More polite than an emperor asking for an annual tribute, i
suppose.
> The 13th amendment bans "involultary servitude" except for people
> convicted of crimes. A federal income tax rate of 28% means you are
> working more than three months each year without compensation. Is
> this voluntary servitude? Not in my case.
Who is forcing you to work at all?
> It is clear, of course, that the writers of those amendments did
> not intend to interpret them as banning taxation. But the courts
> have never let the intention of the legislators stand in the way of
> their interpretation of what the law actually SAYS, even when they
> are still living and vehemently object to the court's interpretation.
As it should be -- you'd think that educated people could write what
they mean. It is not very difficult to write unambiguous sentences.
> How do we decide if it is an invasion or not for who who to enter
> the country by what means etc?
>
> This is something libertarians differ on. Some say that anyone
> should be allowed into the country - that everyone has the same
> rights whether they were born here or not.
Or, under a libertarian system, would it be up to those people who own
ports, airports, beaches, and land bordering the country to decide who
is allowed to "trespass"?
> Another idea is to sell citizenships, for whatever price the market
> will bear. This would provide revenue to government in lieu of taxes
> from citizens.
Does the inverse hold? If someone cannot afford their debts to the
government, would they be stripped of their citizenship? That would
be one way to get rid of criminals -- "gee, your trial cost $9
billion -- pay up or get out".
-joe testa-
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 86 03:12:53 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Power of wealth?
To: SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Well, a person with enough money could bribe everybody not to hire
me, ...
This is true. Boycotts are perfectly legitimate. Boycotts of
individuals as well as of companies are fine.
Why would anyone wish to do this? And how much would it cost? If
you apply at 100 companies, and if your worth to them is about twice
your salary (i.e. you and the company would benefit equally by your
working there) he would have to pay these companies more than 100
times your salary. Not just once, but every year. And if you apply
at a 101st place, he must now pay your salary again, to the 101st
company. Unless the 101st company didn't get the word, or simply
refused to go along with such bribes. In which case they would hire
you and the rich man would be out millions of dollars with no gain at
all.
Each time you apply at a company, you are essentially fining him the
value of your salary. Who is hurting whom?
Why is he doing this? If he simply wants you to not work anywhere
for some reason, wouldn't it be cheaper to offer to pay YOU twice what
you are worth to any employer? Or is his goal simply to hurt you for
no reason? I find it very hard to believe that anyone could become
wealthy if he is in the habit of spending millions of dollars to keep
individuals unemployed. And if someone did somehow become that
wealthy, he would not remain wealthy for very long if he had such
expensive and irrational habits.
If he just wants to give you a hard time, there are plenty of
cheaper and equally legal ways. For instance, in today's system, he
can take you to court and sue you on some pretext.
Note that this form of bribery is ALREADY perfectly legal. But it
never seems to happen. I don't see why it would become more prevalent
under a libertarian system.
As long as all the land is taken and there are people who can't
afford any land of their own, money involves the power to deprive
people of their livelihood.
The more land is valued, the more it costs. It is true that land
costs money. Quite a bit of money in some places. So? I don't own
any land, and I am not starving. What are you advocating? That land
be given to anyone who asks for some? Who is to pay for it? I don't
think I understand your point.
If a small enough clique of people own everything, ...
This can't happen unless everyone else freely traded them everything
for something (which makes no sense, since what could they have
received in return for "everything" that was worth more to them than
"everything"?) or unless the small clique coerced this wealth from
others. The only system I know of where a small clique owns
everything is socialism.
or if everyone shares the same prejudice against me, then I am out
of luck, whatever I do.
This is true, I suppose, but why should everyone share such a
prejudice? You might as well complain that if everyone conspired to
murder you that the murder would not be preventable and would not be
punished. None of which has anything to do with any system I
advocate, or with any system I can imagine.
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Thursday, 4 Sep 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 80
Today's Topics:
Taxes and Constitionality &
The Political Spectrum &
Libertarians and Poli-Sci &
Objectivism vs Libertarianism &
Legalized Drugs &
Dignity and Drug Testing &
Money and Power &
Donation-Financed Justice &
Trust and Governments
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < dmw@unh.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Thursday, 28 August 1986 23:44:45 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Taxes and Constitionality
I do not understand all this talk about income taxes and whether they
are constitutional. If I remember correctly, the Federal government
instituted some form of income tax to pay for the Civil War (or some
other war). The Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional. An
amendment was passed that made income taxes constitutional, just in
time for WWI. So income taxes are allowed by the Constitution, and
there is no need to puzzle over the meaning of the 5th and 13th
amendments.
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 86 03:25:26 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Political spectrum
To: ATTENBERGER%ORN.MFENET@LLL-MFE.ARPA
From: ATTENBERGER%ORN.MFENET@LLL-MFE.ARPA
In the old days, there were only liberals and conservatives.
Liberals wanted change, conservatives wanted status quo.
Things were never this simple. When exactly were these old days?
Was Abraham Lincoln a liberal because he wanted to eliminate slavery?
Or was Jefferson Davis a liberal because he wanted to secede from the
Union?
There are many forms of change. And almost as many views of what
the status quo is.
You forgot "reactionary" and "radical", the purported endpoints on
this simplistic one dimensional chart. At least this is how it was
explained to me in high school. And they never even mentioned
libertarians.
Later the term liberal also became synonymous with "pacifist"
during the era of George (get out of Viet Nam) McGovern and Barry
(bomb the Chinese) Goldwater. So now there is a new movement
which is pacifist but is against government aid, so they have
coined a new phrase: "libertarian". ...
No. Most libertarians aren't pacifists. And libertarian philosophy
has its roots in the 18th and 19th centuries, not in the 1960s.
Thomas Jefferson would be regarded as a libertarian by today's
standards, as would most of the signers of the Constitution.
If I directly use Fagin's definition of valuing "individual
liberty, the free market, and social tolerance", then my
conservative brain conjures up an image of Ronald Reagan... Is
President Reagan a libertarian? ...
When it comes to economics, he certainly leans in that direction.
But he is lacking in "social tolerance". We have all seen his
administration's views on drugs, homosexuality, and pornography.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat 30 Aug 86 21:18:34-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Libertarians Dominating Poli-sci
To: kfl@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Was Ayn Rand a libertarian?
A year or two ago, JOSH@RED.RUTGERS.EDU was a major contributor to
this list, and he eloquently propounded the cause of individual
liberties in the name of libertarianism.
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Libertarians & the Digest
JoSH handled the unbelievers quite well, and he was twice as
eloquent as I am.
When JOSH was the moderator of POLI-SCI there were complaints of him
dominating the discussion by insisting on having the last word in
almost every debate that he was involved in. What ended up happening
was that many people didn't feel that it was a discussion anymore and
stopped sending in their contributions.
From the libertarian point of view, there is an explanation for the
frequent long messages on this and other mailing lists. It is because
the electronic mailing system is free. As a result individuals do not
have incentives to conserve on words and strive for quality instead of
quantity. This is very similar to the behavior we see in the abuse of
the welfare system. If we were to privatize a mailing list like
POLI-SCI and charge every contributor according to the number of bytes
in the message, there would be more discussing and less dominating. I
do see this as a very good example for libertarians to use in their
arguments against the government dishing out "freebies".
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < melissa@ATHENA.MIT.EDU>
From: Melissa Silvestre < melissa@ATHENA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 86 19:37:02 EDT
Subject: Re: Objectivism vs Libertarianism
In Vol 6, issue 57, Eyal Mozes recommends Peter Schwarz's
pamphlet. I read that pamphlet and I'd like to amend
his recommendation: Libertarians should read it to understand
why objectivists hate them. I found a multitude of inconsistencies,
misquotes and a general lack of understanding. And I read it
when I had just discovered Rand, and was extremely favorably
minded towards anything written by someone claiming to be
an objectivist. I'm not sure if Schwarz is a bad Objectivist,
or just doesn't understand Libertarianism, but he's obviously
influenced a lot of Objectivists. I plan to try to write a
lengthy point-by-point refutation of that pamphlet, but this
will take some time, as I intend to track down the contexts
of all of his quotations from Libertarians. Some of them are
so anti-Libertarian that I feel it necessary to see for myself
that they aren't being pulled totally out of context.
Anyway, if anyone knows of any writings that have already
done such a refutation (I assume it would be by a Libertarian),
please let me know! If not, could a Libertarian out there
give me any suggestions as to where I could find copies of
things like "The Libertarian Party platform, 1981"?
Send that last by e-mail to me, if CWM inserts an editorial
comment here to the effect that the specifics might constitute
political advertising.
Melissa Silvestre (melissa@athena.mit.edu)
[ I'd like Poli-Sci to be a forum of discussion, so I prefer not to
receive *any* party's entire platform as a submission! - CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 86 03:00:54 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Drugs
To: king@KESTREL.ARPA
From: king@kestrel.ARPA (Dick King)
I read a few weeks ago that a 4 year old kid playing on the
front steps of his apartment downtown pricked himself on a
discarded needle.
He got AIDS apparently from that needle.
If drugs and drug paraphernalia had been widely available
this would not have happened.
Why? Freely available needles would never be discarded?
If needles were freely available people wouldn't have to share
them. Thus drug users would not get AIDS. Thus someone pricked
by a discarded needle wouldn't get AIDS.
...Keith
[ Say what? AIDS is not gotten on needles by a group of people using
a needle. It takes exactly one AIDS sufferer to infect a needle. If
its clean before infection, its just as contaminated. - CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 86 15:48:04 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Dignity
To: hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA
From: James B Hofmann < hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA>
> From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Kieth writes:
> ...
> ...Keith
However, Kieth, there is a question here of individual dignity.
Quite so. For instance it is undiginified to have one's name
misspelled, especially right next to lines where I had spelled it.
In order to do urine tests fairly, someone must witness one peeing
into the cup.
Not necessarily. So long the employer is sure that nobody else is
in the bathroom, nor is someone else's urine sample stored there where
the employee can claim it for his own, he need not be watched.
Where do you draw the line and where do personal beliefs fit in
here?
That is between each individual employee and his employer.
If enough people refuse to take the tests, the tests will be
discarded. Note that an employee is free to demand such tests from
his employer as a condition of his (the employee's) continued
employment. The situation is really quite symmetrical. Either party
can put any condition on the continuation of the relationship. Nobody
is required to take a job which requires drug testing.
What about game show contestants on TV? Or people on the old show
"Candid Camera". Don't you think that behavior is undignified? But I
see no problem with it so long as individuals agree that the
compensation they are getting is worth the indignity.
What if in some religions it is against the law to witness someone
in the act of defecation or urinating?
So? In some religions one is not allowed to drink wine. If such a
person applies for a job as wine taster, and refuses to taste any wine
on religious grounds, is it discrimation to not hire this person?
If a person has religious objections to working on Saturday, is it
discrimination to not hire him for a weekend job?
If a person has religious objections to shaving his beard, is it
discrimination not to hire him to star in a shaving commercial?
If a person is a pacifist, is it discrimation for the Army to refuse
to let him enlist?
Employment is (or should be) a symmetrical uncoerced arrangement.
If and only if the employee and the employer agree on what the
employee is to do for the employer and vice versa, will people be
free, and will the free market system work at its best. If government
puts impediments on employers, fewer people will be hired, and they
will be paid less. This is the main cause of the current unemployment
rate.
...Keith
[ On urine tests, its easy to fake it. Just bring in a container of a
drug-free urine sample into the bathroom, hide the container they give
you, and turn in the drug-free one. In a humorous case involving the
US Army, many soldiers turned in urine sample containers with gasoline
in them - after all, its drug free - until someone caught on.
Soldiers regularly paid for 'drug-free' urine to pass the drug tests.
If you want to stop that, you'll have to watch your subject urinate,
and take the container from him/her; unless you want to strip-search
the subject... - CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < campbell%maynard.UUCP@harvisr.HARVARD.EDU>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 86 01:50:56 EDT
From: campbell%maynard.UUCP@harvisr.HARVARD.EDU
Subject: Re: Is money power?
Reply-to: campbell%maynard.UUCP@harvisr.HARVARD.EDU (Larry Campbell)
In article kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@mc.lcs.mit.edu writes:
> If you still insist that money is coercive power, please give an
> example of its coercive use.
Simple. I am a wealthy and unscrupulous person. I want you to do
some action X which you don't want to do. I say "Keith, do it or I
will make your life very unpleasant." I then start using my money to:
1) Buy all the land abutting your house and installing garbage
dumps (remember, no zoning laws in Libertaria).
2) Buy your company and get you fired.
3) Buy your bank and make them foreclose on your mortgage (easy
enough to do, just wait until you're ONE DAY late and it's
legal).
4) Buy all the local stores and instruct the help to refuse to
serve you (remember, no anti-discrimination laws in
Libertaria).
5) Pay your eighteen year old daughter big bucks and free cocaine
to become a prostitute (no drug or prostitution laws in
Libertaria).
6) Do the same thing to your friends and relatives...
etc. etc.
--
Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc.
ARPA: campbell%maynard.uucp@harvard.ARPA 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA
UUCP: {alliant,wjh12}!maynard!campbell (617) 367-6846
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 86 02:28:38 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Endless donations
[ Another point on the Statue of Liberty project is that it had a
definite ending point. People have visible proof of their
contribution. The courts go on and on, and there is no end of the
cases they would have to hear. I suspect that the futility felt
by not a few policemen would soon be felt by many potential
contributors to Keith's proposed justice system. - CWM]
Do people stop giving to voluntary charities? Doesn't United Way
collect more every year than the previous? And I doubt anyone thinks
there will ever be an end to that!
...Keith
[ There is light at the end of the tunnel in such charities. For
instance, the March of Dimes raised money for polio research, and
wound up eradicating it. MS victims live tremendously longer due to
research-raising efforts. But there is no end to crime - no possible
rationalization that crime will eventually be no more. - CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 86 02:25:03 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Trust
I guess I don't have your ability to be quite so sure about such
things as you. I have a natural suspision of anyone who says,
"The answer is simple. Just trust me and it will all be alll
right..." Because usually it isn't, and it won't be. - CWM]
If my argument was "just trust me" I would hardly have bothered to
try to explain myself at such length on this list.
It is government centered systems which require enormous trust. If
the government proves not to be trustworthy, you are in big trouble.
Libertarians believe that even a completely trustworthy government (if
there could ever be such a thing) can be extremely dangerous.
...Keith
[ I don't see how pointing at an evil makes some other thing non-evil.
(Or non-workable, or non-charteuse, whatever) - CWM]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Sunday, 7 Sep 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 81
Today's Topics:
Seller's Rights &
Drug tests (2 msgs) &
Nuclear Weapons &
Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ihnp4!alberta!edm!steve@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 86 03:06:06 mdt
To: alberta!kestrel.arpa!king
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #65 (prostitution)
As far as I am concerned a prostitute SHOULD be allowed to refuse a
customer. Just as a business may refuse to serve someone who is not
properly atired for the tone of the business (primarily this occurs in
leisure businesses), similarly, a prostitute should be allowed to
refuse those would-be customers who do not suite him/her.
This is especially true if the prostitute has questions about the
health of the 'john'. AIDS and other highly comminicatible veneral
diseases being the primary thought but others... (flu, mumps, etc.)
and just general hygene being the case.
Stephen Samuel {ihnp4,ubc-visi}!alberta!edm!steve
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 86 03:42:59 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Drug tests
To: hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA
From: James B Hofmann < hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA>
On personal beliefs and how they tie into drug testing:
> That is between each individual employee and his employer.
No, it is between the indivicual employee and his God.
Certainly. It doesn't matter whether the employee is acting on
instructions from God, or from his mother, or what. If he and his
employer cannot agree on drug testing, he should seek work elsewhere.
You Randroids think that just because you don't believe in God
that everyone else should follow suit.
I deeply resent your presumption about my religious beliefs. I have
not mentioned my religious beliefs on this list simply because I do
not think they are germane to the discussion.
I hardly find this "symetrical" - I mean, I can't go up to my
boss and ask HIM to piss in a cup and then send it away for
testing, now can I?
You sure can! You can tell him that is a condition of your
continued employment. If he refuses to take the test, you can demand
that of your next employer. If no employer is willing to do so, you
will have to moderate your position or do without a job. Similarly,
employers are free to ask employees to take such a test as a condition
of their continued employment. If the employee refuses, the employer
can demand that other employees take the test. If they all refuse,
the employer can moderate his position or can do without employees.
It is perfectly symmetrical. In an uncoerced economy there is no
distinction between buyer and seller, and there is no distinction
between employee and employer.
... To REQUIRE someone piss in a bottle and have his personal
dignity trampled on in order to get a job where the safety or
security of others isn't threatened is to PUT ASIDE the
Constitution and the English Common Law principle of innocent
until proven guilty.
You misunderstand the constitution and the law. To be PRESUMED
innocent until proven guilty is a right due to all criminal suspects.
It has nothing to do with the behavior of private citizens and
corporations. For instance if a bank suspects a teller of embezzling,
they do not have to prove it in court and send him to jail in order to
fire him for it.
You mention jobs relating to the "safety and security of others" as
an exception. Who decides which jobs those are? Doesn't the behavior
of every employee affect the safety and security of fellow employees
and of the company's customers and stockholders?
> What about game show contestants on TV? Or people on the old
> show "Candid Camera". Don't you think that behavior is
> undignified? But I see no problem with it so long as
> individuals agree that the compensation they are getting is
> worth the indignity.
You are mistaking TV with reality, Keith... ding dong. You in
there? Just like Ayn, you have this problem of confusing the
screen with real-life. Those game shows are fun and leisure -
here we're talking about SERIOUS BUSINESS, Keith.
Performing on TV is just as legitimate a job as any other. People
who appear on game shows are not guaranteed a payment for their
performance, but have to beg, and guess what's behind door number two,
and demonstrate that they are willing to jump up and down and scream
and make an ass out of themselves if they win something. Most of the
people who do this do this because they need the money. Not because
they think it's a neat idea to play the fool in front of millions of
viewers.
... Will you then require people to get piss-tested in order to
register to vote ...
NO!
1) EVERYONE should be allowed to vote. Not just non-users of drugs.
2) The tests are not very reliable.
3) This discussion is about PRIVATE use of drug tests, not about
government use, which I have made clear I totally oppose, just
as I oppose all drug laws.
What about MY grounds and MY right to apply for the job on the
basis of my ability ...
What about it? If you and your potential employer reach a meeting
of minds on salary, job requirements, etc, nobody is stopping you.
YOU are trying to infringe the employer's right to set requirements as
he sees fit.
... what happens after a postitive is found on a person ...
Well, if the employer intends to not hire people who test positive,
the person who tests positive will not be hired.
... will the employer then forward the results to the
authorities...?
Well, as you know I oppose laws against drug use. In fact, as far
as I know there ARE NO laws against drug use, only against possession,
buying, selling, and manufacture. In any case, a positive urine test
is not reliable enough to base a prosecution on.
... Will the employer eventually be required to forward the
results to the police? ...
You are not arguing against anything *I* advocate.
In order to be fair to EVERYONE, the U.S. goverment will either
have to make drug testing a priori ILLEGAL or have EVERYONE in the
U.S. tested.
People, even employers, have the right to be unfair. You seem to
totally misunderstand my position. It doesn't matter if the employer
uses a crystal ball and a horoscope to make employment decisions.
That is his right. He has the right to be stupid.
So, in essence what you are saying is that the employer should
round up all the unemployed and give them piss tests and then file
away everything (with cc's to the gov't of course) and classify
everyone on the basis of a test that is 90% effective.
No.
In fact I got chewed out by my supervisor for having complained to
our personnel officer about our company's drug tests. The personnel
officer said that the tests were 99% accurate (which I disputed) and
that it was none of my business anyway since I wouldn't have to take
one, only new employees would. She also insinuated that maybe I was a
drug user myself if I felt that way about the tests.
I pointed out to her all the arguments that you have used, and I
also said that I was aware of some employees who use drugs, and that
they are more productive than others who don't. I said that the
company should measure the worth of an employee to the company by
examining the employee's work output, not his bladder output.
My contention on this list is not that I think the drug tests are
good (I don't) or that I think they are reliable (I don't), but that I
think they are none of GOVERNMENT'S business. Just because somebody
is doing something foolish is no reason to pass a new law. We have
more laws than anyone can keep track of already. Do most of them do
any good?
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 86 8:51:54 EDT
From: James B Hofmann < hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA>
To: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mit-mc.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Drug tests
Keith:
Unfortunately, your "hands off business" attitude will lead to
more problems and bring us closer to the world as described in
"Brazil" than a simple regulation stating "NO DRUG TESTING" as
a condition to employment would. Will you then allow employers
to put cameras in people's apartments? Is that next? In your
view, the employees would "gang up" on the employer. Obviously,
you don't understand corporate culture. The employees would
be infiltrated from above and any move at rebellion would be
quashed by the mgmt through threats of firing.
Also:
Requiring drug testing before getting a job would lead to
a brain drain in this country as people head towards free-er
regions.
Hofmann
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 86 16:10:24 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Nuclear weapons
To: oswald!jim@LL-XN.ARPA, mcampos@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
From: oswald!jim@ll-xn.ARPA
In a recent article, Keith Lynch expressed his opposition to any
restrictions on private ownership of munitions, possibly excepting
nuclear weapons. This points up a crucial flaw in
anti-gun-control arguments: where do you draw the line between
permissible and impermissible weapons?
I suppose to be consistent I should advocate allowing private
ownership of nuclear bombs. It is true that if I did so, anyone on
this list could describe possible horrible consequences.
Is this a good argument against my position? I would say not,
because:
1) Someone who plans to use nuclear bombs against people isn't going
to be too concerned about legalities.
2) Nuclear bombs are expensive and hard to build. Even if they were
legal, no individuals could afford one, nor could any but the
wealthiest companies, all of which have better things to do with
their money.
3) In the future it is likely that nuclear bombs will become cheaper
to build, thanks to a general worldwide increase in wealth and in
efficiency. Once this happens, it is likely that anyone who wants
one can get one, whether or not they are legal.
4) By the null hypothesis, it is ok for governments to have nuclear
bombs. Are you really any more comfortable with the idea of Libya
and Lebanon and Iran having them than you are with the idea of
IBM and AT&T having them? Personally, I would much prefer GM and
RCA to have them rather than Russia and China.
5) If the world were to adopt a libertarian system, everyone would
become much more wealthy. There would be more money available for
finding countermeasures to nuclear bombs. If there are no possible
countermeasures at any price, at least it would be more likely that
mankind would be sufficiently spread out through the solar system
that a war on Earth would not mean the end of mankind or even of
man's civilization. Libertarian space colonies, after all, would
be self supporting. Government space colonies would probably
require massive subsidies and would die without support from Earth,
as well as being more likely to be a target in a nuclear war.
No, I don't see any way out of the current nuclear dilemma, with or
without adoption of a libertarian system. I don't think it is fair
that this be held against me unless YOU can come up with some way out
of the nuclear dilemma. Arms control agreements with the Soviet Union
won't do it, since there are several other countries with nuclear
weapons, and since there will likely be several more soon. No fair
suggesting that we surrender to the Soviet Union, for the same reason.
If the USSR took over the US, we would then be in a nuclear stalemate
with China, England, and/or France. Besides, I would rather FIGHT a
nuclear war than surrender to the Soviets, even if we were guaranteed
a nuclear free world while working in their slave labor death camps.
From: < mcampos@ATHENA.MIT.EDU>
I'm not overly comfortable with government ownership of nuclear
weapons either, but I see no other good custodian for this
destructive power on Earth, ...
Why do you assume that governments are automatically more reliable
custodians than individuals or corporations? Keep in mind that many
governments ARE individuals. Do you really think that Qadaffi and
Khomenei are more trustworthy than ANY INDIVIDUAL in the US?
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 86 16:24:29 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Defense
To: Poli-Sci@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
[ I'm going to give up my profitable business of selling widgets
and join the army while my compeditor keeps selling widgets ...
It is up to each individual. Anyone who thinks defense of a their
free country is sufficiently important, and that they can contribute
more to its defense by joining the military than by donating money to
it or by continuing to produce widgets, will do so.
Many people, especially people under 30, are not yet doing anything
important. They won't have the widget magnate's dilemma. The widget
maker could probably contribute more to the effort by donating money.
Any country whose inhabitants won't defend it except when coerced is
not worthy of being defended.
(pick the wrong time [to re-arm], and you spend big bucks on
weapons that will be obsolete when you need them).
Wrong. Since the most important purpose of defense is deterrence, a
weapon that never needs to be used is the most successful weapon of
all. There is no wrong time to re-arm. People won't pick fights with
us if they know we can blow them away. We are paying for peace, not
for war. And if there is a war, we are paying for its shortness and
painlessness. This can only be done by always being prepared for a
long and painful war.
We can best lead by example. If we adopt a truly free civilization,
other countries will do the same after they see the results. Perhaps
eventually we won't need any sort of defense.
...Keith
[ Sorry, but telling an under-30, "You're not doing anything
important, go join the army" won't work. Hell, I'm under 30, and I'm
not going to join an army just so widget salesmen can keep on making
widgets. What if I have a job I like, working for the widget saleman,
making a comfortable living? I'm not going to give that up (i.e. the
'widget saleman' argument extends to all of the employed).
No wrong time to rearm, huh? Go tell the Polish Lancers of 1939.
Tell the Russians of 1914, or 1905. Tell the 'Devastator' pilots of
the USN in 1941. Build a lot of the wrong thing (or the right thing
that gets old) and that's all it is - the wrong thing. You can paint
'Peace saving weapon' on it all you want, but if it doesn't work
against what the other fellow has, then its no good. But once again,
we digress.... - CWM]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Monday, 8 Sep 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 82
Today's Topics:
Commuting and Cities &
Drug Testing and Dignity &
Quality vs. Quantity (2 msgs) &
Drugs and Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 86 02:04:23 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Commuting
To: strick%lownlab.UUCP@HARVARD.HARVARD.EDU
From: strick%lownlab.UUCP@harvard.HARVARD.EDU
Oh, but Kieth, why should they government keep me from driving my
BMW in the bus lane if that's where I want to be.
The owner of the road has the right to set the rules for its usage.
I think that roads should be privately owned, but that doesn't
change the principle. The government should NOT be able to keep you
from using a private road in any way that you and the owner of the
road agree on.
I think the commuter problem is caused less by government zoning
laws than by people voluntarily moving away from the cities.
And one of the main reasons people move away from the cities is
because the property tax is much lower in the suburbs.
It isn't just employees that are moving to the suburbs. The places
where they work are moving there too. I live in the Washington DC
suburbs, but actually go to DC only once or twice a year.
I wish my company (in the suburbs) was closer to my apartment (in
the suburbs), but thanks to zoning, the company is in an area with
only office buildings and shopping centers, and my apartment is in an
area with only apartments and houses.
Look who lives in Roxbury and who lives in Lincoln. Or to give
you an example you may be more familiar with, look at the
difference between the neighborhood conveniently located behind
the capitol building and the neighborhood inconveniently located
all the way out in Georgetown.
Both of those areas are considered to be in the center of the city.
... you must recognize that a large source of the commuter traffic
problem is the result of individual decisions to live in the
scenic suburbs.
Around here, the city is a lot more scenic than the suburbs.
You must recognize that an equally large source of the commuter
traffic problem is the result of zoning board decisions. And that
many of those individual decisions are based on backdoor zoning, i.e.
tax rate differentials, urban renewal, etc.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 86 10:36:51 EDT
From: James B Hofmann < hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA>
To: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mit-mc.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Dignity
First to your points, Keith -
On the witnessing of the piss test:
If I was a drug user and the employer didn't witness me in the act, I
could slip a vial into my pocket from a non-user and put it in the
jar. Correct? Ergo - in order to be fair, the employer is required
to witness the emission ...
On personal beliefs and how they tie into drug testing:
> That is between each individual employee and his employer.
No, it is between the indivicual employee and his God. You Randroids
think that just because you don't believe in God that everyone else
should follow suit.
> If enough people refuse to take the tests, the tests will be
> discarded. Note that an employee is free to demand such tests
> from his employer as a condition of his (the employee's) continued
> employment. The situation is really quite symmetrical. Either party
> can put any condition on the continuation of the relationship.
> Nobody is required to take a job which requires drug testing.
I hardly find this "symetrical" - I mean, I can't go up to my
boss and ask HIM to piss in a cup and then send it away for testing,
now can I?
Also, this just doesn't wash except in cases where security or safety
is very neccesary. To REQUIRE someone piss in a bottle and have his
personal dignity trampled on in order to get a job where the safety or
security of others isn't threatened is to PUT ASIDE the Constitution
and the English Common Law principle of innocent until proven guilty.
Until the Randroids change the Justice system (however shoddy it is)
will I accept that an employer has a right to have my piss but that I
don't have a right to get that job (exceptions noted).
> What about game show contestants on TV? Or people on the old show
> "Candid Camera". Don't you think that behavior is undignified? But
> I see no problem with it so long as individuals agree that the
> compensation they are getting is worth the indignity.
You are mistaking TV with reality, Keith... ding dong. You in there?
Just like Ayn, you have this problem of confusing the screen with
real-life. Those game shows are fun and leisure - here we're talking
about SERIOUS BUSINESS, Keith. Some people don't have a choice if
they can't find a job such as the one they are applying for elsewhere.
Will you then require people to get piss-tested in order to register
to vote on the basis that the compensation should be worth the
indignity on YOUR grounds? What about MY grounds and MY right to
apply for the job on the basis of my ability (affirmative action
aside).
What if in some religions it is against the law to witness someone
in the act of defecation or urinating?
> So? In some religions one is not allowed to drink wine. If such a
> person applies for a job as wine taster, and refuses to taste any
> wine on religious grounds, is it discrimation to not hire this
> person?
so?
Typical. Did your schooling with Pope Rand also cause you to leave
your logic behind? A person who is applying for a job as a secretary
at Coors is NOT applying for a job as a pisser (tho' some may say this
about their beer), he is applying for a job as a SECRETARY. A wine
tester is applying on the basis of his ability to taste and evaluate
wine. Your analogy is EXTREMELY shoddy.
The same goes for the rest of your analogies which I won't clutter the
rest of this posting with...
Except for:
> If a person is a pacifist, is it discrimation for the Army to
> refuse to let him enlist?
Again, if it will affect that person's ability to do a job which in
this case means destroying and killing in defense of one's country.
On a tangent, will you then allow the Army to make people USE drugs in
order to stay up and fight battles? Will that person have a chance to
make a protest? No. He'll be thrown in the brink if he disagrees. I
guess the indignity of being in prison just might be worth the
compensation? Which brings us to another point - what happens after a
postitive is found on a person (regardless of whether it is false or
not...) - will the employer then forward the results to the
authorities ( I betcha COORS would...)?
Can people be locked away for having illegal drugs in their system on
the basis of possession? Will the employer eventually be required to
forward the results to the police? Do you see where this is leading,
Keith? In order to be fair to EVERYONE, the U.S. goverment will
either have to make drug testing a priori ILLEGAL or have EVERYONE in
the U.S. tested.
> Employment is (or should be) a symmetrical uncoerced arrangement.
> If and only if the employee and the employer agree on what the
> employee is to do for the employer and vice versa, will people be
> free, and will the free market system work at its best. If
> government puts impediments on employers, fewer people will be
> hired, and they will be paid less. This is the main cause of the
> current unemployment rate.
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Wow. It's all there in black and white, huh?
So, in essence what you are saying is that the employer should round
up all the unemployed and give them piss tests and then file away
everything (with cc's to the gov't of course) and classify everyone on
the basis of a test that is 90% effective. Wow... statistics never
lie in your world do they keith? (By the way, it has been found that
drug testing on blacks has even higher chances of false postitives -
looks like there will be even more unemployed blacks in Keiths Randian
Order).
...Keith
Hofmann
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 86 02:17:18 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Is freedom boring?
To: strick%lownlab.UUCP@HARVARD.HARVARD.EDU
From: strick%lownlab.UUCP@harvard.HARVARD.EDU
Kieth,
Please recheck how my name is spelled. This is about the tenth time
you have misspelled it.
I've notice a lot of the blandness you complain about not only on
television but on mod.politics. Why do you dominate and your Ayn
Rand myopes insist on reformulating every comment that comes up
into a problem for objectivism/libertarianism.
What appears on this list is what people send to this list. People
who don't like what they see here have nobody to blame but themselves.
And most of the messages from me are in reply to messages sent to me
and CCd to the list.
This is the most boring political philosophy imaginable.
I am sorry you find liberty so boring. Try visiting a communist
country. Perhaps you will find their politics more exciting.
Take a few days off and see what other people have to say.
I am spending much of the three day Labor Day weekend catching up on
my backlog of messages sent to me that I haven't yet replied to. This
one, for instance. If you don't want me to send you messages, don't
send me messages. If you don't want to see my messages on the list,
either don't read the list, or use a mail filter program to edit my
messages out of the copy you read. But first, ask yourself why my
messages disturb you so much. Do they strike a little too close to
home?
I don't post on the big board unless I've got something really
important to say.
Good for you. Same here.
... you must realize how little variety there is here.
Is that my fault? Am I supposed to be a one man list? What you
read is what people choose to send.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 2 Sep 86 11:01:42-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Quality vs. Quantity
To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Our current moderator does the same thing. Why don't you find it
equally objectionable?
No I don't think our current moderator does the same thing. It so
happens that you don't agree with him in many points. I presume you
have read the messages by contributors asking JOSH not to append to
their messages. There were even those who complained about him being
trying to be lord of the last word. We have yet to hear such things
about our current moderator. (-: On second thought, we might start to
hear such things from perverse individuals. :-)
His [JOSH's] replies always made sense.
Only to those who are pro-libertarianism. I would have given the
statement more credit if you are not a libertarian. I sincerely doubt
your objectivity in this case, given your libertarian leaning.
Oh, come on! I read, store, and reply to my mail on a machine that
I own....mumble...mumble....mumble....
Messages are stored in all sites that are on the mailing list. If
there are 50 of them, say, the total number bytes consumed is 50 times
the length of a message. The correct charge for each message should
be based on (1) the total amount space used in all these sites and (2)
the duration the space is used. There are other cost factors too like
maintenance, traffic congestion, etc. I won't even bother to discuss
your precious time wasted on all this flaming, as you (like everybody
else) do this on your time and on your own accord.
The owners of many machines on the net(s) are willing to let people
use small amounts of resources at night and on weekends to further
the cause of man's knowledge.
As long as they don't abuse that privilege. If a person with a
tourist account were to use up megabytes of disk space for flaming
over the ARPAnet and causing a bottle neck in the mailing system,
he/she would lose that account almost immediately. The same applies
if that person uses the account for profit or for indulging in
political campaigns.
I take it that you agree with my recent messages to this list? It
is interesting that you now contest the LENGTH of my messages,
rather than their CONTENT! I assume you wouldn't bother to do the
former if you were able to do the latter.
A rather presumptuous statement! I find the content of most of your
messages not worth their lengths. Some of them make sense but a lot
of them don't. When you can't argue against a point, instead of
sounding a graceful retreat, you tend to wimp out by making some silly
assumptions to make the problems go away or by digressing.
Furthermore there is enough reasonable replies by other people to your
messages to keep you busy for quite a while. It is hard to believe
that none of them is more reasonable than yours. Libertarians like
everybody else don't have a monopoly on the solutions to the all the
world's problems. Neither do they have a monopoly on intelligence,
reasonableness, sensibilities and wealth. Some people are already
finding out that you are just going to incessantly "beat" them over
the head with more and more bytes irrespective of whether you managed
to convince them of your point of view. (For example, the current
discussion has a high potential of being a dragged out flame war.) To
avoid being dragged into a never-ending flame war with you, they keep
their silence. Hence, silence does not mean consent, or in this case
belief in your political philosophy.
Note that this is not a problem with all libertarians, but rather with
some libertarians. There are some shorter messages by libertarians
that make more sense than yours. If someone who is politically
neutral were to use these arguments in parties and other social
functions, he/she would sound more like a reasonable and intelligent
individual than an obstinate egomaniac (no offense intended).
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 86 16:33:55 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Drugs
... In a purely libertarian society, the seller of the drug is
within his rights to sell anything to anyone who will buy, ...
Excluding fraud. Selling drugs which cause known bad effects
without informing the buyer of the effects is fraud.
Actually, most doctors don't bother to warn their patients of all
the side effects. Patients should look up any drugs in the
Physician's Desk Reference or similar refererence work before taking
them.
A typical rejoinder to unregulated medicine is that word will get
around and the seller will not be able to sell any more. This is
not so good for the people who get zapped before word gets
around...
Reasonable people will be more likely to choose drugs which have
been tested for ill effects. Such testing is thus in the interests of
drug companies. Most people would probably continue to only use drugs
suggested by their doctors. All I am saying is that if someone really
wants to take a drug their doctor doesn't recommend, even a drug that
has never been tested, they should be free to do so.
I can't think of any excuse for forbidding drugs to AIDS patients
and terminal cancer patients. What have they got to lose? So what if
the drug hasn't been tested? There is evidence from animal studies
that a drug called AZT can attack AIDS. But only a handful of AIDS
victims are allowed to use it. Why?
...Keith
[ What indeed do they have to lose but the their money and the money
of their families, and the financial ruination from buying drugs or
treatments that don't work? Is it right to allow them to be
victimized by profit-hungry drug vultures? Such people are going to
grab at anything that comes their way. Do we just say too bad about
them?
Also, since normal people don't have the resources to test drugs
(except on themselves), drugs will be tested in just this way. Is
this a good thing? We've already been the rounds on fraud. The
question comes down to who you talk to about whether the mark was
properly 'informed' or not. - CWM]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Tuesday, 9 Sep 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 83
Today's Topics:
Libertarian Viewpoints &
Nuclear War Overkill &
Duelism (2 msgs)
School Prayer &
Medical Costs &
Press Censorship &
Minimum Wage &
The Constitution and Citizenship
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < ATTENBERGER%ORN.MFENET@LLL-MFE.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 86 11:32 EDT
From: ATTENBERGER%ORN.MFENET@LLL-MFE.ARPA
Subject: definition of libertarian
No fair, Barry! You changed your definition of libertarian!
In my mind "valuing individual liberty" is not the same thing as a
"noninterventionist foreign policy".
Stan
------------------------------
Return-path: < pyramid!kontron!cramer@topaz.rutgers.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 86 14:10:50 pdt
From: pyramid!kontron!cramer@topaz.rutgers.edu (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Overkill -- Any Authoritative Figures?
Ever since I was a child, I've heard the claim made that both the U.S.
and the Soviet Union have nuclear arsenals sufficient to kill the
entire populations of each country {50, 100, 5000} times over. Until
recently, I just accepted this as a matter of fact. My question is:
How is this statement derived?
I've seen writings from various pacifist groups that linearly scale
the deaths at Hiroshima up by the total available megatonnage to
"show" that the current arsenals can kill 28 x 10^9 people. (Anyone
that doesn't understand the flaw in this shouldn't be posting
authoritative statements to this group.)
Several years ago I saw an study commissioned by Congress that
postulated a 5050 megaton war. Assuming one megaton warheads (on the
high side for the Soviet Union, and way high for our arsenal), this
means 5050 bombs *successfully* delivered and detonated by a
combination of ICBM, SLBM, bombers, and cruise missles -- a pretty
plausible number. And yet the worst case envisioned by this study
certainly didn't kill off the whole population of the U.S. -- much
less the rest of the world.
Can anyone point me to a real study that derives the "overkill"
numbers?
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 86 02:55:36 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Dueling and other unreasonable behaviors
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Can we stick to debating about plausible things?
Whether something is plausible or not is a subjective thing.
No it isn't.
In this case, it is very dependent on exposure to other cultures.
There are people who feel that a libertarian system is highly
implausible.
Those are the people who have not been exposed to other cultures.
They often tend to think of the system in effect when and where they
are as being inevitable and the only possible way to do things. Even
people who study history often fail to realize that it was not just
goods and services and place names that were different, but
individual's ideas of what was possible and of what was proper.
There have been amazing changes in individual's ideas as to what is
proper over just the past 30 years or so, especially regarding social
tolerance. While I like what the present administration is doing
economically, I am not so fond of their attempt to roll back people's
attitudes to the intolerance of the 1950s.
Whether duels will be more common or not depends on the society.
Right. That's just what I was saying.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 2 Sep 86 11:59:04-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Dueling and other unreasonable behaviors
To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Whether something is plausible or not is a subjective thing.
No it isn't.
Please elaborate.
Those are the people who have not been exposed to other cultures.
What other cultures should individuals be exposed to in order to
understand libertarianism?
Whether duels will be more common or not depends on the society.
Right. That's just what I was saying.
No, as you said the following in a previous message..
As I explained before, I seriously doubt there would be many duels
even if they were legal. Behavior depends far more on what is
accepted than on what is legal.....
All you said that it is going to be less common in some default
society. You happen to pick one where duels are uncommon. Why not
pick one where duels are going to be more common? Should duels be
regulated in such a society? When is a duel legit in such a society?
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Date: Thu 4 Sep 86 11:29:31-EDT
From: ~joe testa~ < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Subject: School prayer
Well, another school year is upon us, and again out come the
complaints about school prayer, or the lack of it. This is one issue
which i could never understand the "reasoning" of the other side.
They keep moaning that we are "banning God from the classroom" by
"forbidding" prayer in public schools. Since when is it forbidden?
What is keeping a kid from praying silently anytime he or she wants,
or out loud when not in class? Why should schools set aside time for
everyone to pray -- isn't the purpose of schools to TEACH? Why not
set aside time at work for adults to pray?
I have NEVER heard a coherent argument for the pro-school-prayer
position. Anyone out there in net-land willing to defend it, or even
explain it? (though it would be a lot more interesting to argue with
someone who really believes in it...)
-joe testa-
------------------------------
Return-path: < mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 86 10:07:42 PDT
From: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer)
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #78
> > If government pays for something:
> >
> > 1) The price skyrockets.
> > Government really has no control. Doctors say 'it costs this
> > much' what are they going to do?
>
> This is an unjustified and unsupported defeatist attitude. Here in
> the United States our medical costs are higher than in England with
> socialized medicine. Why should government have no control?
> Government can set maximum prices for common procedures the same way
> that Health Insurance carriers here in the United States do now.
> Don't even bother to reply that there will be much waste and fraud
> because that same waste and fraud exists in the United States today
> under our present system.
(1) Health care costs in England are lower because the standard of
care in England is far lower. Transplants, for example, are not done
in England. Has it ever occured to any of our Kennedyite
correspondents that the only major new therapies we've seen in the
last 15 years have been pioneered in the US? Guess why. Governments
won't pay for experimental therapies.
(2) Waste and fraud? Well, Canada's medicare system is by all
accounts far more effective than Britain's NHS. But in Saskatchewan,
some years back, the government announced that it was considering the
establishment of a board to review elective surgery. Hysterectomies
immediately fell by 2/3.
-- Rick
------------------------------
Return-path: < matt@AMSAA.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 86 17:37:41 EDT
From: matt@AMSAA.ARPA
Subject: Re: Press Censorship - really anti-Zionism
Reply-to: matt@amsaa.arpa (Matt Rosenblatt (LRAD) < matt> )
Larry Campbell writes:
> Now, if Anti-Zionism finds Jews "uniquely undeserving" of a state,
> then I assume Zionists find that Jews "deserve" a state. Well, then.
> Do Catholics "deserve" a state? Shall we restore the Holy Roman
> Empire? Do Moslems "deserve" a state? Shall we restore the Ottoman
> Empire? What makes Jews so unique in all this? As far as I can see,
> it's because they have the only religion that thinks it deserves a
> state. Somehow I thought that this was the twentieth century, and
> that theocracy was an outmoded concept. Frighteningly, Israel and
> Iran are proving me wrong.
Yes, Catholics deserve a state, and they have several -- start with
Spain. Yes, Moslems deserve a state, and they have several, most of
them more tolerant than, say, Algeria, where the law says you can't
*become* a citizen unless you're a Moslem, and more tolerant than
Jordan and Saudi Arabia, where Jews are flat out forbidden to live.
Saying that the Jews deserve a state is not the same as saying that
that state is, has to be, or even should be, a "theocracy" like Iran
(religion: Shiite Islam) or the Soviet Union (religion:
Marxism-Leninism).
Check out the constitutions of the European states of Christendom,
including Great Britain, and see how many have state religions. Check
out the constitutions of the Arab states and see how many have state
religions, although they are not absolutist theocracies like Iran.
Here in America, we have built the United States as a place for people
who don't want a state religion, by including the Establishment Clause
of the First Amendment in our fundamental law. That doesn't mean that
we should impose our structure on Catholics, Protestants, or Jews who
want state religions in their countries.
-- Matt Rosenblatt
------------------------------
Return-path: < dmw@unh.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Wednesday, 3 September 1986 11:49:59 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Minimum Wage
I used to believe that lowering the minimum wage would reduce teenage
unemployment. Unfortunately there are some inconvenient facts that
stand in the way of this theory. First the government in the past has
provided benefits to employers that effectively meant they were paying
less than minimum wage to unemployed people that they hired. Second,
many businesses in many parts of the country (like fast food
restaurants out in the suburbs) offer starting pay above minimum wage.
The real problem seems to be that the jobs are not in the same place
as the unemployed, and transportation to those jobs is difficult at
best. It is possible to buy a junky car and minimum insurance and get
to those jobs and come out ahead, but the entry barrier is sufficient
to require higher than minimum wage to attract enough job applicants.
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 86 02:38:34 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Constitution and Citizenship
To: TESTA-J%OSU-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA
From: ~joe testa~ < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
> It is clear, of course, that the writers of those amendments did
> not intend to interpret them as banning taxation. But the courts
> have never let the intention of the legislators stand in the way
> of their interpretation of what the law actually SAYS, even when
> they are still living and vehemently object to the court's
> interpretation.
As it should be -- you'd think that educated people could write
what they mean. It is not very difficult to write unambiguous
sentences.
The constitution is pretty unambiguous. There is some fuzziness in
the interpretation of some of the amendments, but the official
interpretation is often well outside any reasonable interpretation of
what the amendment says. The Second Amendment is the classic example.
> Another idea is to sell citizenships, for whatever price the
> market will bear. This would provide revenue to government in
> lieu of taxes from citizens.
Does the inverse hold? If someone cannot afford their debts to
the government, would they be stripped of their citizenship? That
would be one way to get rid of criminals -- "gee, your trial cost
$9 billion -- pay up or get out".
Actually, that was a punishment for some crimes until the 1940s,
when the Supreme Court ruled that being stripped of citizenship was
"cruel and unusual". Interesting that they find it a harsher
punishment than being put to death!
Personally, I don't believe in citizenship. A person's rights have
nothing to do with his government. Governments often VIOLATE rights,
and some do so much more than others, but rights do not come from
governments. Rights are intrinsic. So the rights that a person has
have nothing to do with whether he is a US citizen or not. Since
citizenship makes (or should make) no difference, it is (or should be)
meaningless.
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Tuesday, 9 Sep 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 84
Today's Topics:
Administrivia &
Quality vs. Quantity &
Courts and Advertising &
The Constitution and Taxes &
Libertarian Viewpoints &
Private Arsenals
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 10 Sep 86 00:40:00 EDT
From: Charles < MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: booboo time again
Hi,
The previous digest had lousy headers on it (I was able to fix the
problem for the failed-first-try mail, but the first version was
bad-looking). Sorry about that... Also, that's not the only mistake
I made, see next message.
Charles
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 86 03:25:05 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Quality vs. Quantity
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: JoSH@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
[ Due to moderator brain-damage, the reply to this message appeared
last issue. My apologies to both gentlemen. - CWM]
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
When JOSH was the moderator of POLI-SCI there were complaints of
him dominating the discussion by insisting on having the last word
in almost every debate that he was involved in.
Yes, he often replied to messages in the same digests they appeared
in. And if the original sender wanted to reply to his reply, it would
be several days before it would appear in the digest, at which time
JoSH's reply to the reply would appear with it.
Our current moderator does the same thing. Why don't you find it
equally objectionable? It doesn't really matter so long as you can
reply to it. You could regard it as compensation for the time he
spends moderating the list.
What ended up happening was that many people didn't feel that it
was a discussion anymore and stopped sending in their
contributions.
His replies always made sense. Non-libertarians stopped sending
messages when their last argument had been exploded. After JoSH went
away they gradually came back to the list and started broadcasting the
same arguments that had been demolished years earlier. I could reply
to almost every objection to libertarianism that I have seen by
resending messages Josh sent four or five years ago.
From the libertarian point of view, there is an explanation for
the frequent long messages on this and other mailing lists. It is
because the electronic mailing system is free. As a result
individuals do not have incentives to conserve on words and strive
for quality instead of quantity.
Oh, come on! I read, store, and reply to my mail on a machine that
I own. This machine cost me several month's savings. More valuable
yet is the time I spend reading and replying to messages. Currently
about 40 hours a week. The owners of many machines on the net(s) are
willing to let people use small amounts of resources at night and on
weekends to further the cause of man's knowledge. "Hackers" and
"randoms" have written software of enormous value and given it away
for free. Most of the electronic mail software and editing software
on the net has been written by people who wrote it to use mailing
lists like this one or to make other unofficial use of computer
resources.
What does the government have to do with any of this? Nothing,
except that they own and operate the ARPAnet. Using a machine that
happens to be on the ARPAnet is not necessarily using network
resources. The network only exists to link these machines.
Well, I send about 10k bytes of mail per day. Coast to coast off-
hours phone rates are on the order of at most 30 cents per minute for
a voice grade line. A voice grade line can carry data at about 9600
bits per second, so my mail takes less than ten seconds, or about 5
cents to send each day. Actually, since the ARPAnet leases lines
around the clock, they aren't paying any more for the lines if they
are used at night and on weekends.
I would be quite willing to pay my fair share, if there were some
way to distribute the costs that wouldn't cost a hundred times more
than the resources consumed. I am already paying far more than that
in the cost of my computer, my phone bill, by electric bill, and most
importantly, the value of my own time. I have plenty of incentives to
strive for quality rather than quantity.
I take it that you agree with my recent messages to this list? It
is interesting that you now contest the LENGTH of my messages, rather
than their CONTENT! I assume you wouldn't bother to do the former if
you were able to do the latter.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Date: Thu 4 Sep 86 12:08:19-EDT
From: ~joe testa~ < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Subject: Courts and Advertising
To: kfl@mx.lcs.mit.edu%mc.lcs.mit.edu
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> Well, the "donations" are in a sense voluntary now. You think the
> courts are NOT swayed by politics? You think their opinions do NOT
> pretty closely match those of the general population?
No. But their opinions would be influenced much more by popularity if
their existence depended on popularity.
> For the courts to be biased
> in a libertarian direction - if that even makes any sense - is not a
> bad thing.
That's not the kind of bias i'm worried about. I'm more worried about
the times where a popular lynch-mob movement (no pun intended) might
override due process rights for the accused ... "aw, we KNOW he's
guilty, why bother with the technicalities of a trial??"
> And convincing people to contribute drains resources. A similar
> situation exists with the health-care industry today. In Ohio,
> we are flooded with commercials on TV showing us pictures of
> helicopters flying around particular hospitals. This is a waste
> of money; it doesn't cure a single disease; if they spent their
> time and money on health care, perhaps the cost wouldn't be so
> high.
>
> Well, this is the classic dilemma of advertising. Doesn't
> advertising a product increase its cost? After all, the consumers
> are then paying the cost of the advertising as well as the cost of
> manufacture, distribution, and packaging.
> The answer is no, not really. To the extent that advertising
> increases purchases (or donations) it causes the unit cost to go
> DOWN.
Oh, come on now! This makes sense for toothpaste and cars, but for
health care (or courts) ?? I can see it now -- Mr. X sitting home one
night watching TV, says to his wife "gee, i was thinking, after seeing
that ad from Mount Foo Hospital -- what do you think if i go have a
heart transplant next week? They're having a special discount."
-joe testa-
------------------------------
Return-path: < king@kestrel.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 86 12:25:56 pdt
From: king@kestrel.ARPA (Dick King)
Subject: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #79
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> As for taxes themselves, the Fifth Amendment says "No person
> shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
> process of law". For "life" and "liberty" this is universally
> interpreted as meaning that those can be taken away only if a
> person is convicted of a crime or found liable in a civil trial.
> What is the justification for interpreting "property" in a
> different way?
Depends on what one means by "due process of law". Is a
legislature enacting legislation "due process of law"? I would
think so. So a legislative body can pass laws saying "you have to
pay this tax we just dreamt up", but some government official
cannot call you up and say "hey, you have to pay this tax that i
just dreamt up".
Being "deprived of liberty" doesn't require being found guilty of a
crime -- at least it didn't -- what about the military draft?
(note that i am NOT arguing the merits of the draft; this is just
an example)
Many people, myself and probably Keith included, consider the draft at
least as bogus as taxation.
Life is also mentioned in the amendment, coequally with liberty and
property. Please comment on the constitutionality of a law requiring,
for example, infantacide of those babies with an extra Y chromosome.
-dick
------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 86 11:14:45 pdt
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Subject: Laws and libertarianism
Surprise, Keith--I'm going to rally to your defense here.
In the last few Poli-Sci's, Keith Lynch has made a point which
most others seem to have ignored or misinterpreted. He states it as,
"Why do you all think that behavior which is both illegal and socially
unacceptable today would become more prevalant in a libertarian USA in
which it would not be illegal, but still socially unacceptable?"
I believe that the 1960's student protests made a lasting change
on our society: people realized that if enough citizens simply ignored
a law, that was equivalent to having it repealed. Today's best
example, of course, is the 55 MPH speed limit. I recently drove to
San Francisco at a steady 65 MPH, which appeared to be somewhat less
than the average speed (I was passed more often than I passed others).
The Highway Patrol didn't bother you unless you were doing better than
70 because they didn't have the manpower to do otherwise. To a large
extent, our laws are codifications of shared values, and are thus
probably redundant. Keith's example of today's drug laws is a good
one. Those laws were passed in the 1920's, but drug usage only became
prevalent in the 1960's. Probably drug usage would be somewhat more
common if the laws against it were repealed, but I'm not convinced it
would be excessive. I gave up marijuana 10 years ago because I got
bored with its effects, not because I was worried about jail. Keith
is correct here--before you say "people would do thus and thus in a
libertarian society," you have to convince us that they currently
refrain from that behavior solely because of the laws against it, and
not because it is unacceptable to their fellow citizens.
An item from current news: Some consumer advocacy groups are
trying to get the FDA to require ingredients labels on wines, on the
grounds that people ought to know what's in the bottle. Several
people have been killed due to severe allergic reactions to the
sulfites used as preservatives in most wines sold today. The wineries
are fighting the proposed rule, and the FDA is currently siding with
them. Now, I think Keith would say that if people are sufficiently
worried about what's in wine bottles, a winery could clean up by
making a big deal about their wines having no preservatives and
artificial colors. None of them are, probably because they have all
independently come to the conclusion that it is cheaper to pay the
wine industry lobby to fight the proposed rule than it would be to
adequately advertise an "all-natural" wine, which would also be more
expensive to produce. Alternatively, consumers could band together
and refuse to buy wines which didn't have their ingredients listed.
This would mean no wine at all until one or more companies changed
their ways, and even then you would have no independent evidence that
the resulting ingredients list was accurate. I think it is probably
correct to argue that no one is organizing such a boycott because of a
perception that the government is already protecting them against
dangerous substances in food and drink; this perception would
disappear in a libertarian country. Comments? To what extent is a
company liable for deaths and/or injuries caused not by actual malice
or negligence, but by actions which slightly increase their profits?
------------------------------
Return-path: < seismo!cbosgd!cbrma!karl@caip.rutgers.edu>
From: seismo!cbosgd!cbrma!karl@caip.rutgers.edu
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 86 17:57:08 EDT
Subject: Re: Private Arsenals
Reply-to: seismo!cbrma!karl (Karl Kleinpaste)
oswald!jim@ll-xn.ARPA writes:
> In a recent article, Keith Lynch expressed his opposition to any
> restrictions on private ownership of munitions, possibly excepting
> nuclear weapons. This points up a crucial flaw in anti-gun-control
> arguments: where do you draw the line between permissible and
> impermissible weapons? There are two options:
Indeed, this points to an even greater flaw in pro-control arguments:
Why is your line better than my line? Or Keith's line? Or HCI's or
the NRA's line?
> OPTION 1: No restrictions whatsoever on ownership of weapons
> Having a
> dozen or so governments that can "push the button" is bad enough, but
> if thousands of private citizens had their own nuclear devices...
Right, "thousands," uh-huh. Do you have any idea of either the cost
or the difficulty of constructing such a weapon? Lessee, I should
have saved up enough by, oh, about the year 2127...
> This raises the general question: which weapons should private
> individuals be permitted to own?
What are your qualifications to be making such a decision for me?
---
Karl Kleinpaste
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Thursday, 11 Sep 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 85
Today's Topics:
War and Misunderstanding (2 msgs) &
Libertarian Viewpoints (2 msgs) &
Duelism &
Technology and Employment
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < ANDY@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Fri 5 Sep 86 19:22:09-PDT
From: Andy Freeman < ANDY@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: War caused by misunderstanding?
I don't think that misunderstanding whether the other side would fight
is what is meant by the "anti-war" people who use the slogan "war is
caused by misunderstanding". (BTW - Is there anyone who is "pro-war"
or is it just a popular strawman for all sides?)
WWII is a good example. What did we misunderstand about Hitler that
would have stopped that war, short of intervening far earlier?
-andy
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 86 01:37:17 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: War caused by misunderstanding?
Well, if you count misunderstanding whether you will win or not as a
war being caused by misunderstanding, then all such wars are caused at
some level by misunderstanding. No government will get involved in a
war that it thinks it will lose. But I don't think that's the issue.
One commonly hears that if only nations were to communicate better,
and understand their differences, that wars would never occur. I
don't think that is true. I think we understand quite well the nature
of communism. No additional understanding of the communists will make
communism any less repugnant. No additional understanding OF us BY
them will cause them to change their policies.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri 5 Sep 86 19:24:45-EDT
From: Richard A. Cowan < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Libertarianism attacked, part I
To: sacc@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
Libertarianism seems suspect. Why do I say this? Because several
recent messages have labeled both left-wing and right-wing views as
"libertarian." How could this be so? Is it that Libertarians are
fixated on the danger of "big government" affecting our freedom, and
that this focus on government serves to mystify what's really going
on?
The reason I object to the emphasis on government is that public
policy is really not determined by "the government." As Noam Chomsky
said in 1969, "This is a caricature, and a dangerous one. We must
emphasize that .. public policy is a reflection, to a very
significant extent, of economic power that is entirely removed from
the political process." (MIT Review Panel on Special Laboratories,
Final Report)
Chomsky is saying that it's the other way around. The government is
controlled by the political process, a process greatly influenced by
economic interests. Senator Mark Hatfield (R-Oregon) had a similar
perspective, urging "the reintroduction of human ideals into what is
now policy formed mainly by economic considerations." (personal
correspondence, 1969) In other words, Money is Power.
Accepting this view, the question one should ask is not whether
government is inherently good or bad, but rather, "Who runs the
government?" and "Who does it serve?"
-rich
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 86 01:53:53 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Objectivist objectivity?
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
... I sincerely doubt your objectivity in this case, given your
libertarian leaning.
Only those who reject libertarianism and objectivism can be
objective? Who is your objective man? Someone with no opinions?
A blank mind?
Messages are stored in all sites that are on the mailing list.
Only until people read and delete them. I have several YEARS of
messages stored on my PC. Over 30 megabytes, which is more than the
total volume of POLI-SCI since day one.
... I won't even bother to discuss your precious time wasted on
all this flaming, as you (like everybody else) do this on your
time and on your own accord.
I think you are losing track of what we are debating. My contention
is that people on this list including me have an incentive to keep
messages short.
It is interesting that you now contest the LENGTH of my
messages, rather than their CONTENT! I assume you wouldn't
bother to do the former if you wee able to do the latter.
A rather presumptuous statement! I find the content of most of
your messages not worth their lengths. Some of them make sense
but a lot of them don't.
Once again, you criticize length rather than content.
When you can't argue against a point, instead of sounding a
graceful retreat, you tend to wimp out by making some silly
assumptions to make the problems go away or by digressing.
Examples please?
... There are some shorter messages by libertarians that make more
sense than yours.
Good. I would hate to think I am the only, or the best, voice for
freedom.
If someone who is politically neutral were to use these arguments
in parties and other social functions, he/she would sound more
like a reasonable and intelligent individual ...
If he were to use these arguments he would not be politically
neutral. Why do you assume neutrality is a virtue?
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 86 02:01:05 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Dueling and other unreasonable behaviors
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Whether duels will be more common or not depends on the
society.
Right. That's just what I was saying.
No, as you said the following in a previous message..
As I explained before, I seriously doubt there would be many
duels even if they were legal. Behavior depends far more on
what is accepted than on what is legal.....
All you said that it is going to be less common in some default
society. You happen to pick one where duels are uncommon. Why
not pick one where duels are going to be more common?
I was speaking of *our* society.
Should duels be regulated in such a society?
No.
When is a duel legit in such a society?
Whenever all parties to such a duel give informed consent.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < mcvax!cstvax.ed.ac.uk!db@seismo.CSS.GOV>
From: Dave Berry < mcvax!cstvax.ed.ac.uk!db@seismo.CSS.GOV>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 86 18:36:03 gmt
Subject: New technology & employment
this is an article from the latest issue of the Edinburgh Computing &
Soical Responsibility newsletter. ECSR is roughly a Scottish
equivalent of CPSR. I'm submitting this to mod.politics because it
seems relevant to the current discussion on libertarianism, advocates
of which seem to assume that someone will always be able to get a job
elsewhere if denied one at their first attempt. It's also of general
interest.
I'm submitting this in a purely personal capacity. The contents of
the article, and my comments here, are not necessarily the opinions of
other ECSR members.
Note I am not the original author of this article.
New Technology and Employment
Notes of the ECSR meeting of Wednesday 19 March 1985.
by Frank van Harmelen
The main topic of the evening was a talk given by Howard Wagstaff. He
is an economist, and currently lectures agricultural economics at the
Department of Agriculture of the University of Edinburgh.
The title of his talk was ``Future Employment and Technological
Change'', which is also the title of a recently published book of
which Howard Wagstaff is a co-author. The talk consisted of an
overview of some of the main points made in the book.
The talk can be summarised as follows:
- An overview of main current beliefs about unemployment issues.
- The identification of the myth of New Technology.
- What do we need to make New Technology more Tractable.
One of the most common assumptions about our economy is that the main
cure for the current unemployment situation is a sufficiently high
level of economic growth. However, the current situation of high
unemployment can only be partially explained from the low levels of
economic growths since 1980. The past 5 years since 1980 are to be
regarded as one of the regular local ``hiccups'' of our economic
cycles, and are not sufficient to explain the current levels of
unemployment. If we look at the period before 1980, say from 1960 to
1979, we also see a period with a rising trend of unemployment. This
was particularly so in the UK. However, over this period, our economy
grew with something like 2% a year. This is a fairly high growth
level, if you consider that this implies doubling the volume of the
economy during one generation! Even in countries with still higher
growth rates during that period, such as Japan or Germany (4%), there
was a rising level of unemployment.
The unemployment level was not evenly spread across all sectors of the
economy: the unemployment problem was by far the worst in the so
called production industry, even to the extent that the industries
with growing output rates did not have rising employment levels.
Again, this is not only true for the UK, but across a wide range of
industrial countries.
This fall in employment from the production industry was largely
compensated by a rise of employment in the service industry. (However,
since the size of the work force itself grew as well, this was not
enough to provide full employment). This would lead to the belief
that making the service industry grow will make employment fall. It is
along these lines of reasoning that the future of the service industry
becomes the straw that many classical economists clutch on.
However, this ``Myth of the Service Industry'' needs to be tackled:
The shift from a ``goods economy'' to a ``service economy'', means
that demand will shift from goods to services. While we're getting
richer, we spend our extra money on services, since the spending on
goods has reached a saturation point. Thus, it is often believed that
this ``shift by consumer demand'' will lead the change to a service
economy. However, this is wrong. Services are getting relatively more
expensive as compared to goods. This is due to two facts: Firstly, the
goods industry profits from rises in productivity, while the
human-activity dependent service industry doesn't, and secondly, the
service industry suffers much more from the rising costs of labour. As
a result of this, the labour-extensive goods industry will push parts
of the service industry out of work. Think of the following examples:
- Cinemas close due to people buying video-recorders.
- House servants disappear due to electric domestic appliances.
- Public transport disappears because people use their own cars.
The question now arises: How then has the service industry managed to
be responsible for an increasing number of jobs, and which section of
the service industry in particular? We can see this if we divide the
service industry into three sections, according to who the main
customers of each section are:
- The business section: Those services industries that deliver
mainly to other businesses.
- The household section: Those services that cater mostly for
the needs of the consumer markets.
- The public section: Those services that are mainly paid for by
public money.
It turns out that the public section is responsible for most of the
extra jobs in the service industry (mainly education and health
service). Until 1975 the business section also increased, but this has
levelled of. The number of jobs in the household section actually
declined. From this we see that the myth of the consumer demand
leading the shift to the service industry is false. This can be
explained by the fact that the consumer section is very much moving
towards a self service economy, as opposed to a service economy. A
good example of this are the large DIY furniture shops, where a
relatively low number of jobs offer a large number of services,
because of the self-service character of the shops.
The question is now: why do common theories not see these points, and
actually deny them? The main reason for this is that all mayor
economical schools seem to think that the current crisis of the 80's
is very much the same as the crisis of the 30's. However, the above
seems to indicate that we actually have a new problem on our hand,
what we could call technological unemployment.
Each of the three main economic schools of thought (neo-classicism,
which claims that the self regulating market mechanism will solve the
problems on the employment-market, Keynesian, which claims that
increased demand will solve the unemployment problem, and Marxist,
claiming that more economic planning will solve the problems) assume
the need for steady economic growth. It is clear why they do this,
because it helps them in avoiding the difficult redistribution
problem: If the cake is growing, then they can solve the problems by
handing out the extra slices, and they don't have to worry about
redistributing the cake. However, when more goods don't produce more
jobs (as seems to be the case) what do we do?
What are the options for future employment? The key seems to lie in
the redistribution of the gains we make because of the higher
efficiency. This redistribution can be done in 4 ways:
- Letting market forces do it.
- Using public investment.
- Reducing the size of the active population.
- Shorter working times.
The first option does not work (as described above). The second option
seems to involve redistribution through taxation, and using the tax to
create jobs. However, even the most extensive of the Labour Parties
shopping lists does not reach over 3/4 of a million jobs, while we're
looking for something like 3-4 million. Reducing the size of the
active population seems to involve morally unacceptable actions like
sending foreign labour home, or not letting women enter the labour
market.
The last option seems to be the most promising. But it does introduce
the conflict between the employed and the unemployed. Some short term
solutions for this problem could be
- a personal benefit for every person, working or non-working.
- an employment allowance for companies, based on the number of
employees (and not on their labour costs).
In the longer term, the solution seems to be to try and organize our
economy on a different ground than the profit-optimization which is
the main basis for our current economic system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Future Employment and Technological Change, H. Wagstaff and
D. Leach, Kogan Page, 1986. 10.95 pounds. ISBN 1 85091 017 0
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Friday, 12 Sep 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 86
Today's Topics:
Libertarianism atacked, part II
American Democracy: Conservative ends, radical means
Drug tests
Wealth and discriminatory hiring
Guns
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri 5 Sep 86 19:25:22-EDT
From: Richard A. Cowan < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Libertarianism atacked, part II
To: sacc@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
(Part II)
A second, more serious problem with libertarianism (of the Objectivist
flavor) is the notion of "free choice." Certainly, free choice is a
good thing; few would deny that. It is true that eliminating property
taxes, restoring the right to choose not to wear a seatbelt,
motorcycle helmet, etc., increase "freedom." (Especially for the
person who person who owns land or the person who avoids an accident.)
Again, this view assumes the political process is limited to the
popular election of a government that expresses the will of the
people. But it is not only government that limits our free choice.
We live in a political world dominated by economic arrangements among
powerful institutions. Eliminating many government powers might give
us certain new freedoms, but would have no effect, or the wrong
effect, on the limits on free choice imposed upon us by institutions.
The deregulation of the phone company may give the consumer "free
choice" between phone companies, but the imperative of competition
means that consumers have no choice but to shoulder the cost of
intensive advertising wars in the short run ("the Right Choice:
AT&T"). This advertising boom, in conjunction with financial
speculation, produces "economic growth," not by creating anything
productive, but by enlarging the percentage of our economy devoted to
waste. In the near-term the consumer will get cheapter phone service,
because capitalism "works," but unlike small-scale capitalism in which
the fittest survive because of the superior quality of goods and
services produced by one's own hard work and initiative, large scale
capitalism largely thrives on the indoctrination of consumers to make
the "right choice," the access to markets (examples: GE's distribution
network, IBM's monopoly in data processing), and the coercion of
workers to work harder while being paid less. Workers have little
"choice" to improve their position if the company that pays them the
most money is least likely to survive. When competition ultimately
runs its course, the consumer's choice may be limited by monopoly.
Companies frequently bring in innovations designed to induce "economic
growth" by making the consumer dependent on various modern
conveniences. Take toothpaste. (I admit, a rather unusual example.)
A dependency on toothpaste in a pump is being created (by subsidy at
first) so that consumers will ultimately pay for the added cost of the
pump, and in order to better regulate (and speed up) their toothpaste
use. When toothpaste in a tube is removed from the market because
most consumers have been indoctrinated (progress!) to buy it in a
pump, what happens to my "free choice" to buy toothpaste in a tube?
The free market, using the technical apparatus of the media, has
infringed on my freedom.
Now I don't suggest we start a movement to guard the right to buy
toothpaste in a tube, but I do suggest that there is a danger to
freedom posed by economic interests manipulating our needs, given the
level of technical organization and coordination of modern society.
As Herbert Marcuse said, "Under the rule of a repressive whole,
liberty can be made into a powerful instrument of domination. The
range of choice open to the individual is not the decisive factor in
determining the degree of human freedom, but what can be chosen and
what is chosen by the individual. The criterion for free choice can
never be an absolute one, but neither is it entirely relative. free
election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves. Free
choice among a wide variety of goods and services does not signify
freedom if these goods and services sustain social controls over a
life of toil and fear -- that is, if they sustain alienation."
For the source of the quote, read "One-dimensional Man," chapter 1
(Beacon Press, 1964). Despite the fact that everything Marcuse writes
is rather obscure, I heartily recommend it, and it is still in print.
-rich
------------------------------
Return-path: < randolph@Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 86 22:21:05 PDT
From: randolph@Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz)
Subject: American Democracy: Conservative ends, radical means
Hello. I am not certain that this group is the place for this
article but I know no place better. Instead of preaching, I'm going
to write about the way our government works. I hope some of you are
interested.
There is, in American democracy, an inherent conservatism.
Congressmen, driven by the desires of their electors, will seldom
propose acts that will change the lives of their electors. Such acts,
however good, will invariably be opposed by a majority of voters. It
is popular to be radical in two ways only: a way that does not
obviously affect the electorate or a way that appears to counter
change in the conditions of the electorate, radicalism with a
conservative end.
Into the class of radical acts which do not obviously affect the
electorate we may place the military policies of the past 40 years.
The main domestic effect of an ever-expanding peacetime military is an
ever expanding military budget, which does not ever provide the kind
of jarring change which would make voters suddenly turn to other
candidates or parties.
Into the class of radical acts which appear to have conservative
ends we may place many of the responses to the Great Depression and
the wage and price controls of the 1970s.
In answer to the Great Depression the United States government
implemented stringent bank regulations and made the government a major
employer; socialist policies of a violently anti-socialist nation.
The first red scare was only a decade past. But people were
accustomed to stable banking and near-universal employment; if these
policies would bring them back they'd live with (oh, say it softly)
socialism.
Wage and price controls are another socialist innovation, applied
during the presidency of Richard Nixon, who was a red-hunter during
the second red scare. Wage and price controls, it was hoped, would
counter the economic effects of rising oil prices. Again, people were
accustomed to stable wages and prices. If radical plans would return
wage and price stability, then bring on the radical plans!
--
Randolph Fritz
sun!randolph
randolph@sun
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 86 01:58:05 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Drug tests
To: hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA
From: James B Hofmann < hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA>
... Will you then allow employers to put cameras in people's
apartments? Is that next?
If the employee agreed to it. Which is unlikely. And if he does,
so what? Similarly an employee could insist on installing a camera in
his employer's apartment as a condition of his continued employment.
Unlikely? Yes. So is your scenario. Why do you assume that
employers have such enormous power over people? Why do you assume
that government doesn't have such power, or that if it does it would
never abuse it?
Suppose your employer told you he suspected you of stealing company
property and storing it at home, and told you that your one chance for
continued employment is to allow him to immediately thoroughly search
your apartment? You might object to working for someone who doesn't
trust you, and quit on the spot. Or you might value the job
sufficiently that you are willing to allow the search to prove to your
employer's satisfaction that you are no thief. It is entirely up to
you.
But under the laws you advocate, it would be ILLEGAL for him to
suggest such a search. He would have no recourse but to fire you.
You might beg him to search your apartment to prove your innocence,
but since such a search would be construed as a condition to continued
employment, he would have to refuse, and fire you.
*I* think that these drug tests are a bad idea. But I admit that I
might be wrong. I don't think it should be up to me to decide what an
employer and employee should do that doesn't affect me. If drug tests
are irrational, then employers who insist on them are at a competitive
disadvantage. If a sufficient number of employees simply refuse to
take any drug tests, then employers who insist on them are at a
competitive disadvantage. They will continue only if they are useful
and most employees don't mind them.
In your view, the employees would "gang up" on the employer.
Obviously, you don't understand corporate culture.
The feeling is mutual. You seem to feel that employers employ
people as a favor to them, and suffer no consequences when employees
chose to leave. You seem to think that employers can impose the most
draconian rules on their employees and the employees will consent, and
that any who leave will be unable to find work elsewhere and will be
quickly replaced with other, more subservient, employees. Obviously,
you don't understand corporate culture, or even the rudiments of
economics.
Requiring drug testing before getting a job would lead to
a brain drain in this country as people head towards free-er
regions.
What regions are those? Employers within this country who DON'T
require such tests, perhaps? Seems to me that undermines your whole
argument.
Or are you assuming that EVERY employer would require such tests?
That is only possible if the government required them to require them.
I think I have made it clear that I totally oppose anything like that.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Date: Sat 6 Sep 86 18:23:25-EDT
From: ~joe testa~ < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Subject: Wealth and discriminatory hiring
To: kfl@mx.lcs.mit.edu%mc.lcs.mit.edu
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
>
> Well, a person with enough money could bribe everybody not to
> hire me, ...
>
> Why would anyone wish to do this? And how much would it cost? If
> you apply at 100 companies, and if your worth to them is about twice
> your salary (i.e. you and the company would benefit equally by your
> working there) he would have to pay these companies more than 100
> times your salary. Not just once, but every year. And if you apply
> at a 101st place, he must now pay your salary again, to the 101st
> company. Unless the 101st company didn't get the word, or simply
> refused to go along with such bribes. In which case they would hire
> you and the rich man would be out millions of dollars with no gain at
> all.
> Each time you apply at a company, you are essentially fining him
> the value of your salary. Who is hurting whom?
Aaah, but you're assuming that the person being targeted is the *only*
person capable of doing the job. Why would someone have to pay the
TOTAL amount of your salary as a bribe to someone else to not hire
you? Let's say that there are TWO candidates for a job, approximately
equally qualified. It might be adequate inducement for me to go up to
the hirer and say "i'll give you ten bucks not to hire that one guy".
Or a dinner... or some other bribe. Most likely, it would be
something of personal benefit to the person doing the hiring, rather
than something which would help the company. Or the promise of a
future favor, which would have NO monetary value -- the rich man
wouldn't have to be out millions of dollars.
-joe testa-
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 86 01:22:05 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Guns
To: MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
From: Charles < MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
They should not, and are not, allowed to use those dangerous
things to harm others.
... did I lose something, or are you advocating guns that aren't
dangerous? What's the point of having a non-harmful gun?
I think you lost something. All I am saying is that people should
be allowed to have guns but not to initiate force with them (or
without them).
... I'd be interested in seeing your explaination of the success
of India's non-cooperation campaign against the British, which
used economic non-profitability to force the English out.
Well, the noviolence movement generated a lot of publicity which
caused many British citizens to symathize. If there had not been a
(relatively) free press, or if the government of Britain had been more
repressive and had simply shot Gandhi on day one, or if the government
of Britain was not responsive to the will of the majority of citizens,
this would not have happened. Look what happened to the non-violently
resisting Jews in Nazi Germany. If India had been a German colony,
Gandhi and Nehru would have simply disappeared, along with any other
dissenters. Just as happens today in all communist countries,
including the many colonies of the USSR (Estonia, Lituania, Latvia,
etc). I don't think India ever became unprofitable.
How many guns are necessary amongst the American people to keep
the government in line?
Once again, your question begs the question we are debating. Your
question contains the implicit assumption that people should only be
allowed to have guns if someone can find some justification for the
guns. This is true of course, but the someone should be the owner of
the gun, rather than the government or the majority or "society". If
you accept that it is the potential owner of a gun who decides if it
is needed, your question is irrelevant, since it is up to each
individual to decide, as well as to decide which is the appropriate
question, depending on the reason(s) for which he is considering
getting a gun.
...Keith
[ I don't see what the value of a gun I can't use. 'Initiation of
force' is a matter of opinion. A guy jumps into a karate-like stance,
and I fear he's going to attack me, do I have the 'right' to shoot
him? He could be just break-dancing... What if a dangerous-looking
fellow (and in my opinion he's getting ready to shoot me with a
concealed gun) starts walking toward me on a dark street. Do I get to
shoot him now, or do I have to let him have the first shot? We're
back to the question of will people be able to deal properly with all
these guns.
I will point out that the Jews of Warsaw did arm themselves, and
the German response was to to bring in an SS Panzer division and level
the ghetto. Arming the people just moves the level of government
counter-violence up one level.
Concerning the number of gun-owners, I argue that we have exactly
what you want now. People who want to buy guns can do so. So what if
they're registered. They've still got them, which is what you want.
So what if you live in a anti-gun place like New York City and don't
feel safe - and can't buy a gun? Move! Vote with your feet, right?
Wait, isn't that your line? - CWM]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Friday, 12 Sep 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 86
Today's Topics:
Libertarian Viewpoints &
The Workings of Government &
Drug testing &
Wealth and Hiring &
Guns
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri 5 Sep 86 19:25:22-EDT
From: Richard A. Cowan < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Libertarianism atacked, part II
To: sacc@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
(Part II)
A second, more serious problem with libertarianism (of the Objectivist
flavor) is the notion of "free choice." Certainly, free choice is a
good thing; few would deny that. It is true that eliminating property
taxes, restoring the right to choose not to wear a seatbelt,
motorcycle helmet, etc., increase "freedom." (Especially for the
person who person who owns land or the person who avoids an accident.)
Again, this view assumes the political process is limited to the
popular election of a government that expresses the will of the
people. But it is not only government that limits our free choice.
We live in a political world dominated by economic arrangements among
powerful institutions. Eliminating many government powers might give
us certain new freedoms, but would have no effect, or the wrong
effect, on the limits on free choice imposed upon us by institutions.
The deregulation of the phone company may give the consumer "free
choice" between phone companies, but the imperative of competition
means that consumers have no choice but to shoulder the cost of
intensive advertising wars in the short run ("the Right Choice:
AT&T"). This advertising boom, in conjunction with financial
speculation, produces "economic growth," not by creating anything
productive, but by enlarging the percentage of our economy devoted to
waste. In the near-term the consumer will get cheapter phone service,
because capitalism "works," but unlike small-scale capitalism in which
the fittest survive because of the superior quality of goods and
services produced by one's own hard work and initiative, large scale
capitalism largely thrives on the indoctrination of consumers to make
the "right choice," the access to markets (examples: GE's distribution
network, IBM's monopoly in data processing), and the coercion of
workers to work harder while being paid less. Workers have little
"choice" to improve their position if the company that pays them the
most money is least likely to survive. When competition ultimately
runs its course, the consumer's choice may be limited by monopoly.
Companies frequently bring in innovations designed to induce "economic
growth" by making the consumer dependent on various modern
conveniences. Take toothpaste. (I admit, a rather unusual example.)
A dependency on toothpaste in a pump is being created (by subsidy at
first) so that consumers will ultimately pay for the added cost of the
pump, and in order to better regulate (and speed up) their toothpaste
use. When toothpaste in a tube is removed from the market because
most consumers have been indoctrinated (progress!) to buy it in a
pump, what happens to my "free choice" to buy toothpaste in a tube?
The free market, using the technical apparatus of the media, has
infringed on my freedom.
Now I don't suggest we start a movement to guard the right to buy
toothpaste in a tube, but I do suggest that there is a danger to
freedom posed by economic interests manipulating our needs, given the
level of technical organization and coordination of modern society.
As Herbert Marcuse said, "Under the rule of a repressive whole,
liberty can be made into a powerful instrument of domination. The
range of choice open to the individual is not the decisive factor in
determining the degree of human freedom, but what can be chosen and
what is chosen by the individual. The criterion for free choice can
never be an absolute one, but neither is it entirely relative. free
election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves. Free
choice among a wide variety of goods and services does not signify
freedom if these goods and services sustain social controls over a
life of toil and fear -- that is, if they sustain alienation."
For the source of the quote, read "One-dimensional Man," chapter 1
(Beacon Press, 1964). Despite the fact that everything Marcuse writes
is rather obscure, I heartily recommend it, and it is still in print.
-rich
------------------------------
Return-path: < randolph@Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 86 22:21:05 PDT
From: randolph@Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz)
Subject: American Democracy: Conservative ends, radical means
Hello. I am not certain that this group is the place for this
article but I know no place better. Instead of preaching, I'm going
to write about the way our government works. I hope some of you are
interested.
There is, in American democracy, an inherent conservatism.
Congressmen, driven by the desires of their electors, will seldom
propose acts that will change the lives of their electors. Such acts,
however good, will invariably be opposed by a majority of voters. It
is popular to be radical in two ways only: a way that does not
obviously affect the electorate or a way that appears to counter
change in the conditions of the electorate, radicalism with a
conservative end.
Into the class of radical acts which do not obviously affect the
electorate we may place the military policies of the past 40 years.
The main domestic effect of an ever-expanding peacetime military is an
ever expanding military budget, which does not ever provide the kind
of jarring change which would make voters suddenly turn to other
candidates or parties.
Into the class of radical acts which appear to have conservative
ends we may place many of the responses to the Great Depression and
the wage and price controls of the 1970s.
In answer to the Great Depression the United States government
implemented stringent bank regulations and made the government a major
employer; socialist policies of a violently anti-socialist nation.
The first red scare was only a decade past. But people were
accustomed to stable banking and near-universal employment; if these
policies would bring them back they'd live with (oh, say it softly)
socialism.
Wage and price controls are another socialist innovation, applied
during the presidency of Richard Nixon, who was a red-hunter during
the second red scare. Wage and price controls, it was hoped, would
counter the economic effects of rising oil prices. Again, people were
accustomed to stable wages and prices. If radical plans would return
wage and price stability, then bring on the radical plans!
--
Randolph Fritz
sun!randolph
randolph@sun
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 86 01:58:05 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Drug tests
To: hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA
From: James B Hofmann < hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA>
... Will you then allow employers to put cameras in people's
apartments? Is that next?
If the employee agreed to it. Which is unlikely. And if he does,
so what? Similarly an employee could insist on installing a camera in
his employer's apartment as a condition of his continued employment.
Unlikely? Yes. So is your scenario. Why do you assume that
employers have such enormous power over people? Why do you assume
that government doesn't have such power, or that if it does it would
never abuse it?
Suppose your employer told you he suspected you of stealing company
property and storing it at home, and told you that your one chance for
continued employment is to allow him to immediately thoroughly search
your apartment? You might object to working for someone who doesn't
trust you, and quit on the spot. Or you might value the job
sufficiently that you are willing to allow the search to prove to your
employer's satisfaction that you are no thief. It is entirely up to
you.
But under the laws you advocate, it would be ILLEGAL for him to
suggest such a search. He would have no recourse but to fire you.
You might beg him to search your apartment to prove your innocence,
but since such a search would be construed as a condition to continued
employment, he would have to refuse, and fire you.
*I* think that these drug tests are a bad idea. But I admit that I
might be wrong. I don't think it should be up to me to decide what an
employer and employee should do that doesn't affect me. If drug tests
are irrational, then employers who insist on them are at a competitive
disadvantage. If a sufficient number of employees simply refuse to
take any drug tests, then employers who insist on them are at a
competitive disadvantage. They will continue only if they are useful
and most employees don't mind them.
In your view, the employees would "gang up" on the employer.
Obviously, you don't understand corporate culture.
The feeling is mutual. You seem to feel that employers employ
people as a favor to them, and suffer no consequences when employees
chose to leave. You seem to think that employers can impose the most
draconian rules on their employees and the employees will consent, and
that any who leave will be unable to find work elsewhere and will be
quickly replaced with other, more subservient, employees. Obviously,
you don't understand corporate culture, or even the rudiments of
economics.
Requiring drug testing before getting a job would lead to
a brain drain in this country as people head towards free-er
regions.
What regions are those? Employers within this country who DON'T
require such tests, perhaps? Seems to me that undermines your whole
argument.
Or are you assuming that EVERY employer would require such tests?
That is only possible if the government required them to require them.
I think I have made it clear that I totally oppose anything like that.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Date: Sat 6 Sep 86 18:23:25-EDT
From: ~joe testa~ < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Subject: Wealth and discriminatory hiring
To: kfl@mx.lcs.mit.edu%mc.lcs.mit.edu
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
>
> Well, a person with enough money could bribe everybody not to
> hire me, ...
>
> Why would anyone wish to do this? And how much would it cost? If
> you apply at 100 companies, and if your worth to them is about twice
> your salary (i.e. you and the company would benefit equally by your
> working there) he would have to pay these companies more than 100
> times your salary. Not just once, but every year. And if you apply
> at a 101st place, he must now pay your salary again, to the 101st
> company. Unless the 101st company didn't get the word, or simply
> refused to go along with such bribes. In which case they would hire
> you and the rich man would be out millions of dollars with no gain at
> all.
> Each time you apply at a company, you are essentially fining him
> the value of your salary. Who is hurting whom?
Aaah, but you're assuming that the person being targeted is the *only*
person capable of doing the job. Why would someone have to pay the
TOTAL amount of your salary as a bribe to someone else to not hire
you? Let's say that there are TWO candidates for a job, approximately
equally qualified. It might be adequate inducement for me to go up to
the hirer and say "i'll give you ten bucks not to hire that one guy".
Or a dinner... or some other bribe. Most likely, it would be
something of personal benefit to the person doing the hiring, rather
than something which would help the company. Or the promise of a
future favor, which would have NO monetary value -- the rich man
wouldn't have to be out millions of dollars.
-joe testa-
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 86 01:22:05 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Guns
To: MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
From: Charles < MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
They should not, and are not, allowed to use those dangerous
things to harm others.
... did I lose something, or are you advocating guns that aren't
dangerous? What's the point of having a non-harmful gun?
I think you lost something. All I am saying is that people should
be allowed to have guns but not to initiate force with them (or
without them).
... I'd be interested in seeing your explaination of the success
of India's non-cooperation campaign against the British, which
used economic non-profitability to force the English out.
Well, the noviolence movement generated a lot of publicity which
caused many British citizens to symathize. If there had not been a
(relatively) free press, or if the government of Britain had been more
repressive and had simply shot Gandhi on day one, or if the government
of Britain was not responsive to the will of the majority of citizens,
this would not have happened. Look what happened to the non-violently
resisting Jews in Nazi Germany. If India had been a German colony,
Gandhi and Nehru would have simply disappeared, along with any other
dissenters. Just as happens today in all communist countries,
including the many colonies of the USSR (Estonia, Lituania, Latvia,
etc). I don't think India ever became unprofitable.
How many guns are necessary amongst the American people to keep
the government in line?
Once again, your question begs the question we are debating. Your
question contains the implicit assumption that people should only be
allowed to have guns if someone can find some justification for the
guns. This is true of course, but the someone should be the owner of
the gun, rather than the government or the majority or "society". If
you accept that it is the potential owner of a gun who decides if it
is needed, your question is irrelevant, since it is up to each
individual to decide, as well as to decide which is the appropriate
question, depending on the reason(s) for which he is considering
getting a gun.
...Keith
[ I don't see what the value of a gun I can't use. 'Initiation of
force' is a matter of opinion. A guy jumps into a karate-like stance,
and I fear he's going to attack me, do I have the 'right' to shoot
him? He could be just break-dancing... What if a dangerous-looking
fellow (and in my opinion he's getting ready to shoot me with a
concealed gun) starts walking toward me on a dark street. Do I get to
shoot him now, or do I have to let him have the first shot? We're
back to the question of will people be able to deal properly with all
these guns.
I will point out that the Jews of Warsaw did arm themselves, and
the German response was to to bring in an SS Panzer division and level
the ghetto. Arming the people just moves the level of government
counter-violence up one level.
Concerning the number of gun-owners, I argue that we have exactly
what you want now. People who want to buy guns can do so. So what if
they're registered. They've still got them, which is what you want.
So what if you live in a anti-gun place like New York City and don't
feel safe - and can't buy a gun? Move! Vote with your feet, right?
Wait, isn't that your line? - CWM]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Tuesday, 16 Sep 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 87
Today's Topics:
South Africa &
Economics and Government &
Employment (2 msgs) &
Pacifism &
Everything in Moderation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 86 08:43:25 pdt
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Subject: South Africa
This is a possibly vain attempt to move the discussion on Poli-Sci
to something other than libertarianism. In yesterday's (Sunday Sept.
7) Opinion section of the LA Times, Henry Kissinger had an interesting
and, to me, sensible article about the current troubles in South
Africa. I will paraphrase his discussion and, I hope, generate some
feedback.
The Afrikaners are descendants of Dutch Calvinists who left Europe
some 300 years ago. The later liberalizing trends of the
Enlightenment have totally passed them by; they have no democratic
tradition. When the British took control of the Cape during the
Napoleonic Wars, the entire Boer population packed up and moved 1,000
miles inland rather than live under British rule. When gold was
discovered in the interior and the British attempted to move in, they
were fought to a standstill by the Boers, at the height of the British
Empire's power.
Current South Africa evolved from completely different roots than
the Western democracies. In Europe, as Kissinger puts it, "the nation
preceded the state"--parliamentary democracies were established in
places which were already linguistically and culturally homogenous.
It was, and is, possible to lose an election there and still remain in
the government, secure in the knowledge that you will win some other
time. In South Africa and the Third World, the state preceded the
nation, and the governments there are attempting to enforce political
boundaries which do not obey the underlying divisions of culture,
race, and tribe. Thus, there is no concept of the loyal opposition,
and disagreement with the government is synonymous with treason.
In 1948, the Boers took control of the South African government
in an election in which only whites could participate. They proceeded
to set up the institutionalized separation of the races called
apartheid, banning nearly all inter-racial contacts and setting up
areas of the country in which each tribe was to be isolated. This was
clearly a dreadful mistake, resulting in a system which the Western
world correctly considers to be morally abhorrent and impractical to
maintain in place.
What should we do? It is clear that, given the Afrikaners'
history, heavy-handed external pressure such as strict sanctions will
only encourage the radical whites to crack down further. Moderates of
all races see the current situation as untenable, but they will not
talk to each other about anything substantive unless they can be
presented with a possible alternative to the current situation.
Western policy now is focused on producing change, but without
offering a constructive alternative. The bloodbath which everyone
fears is inevitable under such circumstances.
Kissinger's answer to South Africa's problem is something
patterned on the American system. Unlike Europe, our federal
government grew out of the voluntary union of previously sovereign
states. Thus, we wrote a Constitution which divided the Legislature
into two houses, one of which was elected by popular vote and the
other of which represented the states equally. We put in place an
Executive whose election represented yet another weighting of the
relative power of individuals and states, and an independent Judiciary
with yet a fourth function. South Africa is divided into about 20
major groups, including Indians, Chinese, Afrikaner whites, British
Whites, and the various black tribes. A carefully crafted federal
system might offer an alternative on which moderates of all groups
could agree. Kissinger suggests a Western-sponsored conference among
moderates of all races and tribes in South Africa, with the express
goal of fashioning a federal government for South Africa. This must
be coupled with clear statements from the entire West that once such a
compromise is formed, we will brook no delays in implementing it, and
that strong pressure will be brought to bear to force the current
government to acquiesce in the change.
Comments?
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 86 03:01:53 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Book review
To: ametek!walton@CSVAX.CALTECH.EDU
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
... much of this is a quote from Lester Thurow's review of a book
called "The Positive Sum Strategy," a book which advocates
restoring American productivity growth primarily by "getting the
government out of the way of business."
If excessive government spending is the problem, how do the
authors explain the fact that the OECD has just announced that the
Japanese government now spends a larger fraction of Japan's G.N.P.
than American governments (local, state, and Federal) does of the
U.S. G.N.P.?
What's to explain? The reviewer is clearly confusing productivity
GROWTH with productivity itself. The US is still far more productive
than Japan.
... If overall government spending is the problem, why is
productivity worst in the country--the U.S.--that now has the
smallest government sector among all major industrialized
countries?
Productivity is HIGHEST here. It is, however, growing only slowly,
primarily because of the enormous national debt.
Jorgenson shows that the effective American corporate tax rates
were far higher in the 1950's and 1960's, when productivity was
growing at a rate in excess of 3 percent, than they are now, when
productivity is growing at less than 1 percent per year.
1) The growth rates make it clear that productivity is much higher now
than in the 1950s and 1960s.
2) INDIVIDUAL tax rates have gone way UP since then.
3) Many individuals and corporations choose to invest in government
bonds rather than in stocks and corporate bonds, thanks to the
guaranteed high rate of return and tax exemption. Government
borrowing is driving out private borrowing, to the great detriment
of capital accumulation. Capital is necessary for productivity.
To take another example, Thurow shows that during the 6 years from
1979 to 1985, blue-collar worker productivity ... had an average
productivity INCREASE of 3 percent per year.
Not because they were working harder or longer hours, but because of
increased capitalization.
Overall business productivity fell largely because of the addition
of white collar middle managers, who are totally non-productive.
They are? Then why do businesses hire them?
However, I think he makes his central point eloquently: government
intervention in the market is not, in and of itself, bad, and it
is certainly not evil.
Even if he were to prove that government interference was a net
benefit, which he certainly has not, it would still be BAD simply
because it is immoral to steal.
It should be judged on the practical criterion of whether it
works.
If a burglar were to feed his children with money he stole from your
house, money which you otherwise would have spent on something "less
constructive" such as going to the movies, does that make the burglary
ok? Is it too to be judged on the practical criterion of whether it
"works"? If so, is ANY accumulation of wealth or ANY spending of it
on non-essentials morally justifiable as long as there are hungry
people in the world?
Not that I am unwilling to debate the point on purely practical
grounds. The facts are all on my side there too.
Anyone who wants to flame on this should go get the September
'86 issue of Scientific American and read Thurow's article for
yourself.
I have done so. I have been reading Scientific American for over
15 years. Their science and math articles are excellent, but their
political bias is well known.
I have read not only the review, but the book itself. If it makes
you happy, I strongly disagree with the book, but for very different
reasons than Thurow.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 86 05:26:50 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Equal employment?
[ Umm, how do equal employment laws (known to some as 'employment
quotas') favor those already employed?
You are right, they don't. But they do favor some groups (blacks,
hispanics) at the expense of others (non-protected minorities) and the
general population. As well as creating an additional paperwork
burden for employers. And violating people's right of free
association.
In practice, such a law is brutally unfair. Employers can be found
guilty of discrimination if a protected minority group is under-
represented or over-represented to within a five percent confidence
level. This means that if several employers were totally
"colorblind", and that members of all races were equally qualified,
and if none of the individuals had any preference to associate mainly
with people of the same race, that 5% of the employers will be found
guilty of discrimination! The idea of a statistical proof to send a
person to jail is not wholly new. In the dark ages, judges sometimes
flipped coins or rolled dice to decide on the guilt of the defendant.
This is the same principle.
The idea that one can be found guilty of discriminating against a
RACE, rather than against MEMBERS of that race, is somewhat scary to
me. It implies that GROUPS have rights in and of themselves. If a
person can be sent to prison for discrimination even if not a single
person can be found who claims he was discriminated against, the
floodgates are wide open for even more radical interpretations of the
constitution.
Its beginning to sound as if your libertarian government would
still be rather highly centralized, with various bodies keeping an
eye on each other.
I don't think it matters whether it is centralized or not. What
matters is what powers it has. I would certainly keep the three parts
of the federal goverments. Checks and balances are very important.
Can you please describe the actual structure of your proposed
governmental institutions?
There are hundreds of possibilities. Dissolve the state and local
governments and just have a federal government. Or dissolve the
federal government and have only state governments. It doesn't
matter. What matters is what powers the government has. The powers
it would have would be:
1) Catching, convicting, and punishing crooks.
2) Defense.
3) Making new laws and removing old ones.
Part 3 would be VERY small.
...Keith
[ Well, them laws was created to try and correct a perceived imbalance
in the employment of minorities. By your rule - if the electorate
allows it to stand, they want it - the American people wants these
laws. I think your analogy to the middle ages is rather far fetched.
Further, the idea that races (or if you prefer, individuals of a given
race) are discriminated against is a fact. If I deny every individual
of a given skin color a job because that skin color, I discriminate.
I can cloth it in whatever color paper I like, but that's
discrimination against that race.n
I don't see how you are going to stop your libertarian government
from becoming very like the current one. The powers you grant are
very similar to the original ones granted the US Federal government
(surpise! I noticed that). What's the diff? I thought defence was to
be privatized - if its going to be voluntarily funded, why give it to
the government? - and there wouldn't be any new laws, I thought.
Give the government the right to make new laws, and we're right back
where we started. Remember, we're making this government to last, not
to tweak every 10 minutes. - CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 86 14:56:26 PDT
From: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer)
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #81
> You misunderstand the constitution and the law. To be PRESUMED
> innocent until proven guilty is a right due to all criminal suspects.
> It has nothing to do with the behavior of private citizens and
> corporations. For instance if a bank suspects a teller of
> embezzling, they do not have to prove it in court and send him to
> jail in order tofire him for it.
Wrongo, Keith. Under current law in most states employers are
subject to a civil suit if they dismiss an employee without cause, and
may be forced to rehire the employee and pay damages if cause cannot
be shown. Further, mere suspicion of theft without admissible,
documented evidence is not generally held to be cause -- though I do
believe that the burden of proof on an employer is not as great as
that of the prosecution in a criminal trial.
As an aside, this is an interesting contrast to the practice
in Canada in the late '70's, when the Canadian federal government
fired a tax auditor because he belonged to an anti-metrification
group, and the dismissal was sustained in federal court. Since then
Canada has incorporated a watered-down version of the US Bill of
Rights in its Constitution, so it's not clear that they could dismiss
the guy today. On the other hand, they can still toss you in the
slammer there for claiming that the Holocaust didn't happen, so I
wouldn't rely on the Canadian Charter of Rights for too much.
-- Rick
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 86 02:41:13 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Pacifism
To: Hibbert.pa@XEROX.COM
From: Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM
I disagree. All the non-pacificist could do would be to kill
pacifists.
Isn't that enough?
The point that pacifism makes is that if each of us refuses to use
violence, even on threat of violence to ourselves, then none of us
can be a tool for enslaving others.
What about the threat of violence to others? What if they drag you
off to a slave labor camp and say to you that if you don't start
working that your wife and kids (standing next to you) will be shot?
I think you underestimate the power of terror. The only reasonable
response to the threat of violence is the threat of retaliation. The
only reasonable response to actual violence is actual retaliation,
perhaps after a few warnings.
This leads to a question I have for people might be worried about
a soviet attack on the US: What would they do once they had
conquered the government? If we all refused to go along with the
government, it would be powerless.
If they have all the guns, and all the sources of wealth, it is a
moot point whether the people would be starved or shot into
submission. Probably starved, it's cheaper.
I am very dubious about Poland. I don't know what "freedom together
with jail" could mean. Have you ever been in jail? It is horrible
even in this country. It is easy to sit back in our easy chairs and
glibly talk about how one can simply choose to disregard mere material
discomforts like imprisonment, starvation, torture, and death. If
someone can be both happy and sane under such circumstances, more
power to him. But I am very skeptical. And I am prepared to defend
myself rather than surrender to such tyrants. I have heard of no
freedom in Poland or in any communist country.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 86 15:10:48 PDT
From: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer)
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #80
> When JOSH was the moderator of POLI-SCI there were complaints of him
> dominating the discussion by insisting on having the last word in
> almost every debate that he was involved in. What ended up happening
> was that many people didn't feel that it was a discussion anymore and
> stopped sending in their contributions.
Drivel. JOSH postpended replies to some contributions, including
mine. He did so because he felt that it would be more readable than
appending a separate contribution from himself. I think most readers
would agree. If any writer requested that any contribution be run
without JOSH's afterword, JOSH invariably respected the request; if
memory serves, JOSH publically announced this policy, and then further
said that if any writer wished all of his contributions run without
afterword, he would do so. This strikes me as an eminently fair and
reasonable position. I sincerely doubt that anyone can make a valid
claim that JOSH took unfair advantage of his moderator's position.
-- Rick
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Tuesday, 16 Sep 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 88
Today's Topics:
Economics and Government &
Socialized Medicine &
Drugs tests (2 msgs) &
Crime and Punishment (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 86 09:08:59 pdt
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
To: cit-vax!MX.LCS.MIT.EDU!KFL
Subject: Book review--actually government spending
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 86 03:01:53 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < cit-vax!MC.LCS.MIT.EDU!KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
If excessive government spending is the problem, how do the
authors explain the fact that the OECD has just announced that
the Japanese government now spends a larger fraction of Japan's
G.N.P. than American governments (local, state, and Federal)
does of the U.S. G.N.P.?
What's to explain? The reviewer is clearly confusing
productivity GROWTH with productivity itself. The US is still far
more productive than Japan.
It will not be in less than 10 years if current trends continue.
Jorgenson shows that the effective American corporate tax rates
were far higher in the 1950's and 1960's, when productivity was
growing at a rate in excess of 3 percent, than they are now,
when productivity is growing at less than 1 percent per year.
1) The growth rates make it clear that productivity is much higher
now than in the 1950s and 1960s.
2) INDIVIDUAL tax rates have gone way UP since then.
Productivity is much higher in Europe and Japan than it was in those
countries 20 or 30 years ago as well. It grew despite tax rates which
have always been far higher than those in the US.
3) Many individuals and corporations choose to invest in government
bonds rather than in stocks and corporate bonds, thanks to the
guaranteed high rate of return and tax exemption. Government
borrowing is driving out private borrowing, to the great
detriment of capital accumulation. Capital is necessary for
productivity.
Agreed. Beyond "adopt a libertarian system," however, I have heard no
good suggestions from you on how to reduce the national debt. See
below.
To take another example, Thurow shows that during the 6 years
from 1979 to 1985, blue-collar worker productivity ... had an
average productivity INCREASE of 3 percent per year.
Not because they were working harder or longer hours, but because
of increased capitalization.
Keith, the attitude implicit in this statement is, "Owners of
companies take all of the risks by capitalizing business, therefore
they should receive all of the benefits if their business succeeds."
Doesn't a worker also take a risk when he takes a job with a company
which is not guaranteed success? And shouldn't he receive some of the
share of the rewards if it IS successful?
Overall business productivity fell largely because of the
addition of white collar middle managers, who are totally
non-productive.
They are? Then why do businesses hire them?
Good question. Probably because they aren't unionized :-).
However, I think he makes his central point eloquently:
government intervention in the market is not, in and of itself,
bad, and it is certainly not evil.
Even if he were to prove that government interference was a net
benefit, which he certainly has not, it would still be BAD simply
because it is immoral to steal.
Oh, dear. As I have said before, taxation to support the government
of a country in which you freely choose to live cannot possibly be
equated with theft, any more than the fact that I have yet to vote for
a winning President is equivalent to disenfranchising me. Your
burglary analogy is specious.
Not that I am unwilling to debate the point on purely practical
grounds. The facts are all on my side there too.
Oh? Then please pray explain why we are about to be passed in
productivity by Japan, a country which (1) had no functioning economy
in 1945, while ours was quite healthy (2) has a government sector
which is, and has been for some time, a larger fraction of their
economy than ours (3) has no natural resources to speak of, and (4)
has Government regulations on business and intervention in the market
on a level which mainstream American thought would find intolerable.
The national debt: Right now, the Federal budget, in very round
numbers, is roughly: $300 billion for DoD, $350 billion for Social
Security, $150 billion for interest on the pre-existing national debt,
and $150 billion for everything else. The deficit is nearly $250
billion. Now, Social Security does not actually contribute to the debt
level, since the basic retirement fund is balanced within itself. (I
agree that Social Security should be done away with, but that's not
the issue.) In other words, the federal budget would not be balanced
even if EVERYTHING the government does except defense and paying back
the current indebtedness was eliminated. Libertarians seem to believe
that defense would be much cheaper under their system, but I have seen
no plan for adequate defense from the Soviet armed forces which would
cost significantly less than what we are spending now. "Withdraw all
American forces from overseas" is in the official Libertarian party
platform, and is foolhardy in the extreme.
Do you have a plan for payback of the current Government debt in
the event that we do adopt a Libertarian system?
Steve
------------------------------
Return-path: < SMITH%SLACVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
Date: 8 September 86 17:43-PST
From: SMITH%SLACVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #78
Reply to seamus on socialized medicine.
Seamus tell us, in reply to Keith about socialized medicine in
England:
"Wrong. For evidence I again use the British example. Private doctors
are free to practice medicine in England and they make a good living
at it."
According to P.L. Greaves in "Understanding the Dollar Crisis"
British socialized medicine was originally financed by very very large
gifts to England during and after WWII---gifts from the US government
(i.e. the American taxpayer). With $125 Billion dollars per year being
spent (dumped) by the US in Europe by its Nato commitment alone, it is
not surprising that Europe can play all it wants with socialized this
and socialized that. Let them do it by themselves so that we can see
if they even stand up without us holding their hands!
I know an english medical student who is going to get his
government (i.e., their fellow citizens and us) to pay for his medical
education in england and then come to where the action is---the US (he
is not alone). Go to england next time you need surgery and take a
number--then wait for a third world doctor do the surgery. Do they
award ridiculously large malpractice lawsuits in england or germany?
That has exascerbated the cost of medicine here; it's just more of the
"lucky lotto" attitude that has replaced the work ethic in this
country.
John R. Smith
------------------------------
Return-path: < segall@caip.rutgers.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 86 19:00:55 edt
From: segall@caip.rutgers.edu (Ed Segall)
Subject: Re: Drugs
...from a recent posting:
Enjoyment and addiction don't have much to do with each
other.Anyway, I have been told by people who have quit both
tobacco and heroin that quitting heroin was much easier. The
extreme addiction of heroin is largely a myth. Most users go
several months each year without using any, and continue this
pattern for years. Most users who are forced to go through
withdrawal (for instance who spend time in a prison or a
hospital) resume using heroin as soon as possible even though
they are not physically addicted anymore.
Be serious. According to this, physical addiction to heroin is not
that hard to quit. But users go right back on it. So why talk about an
abstract technical use of the word addiction? Obviously, it is hard
for a habitual user to stay off. That's what counts. Stick to the
point, please.
Thanks,
Ed
PS Hi there. I've been watching you....
------------------------------
Return-path: < hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 86 14:31:04 EDT
From: Hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA
To: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mit-mc.ARPA>
Cc: hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA
Subject: Re: Drug tests
Keith Lynch writes:
> Suppose your employer told you he suspected you of stealing company
> property and storing it at home, and told you that your one chance
> for continued employment is to allow him to immediately thoroughly
> search your apartment? You might object to working for someone who
> doesn't trust you, and quit on the spot. Or you might value the job
> sufficiently that you are willing to allow the search to prove to
> your employer's satisfaction that you are no thief. It is entirely
> up to you.
If the employer REALLY suspects me, he should bring his evidence to
the Police and have them obtain a search warrent. You mean you
advocate people losing their job by waivering their constitutional
rights? Ever hear of "search warrents"? An Employer can't tell you
that you one chance of continued employment is to allow him to search
your apartment! That's against the law and would be EASIBLY
contestable in court. Alot of people, though, might not have the
resources to fight such an infringement.
> But under the laws you advocate, it would be ILLEGAL for him to
> suggest such a search. He would have no recourse but to fire you.
> You might beg him to search your apartment to prove your innocence,
> but since such a search would be construed as a condition to
> continued employment, he would have to refuse, and fire you.
First of all: I think you led me into saying I advocate some laws.
Come to think of it, the laws already exist - I'll just advocate
enforcement.
As for your point: It IS ILLEGAL!!! What kind of cloud are you ON?
Sure, you can let him search your dwelling if you want - but if you
say "no" and he fires you, there is legal recourse. If, however, he
has enough evidence to bring it to the police and get THEM to obtain a
search warrant, then he should do so.
If any "laws" will need to be made - it will be "laws" to support your
"hands off" business/ let them trod on people all they want views.
Now that we've agreed on this. (I assume you do have some sort of
labor law reference handy) - we have only to say that my bodily fluids
are JUST as (even more so?) private as my dwelling. Perhaps, a search
warrant should be issued before any drug testing.
The drug tests are a unconstitutional invasion of privacy. They also
presume people to be guilty until proven innocent. The potential for
abuse is extremely high. The number of false positive tests that
could result are high. The humiliation of peeing in front of your
boss is tremendous. What's wrong with pre-job drug testing being
illegal? I mean, I don't even see any new legislation that needs to
be made! Just enforce existing laws and principles.
> You seem to feel that employers employ people
> as a favor to them, and suffer no consequences when employees chose
> to leave. You seem to think that employers can impose the most
> draconian rules on their employees and the employees will consent,
> and that any who leave will be unable to find work elsewhere and
> will be quickly replaced with other, more subservient, employees.
> Obviously, you don't understand corporate culture, or even the
> rudiments of economics.
This type of view is all well and good when you are a computer
professional much in demand but what about the average blue-collar
worker? Leaving a steady job for alot of them means relocation and
upheaval of a life which they can barely afford right now. Don't
Libertarians know about the common man or are they so busy catering to
yuppies?
> Or are you assuming that EVERY employer would require such tests?
> That is only possible if the government required them to require
> them. I think I have made it clear that I totally oppose anything
> like that.
Yes, I think that this will become inevitable. And allowing drug
tests at all prior to employment except in a safety or
secret-sensitive job will pave the way for whole-scale testing. You
think have Renquist as head of the Supreme Court will stop this from
occuring?
...Keith
Jim
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 86 04:10:06 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Prison
To: Hank.Walker@UNH.CS.CMU.EDU
From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
Why let people OUT of prison after their first major felony
sentencing? Prison overcrowding? Use bunkbeds. Still
overcrowded? Use bunkbunkbeds.
And who pays for all this? And what about those people who are
innocent and are wrongly convicted? And what about those who made a
mistake but are redeemable? I don't think you realize just how
horrible prison is, or how easy it is for an innocent person to get
convicted. I believe in giving almost everyone a second chance.
Of course if you define major felony as being major enough, i.e.
murder or treason, I agree with you. As you are no doubt aware, I
think a lot of things which are "major" felonies today should be
perfectly legal.
They are already using bunkbeds. Ever spent two years in a room
the size of a one bedroom apartment with 80 other people? And no
shower?
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 86 04:04:29 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Ostracism
[ I'd say that anyone in prison (for whatever reason) knows the
dangers of attempting to escape. ...
So? People in the Soviet Union know the dangers of dissent. That
doesn't make dissent wrong.
My argument was that imprisonment is a harsh punishment and should
be reserved for severe crimes. You seem to think I was arguing that
people are not aware of the consequences of breaking laws?
What would be the substance of this ostracization you write of?
- CWM]
People can choose to refuse to talk to people whose behavior they
don't like. They can boycott their places of business. They can
refuse to work for such people. They can refuse to hire such people.
They can refuse to sell goods and services to such people. They can
try to talk other people into doing the same. This is more
constructive than trying to get a law passed against every little
thing. And it allows each person to "vote with their feet" about the
appropriateness of someone's behavior.
...Keith
[ So you think people in American prisons for criminal acts are like
Soviet dissidents? Charles Manson will be proud, so will comrade
Gorbachov.
Your 'voting with your feet' idea requires that everyone know about
this evil deed that the person is being punished for. How do you
propose this be done? Branding? Also, this punishment seems rather a
non-punishment for those with enough money to simply buy friends. (If
you don't think this will happen, think again.) - CWM]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Thursday, 18 Sep 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 89
Today's Topics:
Space Factories &
Libertarian Viewpoints (2 msgs) &
WWII World Politics &
Duelism
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 86 04:23:12 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Who owns the moon?
To: decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
Cc: Space@S1-B.ARPA
From: decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Random)
> This brings up an excellent point. Ownership ultimately derives
> from force; the physical ability to protect something.
WHo said anything about force!!!!!!!!! If you are producing zero-g
alloys, and are selling them to all buyers on earth, no one will
WANT to stop you.
You are assuming that everyone is as reasonable as you are. They
aren't. The communists and the "non-aligned" nations have this
peculiar idea that natural resources on Earth and in space are "the
common heritage of mankind". They will regard any attempt at
developing and selling those resources by the US or by any private
company as being theft, unless they are given shares of the profits
in proportion to their population. The USSR is quite likely to wait
until the factories are set up and running smoothly, and then try to
"liberate" the factories for their own use.
Space factories aren't practical until it is possible to defend
them.
...Keith
[ I doubt very seriously that the Soviets would make any overt moves
against space factories (especially in the likely event that they are
manned). More their style is the UN resolution, and make political
bucks on earth. Besides, I expect they'll have some up there soon
enough. They've got a lot of space-hours logged... Anyone care to
comment on the likelyhood of assault on a space-factory succeeding -
rather than destroying it? - CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon 8 Sep 86 22:45:35-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Objectivist objectivity?
To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Only those who reject libertarianism and objectivism can be
objective? Who is your objective man? Someone with no opinions?
A blank mind?
You are way off track on this one. You have, perhaps by design, left
out the context in which the question of objectivity was raised. I
said: "I sincerely doubt your objectivity in this case, given your
libertarian leaning." By "this case" I was referring to your
judgement that the verbose replies of a moderator make sense. It is
important to note that you and that moderator are rather vocal
advocates of libertarianism. What may be sense to you may actually be
nonsense to others. To accept your judgement in this case (I repeat,
in this case) as being objective would be the same as that of
accepting the judgement of a zealous commie as being objective when
he/she is expounding the sensibilities of communism. Given this then,
to answer your questions would be to fall into your rather common
lapses of digression.
Only until people read and delete them. I have several YEARS of
messages stored on my PC. Over 30 megabytes, which is more than
the total volume of POLI-SCI since day one.
Not every body deletes them. If one person in every site keeps a copy
you still have the same problem. Furthermore many sites have BBOARD
directories for temporarily holding messages for the various mailing
lists. On one MIT site, that directory has an allocation of 10 Mbytes
with 5 Mbytes being actually used. Many legitimate users on that site
have directory space of less than 2 Mbytes. So the mailing lists are
hogging the space of the equivalent of 5 users. Frequent reaping
(usually weekly or monthly) of the directory does not change the
allocation. This must be reflected in the price of the service. So
must the cost of archiving. One would also want the rate to reflect
market conditions e.g. the presence of alternative mailing services
like overnight express, telegrams, telex, etc.
I think you are losing track of what we are debating. My contention
is that people on this list including me have an incentive to keep
messages short.
No, I have not but you have. The incentive would be more realistic if
there is a charge for using the service. Furthermore the threshold
used in determining when the message is long enough varies from
individual to individual. In the case of a "free" service that
threshold does not reflect the cost of using the service at all.
Once again, you criticize length rather than content.
No, I am saying that there is very little content in some of them
despite their verbosity.
Examples please?
See the first (and last) paragraph for starters. Others:
1) Duels. You assumed that it is not a problem. You said nothing
about why it can't be a problem in *ANY* libertarian society.
2) Nations in transitions (Haiti, the Philippines, South Africa,
Grenada). You gave reasons for why they can't become libertarian.
You did not mention what the prerequisites are for a libertarian
society. Neither did you discuss whether the government has a role in
transforming a pre-libertarian society to a libertarian society. It
it does, how? If not, how?
3) Society of nations. You wimped out. I was expecting you to use
nations for discussing issues like the polluting neighbor, coercion
between supposedly friendly nations, settling of issues without
explicit laws and regulations, agreements for mutual benefit (e.g.
trade partnerships), etc.
4) Presidential Plan. Again you wimped out. You did not say how the
government is made accountable in a libertarian society, i.e. how and
why it works.
I would hate to think I am the only, or the best, voice for freedom.
I sense a tinge of evangelical arrogance here. Libertarians don't own
the voice for freedom.
If he were to use these arguments he would not be politically
neutral.
No he/she could be trying to understand the good and bad points of the
political doctrine being espoused by a sensible libertarian. Or
he/she could be trying to have a bona fide discussion on the doctrine
and is genuinely interested in listening to all rational points of
view before making up his/her own mind.
Why do you assume neutrality is a virtue?
Digression.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Date: Tue 9 Sep 86 01:46:14-PDT
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: religious beliefs
I had the impression from the couple of passing references to religion
that Keith has made that he doesn't believe, but I haven't heard him
say anything that suggests that no one else believes, so this is not
directed at him. There was another person who dismissed an argument
which referred to Jewish prayers on grounds that no one believes that
mumbo jumbo any more than anyone takes seriously the words in the
communion service about the bread and wine being the body and blood of
Christ. In fact millions of people do believe that the bread and wine
are literally the body and blood of Christ, and millions more find it
a meaningful symbol. You may be able to get away with treating
Mennonites and Amish as a "crank minority" with no real influence in
this country (though, since they are my fellow peace churches, I would
prefer to consider them an enlightened minority :-)), but if you
assume that everyone else is secularly minded and ignore the influence
of religion on people's politics, you may be in for a surprise.
Incidentally, I don't think that it is anti-Semitic to oppose
something for which Jews pray every day. I oppose things for which
many people are praying, and other people oppose things for which
Quakers pray. (I do however support the existence of Israel.)
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic
------------------------------
Return-path: < SMITH%SLACVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
Date: 9 September 86 10:17-PST
From: SMITH%SLACVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #63
In commenting on the article "Who pays?" by Keith in poli-sci V6 #63
CWM says:
**********************
"How would an army-less libertarian France, lets say, defend itself
from Nazi Germany in 1940? Consider that voluntary contributions are
tied to perceived danger, so that in 1936 (or so) the contributions
would have had to have been very high indeed (when danger was
perceived to be low) to be able to build the factories to build the
tanks, artillery, ships, and so on and hire the men to be trained in
them. Remember, we cannot use hindsight and say "they could have seen
it coming". What everyone saw up until late 1939 was a war all right-
between Germany and Russia."
**********************
This is interesting! The largest army in Europe until the late
1930s was in France! And they knew trouble was coming their way. They
built the Maginot line. You should read "Perpetual War for Perpetual
Peace" edited by H.E. Barnes (Caxton press 1953), especially the
contributions by Charles Tansill and Frederic Sanborn about the role
of US foreign policy during the period before and up to WWII. Do you
know that Roosevelt put the pressure on Chamberlain to approach the
Munich conference (1938) in a pacifist manner and not to threaten
Germany with the superior armies of France and England? There is more
to history than war propaganda and the official party line--or will we
ever learn that? The question that no one seems to ask in analyizing
terrible catastophies like WWII is: "Who Benifits?". I am not
suggesting that the average person (cannon fodder) benifits by the
actions of various governments, the average person (you and me) seldom
does. However, it would be foolish to assume that no one does. In
regards to this point recall Roosevelt's words "In politics nothing
ever happens by chance. If it happens, it was planned that way"
John R. Smith
[ Well, the big beneficiary of WWII was of course the USA (as a world
political unit)- we came out of the war with the most vital economy,
with unmatched political prestige.
I think that Roosevelt saw that the only way he could mold world
order like he wanted was with direct US involvment in the European
war - I suspect his motives for holding back Chamberlain would be to
give him time to maneuver at home to get the US directly involved
before Hitler (or Stalin) ran over everybody. I think its clear he
wanted a war, but the strain of it killed him (and many others, of
course - usually in more direct manners). Its might be interesting to
consider what might have happened to the world if Roosevelt had
survived to finish his 4th term. He never did have a chance to work
with an economy that was healthy and not at war. Would he have tried
to dismantle some of his socializing methods of his earlier years?
- CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 86 04:16:46 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
[ Are soldiers, policemen and firemen then fools for taking money
for doing something that can get them killed?
Not with the certainty of a duel (50-50). And to a good cause.
... On the subject of group duels, I think we'd see streetgangs
doing this on a regular basis...
What if they do? So long as every member gives informed consent.
If integration laws are as unecessary as you say, why do black
leaders fight so hard to keep them on the books and enact more
powerful versions of them? - CWM]
I never said that most black leaders were libertarian. They want to
take the easy way out. Like almost everyone, they think: "If FOO is
obviously wrong (at least to me) it ought to be illegal. I have as
much right as anyone to camgaign and demonstrate for such laws." My
point was not to claim that most blacks support libertarianism, but to
point out that the current non-discriminatory environment is a product
of changed individual attitudes. The laws came AFTER, and never
really had much effect. If the attitudes had NOT changed, the laws
would NOT have been legislated, and would have been as ignored as the
55 mph speed limit if they somehow had been.
...Keith
[ I presume the nearby buildings and people in those buildings will
have given their consent too, eh? Wouldn't this sort of thing favor
the side with the biggest battalions? The smaller streetgangs would
be forced to accept duels (and be anhilliated) or lose the dispute
that brought about the duel. The larger the streetgang, the more
difficult it is to live near them. Is this something we want?
Further, many streetgangs are made up of minors. Are they allowed
by 'informed consent' to join in? During a discussion on drugs, you
implied they would not, since they are not adults. What do we do
about that? If they want to fight, how do we stop them (saying "we
don't stop them now" is not an answer).
Concerning the 'attitude change' of people, I would not agree that
the laws haven't had much effect. It was the force of law that was
the tipping of the balance in some of the more celebrated
desegregation cases. - CWM]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Saturday, 20 Sep 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 90
Today's Topics:
Dueling &
Drug Testing &
Military Aid &
Bombs for Everybody &
TV or not TV &
History
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon 8 Sep 86 22:56:24-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Dueling and other unreasonable behaviors
To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
I was speaking of *our* society.
Does that mean that libertarianism only works for *our* society?
Isn't libertarianism for everybody?
WLIM: Should duels be regulated in such a society?
KFL: No.
WLIM: When is a duel legit in such a society?
KFL: Whenever all parties to such a duel give informed consent.
Hmm, let me see if I can make you think a little more carefully on
this. Suppose McCoy showed in the sheriff's office with a dead
Hatfield and a witness X. X told the sheriff that McCoy and Hatfield
had a dual and Hatfield lost. It the duel legit? Suppose that X is
McCoy Sr. Is it still legit?
By the way you still have not answered my question. What other
cultures should individuals be exposed to in order to understand
libertarianism?
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Date: Tue 9 Sep 86 01:27:04-PDT
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: drug testing
I'm with Keith on this one. I see no reason why it would be harder to
persuade companies not to do drug testing by organizing employees
privately to refuse than by getting the government to pass a law
against it. And the alternatives to leaving the choice up to private
agreements between employers and employees all seem bad to me.
1. Government bans any kind of drug testing by employers. This means
employers can't even use a reliable test, if one should be invented,
for employees using dangerous equipment, to keep those employees from
working drunk or high and risking people's lives. It seems to me that
they should be free to do this.
2. The government could enumerate unreliable tests, which it would
ban (so people couldn't not be hired on such weak evidence). Then
someone could come up with another unreliable test, which employers
would use.
3. The government could enumerate jobs it considers critical enough
to public safety to allow the employers to do drug testing. But the
government knows much less about whose safety is involved than the
people working in the industry, so why should it make the decision?
4. The law says "jobs critical to public safety" without being
specific. Then employers go ahead and make decisions they honestly
believe are legal under this vague definition, and some judge
overrules them.
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic
------------------------------
Return-path: < SMITH%SLACVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
Date: 9 September 86 16:55-PST
From: SMITH%SLACVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #69
Lynn Gazis says in poli-sci V6 #69
> "Allowing individual groups of citizens to
> give military aid to any country or terrorist organization of their
> choice would not be acceptable. (I am still only thinking of things
> it is now legal for our government to do, and I am not thrilled about
> the fact that our government can give any weapons it chooses to any
> government or terrorist group it chooses. So don't throw back at me
> the argument that individuals have the same rights as the
> government.)"
Do you know that there are already private groups in this country that
are sending military aid (meaning here guns or $)
to foreign countries including Nicaragua?
There is Singlaub's group for the contras (who are mostly former
Sandinista's) and I have read about a fund-raiser for the Sandinista's
held by some well known celebrity's in Hollywood. Both sides have
access to private funds from the States.
I think this would actually be difficult to prevent (unless you are
willing to clamp down on everything that happens in this country).
Then there are the "mercs" who hire themselves out.
My main point is that what you have mentioned is not as hypothetical
as implied by the context of your message.
John R. Smith
smith%slacvm.bitnet@wiscvm.arpa
------------------------------
Return-path: < WRITIMM%YALEVMX.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 86 23:27 EST
From: WRITIMM%YALEVMX.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Defense
In a recent article, Keith Lynch writes:
> I suppose to be consistent I should advocate allowing private
> ownership of nuclear bombs. It is true that if I did so, anyone on
> this list could describe possible horrible consequences.
> Is this a good argument against my position? I would say not,
> because:
>
> 1) Someone who plans to use nuclear bombs against people isn't
> going to be too concerned about legalities.
Maybe, but as you say, in response to < mcampos@ATHENA.MIT.EDU> , "many
governments ARE individuals." Every government which possesses (or
wishes to possess) nuclear weapons plans to use them against people.
Yet these same governments have also sought to LIMIT the spread of
nuclear weapons. Not the fact that Colonel Gadhafi of Libya has not
yet renounced the Non-Proliferation Treaty--there is evidently benefit
to be gained from being concerned with legalities.
> 3) In the future it is likely that nuclear bombs will become
> cheaper to build, thanks to a general worldwide increase in
> wealth and in efficiency. Once this happens, it is likely
> that anyone who wants one can get one, whether or not they are
> legal.
Since 1945, the USA has certainly gotten more wealthy. Yet, nuclear
bombs have not cost much less in the intervening time. The only reason
it doesn't take a Manhattan Peroject for every 3 devices anymore is
because of economies of scale. It is still very expensive for a very
efficient country (South Korea, Taiwan) to build even the most
backward device. Legality has little to do with it; the supply of
plutonium and disincentives provided by the superpowers has more to do
with it.
> 4) By the null hypothesis, it is ok for governments to have nuclear
> bombs. Are you really any more comfortable with the idea of
> Libya and Lebanon and Iran having them than you are with the
> idea of IBM and AT&T having them? Personally, I would much
> prefer GM and RCA to have them rather than Russia and China.
....and HOW would RCA's and GM's possession of nuclear weapons in the
place of the USSR or the PRC help create a stable polictal system?
Think of how many times the USA thought about using nuclear wepaons,
only to be discouraged by the thought of Soviet retaliation. I don't
want Libya or Iran to have nuclear bombs (or worse yet, missiles), but
they at least have more REASON to possess them than ANY transnational
corporation.
> 5) If the world were to adopt a libertarian system, everyone would
> become much more wealthy.
...sure, and if the world were to become socialist, there would be
absolutely no class differences. But seriously, how is your average
nomadic Sahel inhabitant going to become more wealthy? This sounds
distinctly like self-parody.
> No, I don't see any way out of the current nuclear dilemma, with
> or without adoption of a libertarian system. I don't think it is
> fair that this be held against me unless YOU can come up with some
> way out of the nuclear dilemma. Arms control agreements with the
> Soviet Unionwon't do it, since there are several other countries
> with nuclear weapons, and since there will likely be several more
> soon.
No one else will ever sign an arms control accord? Recall the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, which most of the world has signed, and the
Antarctic Treaty. You're right, then, arms control agreements with the
Soviet Union will never do it. What is needed, for one, is
multilateral arms REDUCTION.
> Do you really think that Qadaffi and
> Khomenei are more trustworthy than ANY INDIVIDUAL in the US?
I can think of several people whom I trust less than Khomenei or
Gadhafi. What makes Americans so damn trustworthy, anyway?
In a separate entry, he writes:
> Any country whose inhabitants won't defend it except when coerced
> is not worthy of being defended.
Strange. If you don't need to defend your country (you are not at
war), a strong case can be made for not having a draft. You seem to be
advocating a mandatory draft, especially for young men (perhaps you
want women also to serve). This sounds like rather a waste of money
(recall Japan's booming economy and the rather small portion of gdp
spent on defense) (also recall official American urging of Japan to
spend more on defense and thereby have less to subsidize the economy
with).
> (pick the wrong time [to re-arm], and you spend big bucks on
> weapons that will be obsolete when you need them).
>
> Wrong. Since the most important purpose of defense is
> deterrence, a weapon that never needs to be used is the most
> successful weapon of all. There is no wrong time to re-arm.
> People won't pick fights with us if they know we can blow them
> away. We are paying for peace, not for war. And if there is a
> war, we are paying for its shortness and painlessness. This can
> only be done by always being prepared for a long and painful war.
There sure IS a wrong time--and a wrong way--to re-arm. We can blow
Libya 10 times to Kingdom Come, but they still pick fights with us,
mostly because we're stupid enough to fight back. We don't plan to
blow them away unless we have to, but we still manage to play their
game. How is a nuclear war, fought with 19,000 strategic and possibly
31,000 tactical nuclear weapons "painless". It might be short, but its
effects would certainly last a long time.
Also, look at how we are "re-arming". We are NOT re-arming to deter,
because we plan nuclear weapons that are far too accurate to be used
in a mere retaliatory capacity (otherwise we would not have replaced
their predecessors). Here is a sample list: MX (100 meter CEP),
Midgetman (ditto), Standard-2 Nuclear, Tomohawk GLCM (20m CEP),
Pershing II IRBM, Trident D-5 SLBM, ASWSOW... Sounds like we are
planning a long, painful war without increasing any deterrent ability.
------------------------------
Return-path: < SMITH%SLACVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
Date: 9 September 86 18:12-PST
From: SMITH%SLACVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
To: POLI-SCI-REQUEST@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #72
CWM says in commentary about Keith's "TV" in poli-sci V6 # 72:
> ...I'm surprised that you are so down on TV shows 'sameness'.
> The producers of most TV shows operate on the principles you hold
> dear: sell what people want. If people don't want what they sell,
> they watch something else. If a show stays on the air, people are
> watching it. If the producers of TV shows don't have much
> imagination, well, that's too bad. As to a 'liberal blandness',
> perhaps it is the people who run the stations that have this bias.
> Jesse Helms, before he became a Senator, was vice-president of
> Capital Broadcasting in North Carolina (Channel 5, Raleigh). He
> gave an editorial every night. If you think that was a 'liberal
> blandness', think again. - CWM]....
I purged TV almost completely out of my life 10 years ago and am over
99% TV clean. My suggestion to everyone: Read Instead. You have more
control over what you read. You can read someone you have strong
disagreements with, but the time is well spent because at least you
are in the presence of an elevated mind. TV is a superb instrament for
disception, after all it's mostly someone elses carefully chosen
pictures.
TV and I parted ways was because I heard one too many "News"
commentators introduce themselves as a "molder of public opinion". Is
that what commentators are taught at broadcasting school? Who put
this type of mentality into the "News" curriculum? Also, there is a
very well known Hollywood producer of TV sitcoms (who reachs perhaps
150 million americans per week) who was interviewed and said quite
bluntly :"I view it as my mission to mold the values of the american
people". I think he was serious and that he is succesful. The most
successful type of brainwashing is when the victim doesn't even
realize that is is happening and say to themselves with pride "I'm
educated, I'm intelligent, You can't fool me".
John R. Smith
smith%slacvm.bitnet@wiscvm.arpa
[ Curiously enough, I think that many book writers have the same
opinion of themselves. Anyone seen or heard by many millions of
people has the opportunity to mold opinion. In the late 1800's and
early 1900's, this power fell to the 'moguls of the press' - the
owners of big newspaper chains. With the advent of radio, it moved to
radio and then to TV. I don't think the answer is to damn the medium
because some people in the medium take themselves a little
over-seriously, or because some people rely on it for all their
opinions.
The difference between us then is I choose to watch TV. I read
too. I also go to the movies. I talk to people. My opinions come
from a blend of all these. In the same way you choose what you read,
I choose what I watch. I feel no need to 'purge' myself of Star Trek,
HBO, The Prisoner, C-Span, CNN, John McLaughlin, or MTV (yes, even
MTV) just because some bozo on TV tells me what he thinks I should
think. Bozos write books too. - CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < SMITH%SLACVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
Date: 10 September 86 15:57-PST
From: SMITH%SLACVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: poli-sci digest message.
CWM replies to Andy Freeman's question (poli-sci V6 #76)
about misunderstanding and war with:
> ... well, let's see. I think that we could look at WWII first.
> The Japanese misunderstood the American people's will to fight: they
> calculated that a quick strike on the Pacific Fleet and other US
> possesions would dishearten the populous that the US would negotiate
> a peace in Japan's favor, and so they went ahead and attacked. It
> can be argued then that this misunderstanding [caused ?] the war.
>
We should also mention the fact that the US and England had put a
complete shipping embargo on Japan since the summer of 1941 and were
trying to force them to fight or run out of oil. Diplomatically,
things had deteriorated with Japan for a number of years. In 1904
Teddy Roosevelt entered the US in it's first attempt at 'Summits' by
having a meeting with Japan and Russia to end the war between them.
We made Russia hand Manchuria over to the Japanese. Later, in Hoover's
administration, Secretary of State Stimpson looked unfavorably on the
Japanese being in Manchuria; that was 1932. Hoover never listened to
Stimpson about this. However, FDR did and made Stimpson Secretary of
War early in his administration and began to side with Stimpson
against the Japanese position. The result was a gradual eroding of
relations with Japan, and with the war starting in Europe, the US
needed some excuse to get involved. FDR couldn't get the Germans to
return fire on our ships in the Atlantic and made a decision, hoping
to get the Japanese to fire the first shot. I think that many people
expected the blow to fall somewhere, like on our Philippine bases;
however I don't think anyone expected the blow to cripple our whole
pacific fleet. For more details read "Perpetual War for Perpetual
Peace", edited by H.E. Barnes (Caxton printers 1953).
J.R. Smith
smith%slacvm.bitnet@wiscvm.arpa
[ I beleive that rather than that the Japanese were holding Manchuria,
Roosevelt was more worried about their attempt to conquer all of
China. This was the stated reason for the embargoes against Japan.
Certainly Roosevelt was looking for a Japanese first strike to give
him an excuse for war. Certainly the US navy expected the Japanese to
strike against the Philippines, their war plan "Rainbow 5" called for
a battleship showdown near there. Thankfully this plan was never
carried out, Japanese naval air superiority would have crushed the US
fleet in an open engagement. - CWM]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Sunday, 21 Sep 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 91
Today's Topics:
The Second Amendment &
Libertarianism in Practice &
Pacifism and Self Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 86 08:31:51 pdt
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Subject: The second amendment
Keith Lynch edited his recent quotation from the Second Amendment to
the US Constitution. That amendment, in full, reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of
a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
shall not be infringed.
Note the capitalization of Militia and State (in the original). The
amendment's reading seems clear to me--it gives the States the right
to have well-regulated Militias. The ability of any individual to own
whatever weapons he or she chooses is clearly outside the scope of the
amendment. I suppose one could argue that the States are free to
define their militia as comprising the entire populace, but such a
militia would not be "well-regulated" unless licenses and bonds for
weapons ownerships were required, similar to those for automobile
ownership.
[ Hm... well, during the days of the writing of the Constitution (and
many years after) possession of guns by private citizens was not
regulated in any way. What this say of the meaning of the Second
Amendment? Have things changed from then to now that change this
'non-decision' by the writers? - CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < CCCRAIG%UMCVMB.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 86 16:20:26 CDT
From: CCCRAIG%UMCVMB.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU (Craig Pepmiller)
Subject: Libertarianism in practice.
I've been following the discussion for awhile and have been wondering
why concrete examples haven't been mentioned. Are there any
practicing libertarian cities, counties, states or countries?
Granted, a full test could not be done on anything less than a
national level, but proof of concept could be shown on any city with
enough diversity. I don't live in a large city but I can easily see
city parallels to the national issues that have been discussed.
Cities have taxes, police (military), justice systems, ordinances
(laws), welfare . . . . Don't get picky, I know some of the parallels
are not true and the burden of state and national constraints hamper
the experiment. But it still could be done. Also there must be
hundreds of small nations that could do the full-blown experiment.
If there are no full examples could anyone list partial examples
(those cities, states and nations that have come the closest) and give
some measure of how close they have come? No fictional examples
please. Historical examples accepted if they parallel situations that
exist today. Examples from other cultures accepted.
Craig Pepmiller
***neither pro nor con, just wondering***
------------------------------
Return-path: < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Date: Sat 13 Sep 86 00:37:05-PDT
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: pacifism and self defense
Before I continue defending pacifism, I would like to define what
pacifism is. Pacifism is not dovishness. I mention this because
someone described liberal Democrats and libertarians as being
generally pacifist. Most of the people who count themselves in those
categories believe violence and war are acceptable in self-defense.
Pacifism means opposition to all war, or opposition to all violence or
force, or nonresistance (passive submission to constituted authority
even when unjust or oppressive). I use it in the sense of opposition
to all violence (any attempt to harm another person). I do not
believe in nonresistance, but in radical nonviolence. Some people who
believe in radical nonviolence don't call themselves pacifists because
of the identification of the term with nonresistance and the
connotation of passivity, but I use it because it is the most familiar
term and because I don't know a one word term to describe a believer
in radical nonviolence.
I am a pacifist because I believe that there is that of God in
everyone, and I have the responsibility to answer to that of God in
everyone. That doesn't mean that people are all reasonable, or that
they don't do evil things, but that they are all reachable. You can
reach people by returning good for evil. You can reach people by
speaking truth to power and telling them what they are really doing.
You can reach people by standing up to them and not submitting to
unjust demands. You can reach people by letting them bear the
consequences of their actions and refusing to rescue them. All of
these may, at particular times, be the most loving response to another
person. Nonviolence doesn't necessarily mean appeasement. You can't
reach people by deciding that they are so unreasonable that it is
hopeless to talk to them. You can't reach people by killing them.
You are not likely to reach people by retaliating and deliberately
harming them. Answering to that of God in everyone also requires
openness and truthfulness (Quakers do not believe in secret societies,
and when their meetings for worship were illegal in England they
insisted on meeting openly, rather than secretly as other groups did
to avoid arrest).
I don't believe that people are reachable in every situation. They
may put themselves in situations where they are very hard to reach, by
drinking for example. They may even be impossible to reach. For
instance, in Keith's example of the terrorist in a truck loaded with
explosives driving toward an embassy compound, there is no way
physically of getting through to that person at that time. In such
cases I believe in using the minimal amount of force necessary to stop
the immediate danger to the victim. If a rapist attacks me, I will
push him away and parry his blows. I might consider using a weapon
like tear gas which would do no worse than temporarily immobilize him
while I get away (I have one Quaker friend who carries tear gas). I
would not shoot him, and I won't carry weapons like guns or knives
which can only work by harming people. I believe I should be willing
to die for sufficient cause, but not to kill for any cause. I had
rather suffer harm than do harm, and I believe that such suffering can
be redemptive. And if I and the attacker both survive the attack, I
should still treat that person as someone who is capable of reason and
reachable, even if that person is a terrorist who tried to drive a
truck full of explosives at me. I believe in situations beyond the
use of reason; I don't belief in people beyond the use of reason. No
matter how far gone we are in sin, there is still One who can lead us
back.
The difference between nonresistance and radical nonviolence is that
nonresistance involves passively submitting to injustice, while
radical nonviolence involves actively but nonviolently organizing to
oppose it. The Amish follow a nonresistant path. Gandhi's movement
in India and Solidarity in Poland are examples of radical nonviolence.
I respect people who believe in nonresistance, but I feel that it is
better to take a more active role in opposing violence and injustice.
I take the views expressed that "one nonpacifist in a world of
pacifists would rule the world", "the meanest guy always rules the
block", and "the only pacifists not in prison or dead are those for
whom others will fight" to be expressing the same basic idea: pacifism
is impotent in the face of violence. I don't believe that. There are
many ways of resisting violence without resorting to violence. They
are often slower and harder than violent methods, but I believe they
are surer and better in the long run. Three hundred years ago when
Quakers started, they were regularly thrown in prison for long periods
of time, had their tongues bored through, and were branded.
Mennonites were drowned and burned. No one took up arms to defend
Quakers or Mennonites. The only people who believed in freedom of
religion were Quakers and Mennonites, who would not fight. But that
idea is now the policy of a number of countries. I also agree with
Chris's response to the argument that one nonpacifist in a world of
pacifists would rule the world, and I am surprised that Charles is so
ready to dismiss pacifism as a response to external invasion and so
ready to cite the example of Gandhi to prove that we don't need guns
to resist governmental injustice. I see a contradiction there.
Keith has advocated self defense. Well, self defense is certainly
preferable to aggression, and I don't put my grandfather who died
fighting against the invasion of Greece in World War II in the same
category with the invaders. But I question his claim that a world in
which everyone was violent only in self defense would only resemble a
world in which everyone was pacifist. This would only be the case if
everyone agreed on what self defense was. In most of the violent
conflicts in the world now, there are people on both sides who believe
that they are acting in self defense or are protecting some other
party from attack. There are several questions about what self
defense is. Is a preemptive strike self defense? If so, when? When
your intelligence agency tells you that a country is actually planning
to attack you? When your neighbor builds a nuclear power plant which
you believe will lead to the development of nuclear weapons? What
about tit for tat retaliation? How do you judge what retaliation is
proportional and what is too much? What is the difference between a
strong defense which shows that we have the will to protect ourselves
and excessive military buildup which shows that we have aggressive
intentions against our neighbors? How many deaths of innocent people
are acceptable in trying to retaliate against the guilty? Another
problem is defense of others from aggression. If I have the right to
defend myself, certainly I have the right to defend other people who
ask for my assistance. But invaders often claim they were invited in
and are only there to protect the citizens of the country they are
invading.
More disturbing to me than the argument that violence is justified in
self defense is the argument sometimes made that two sides are not
morally equivalent and should not be treated as such. For instance,
people have argued that there is a difference between the violence of
the oppressors and the violence of the oppressed (another version is
that since the US is defending freedom and the Soviet Union is
attacking it, we should all support the US and not treat the two sides
as morally equivalent). Therefore the PLO, being a liberation
movement fighting on behalf of the oppressed, should be supported and
not criticized. Therefore certain liberation theologians uncritically
praise Cuba and Nicaragua. In South Africa the ANC fights on behalf
of the oppressed, and the government fights on behalf of apartheid.
Therefore Joan Baez was wrong to organize an ad in a paper there
urging nonviolence in resisting apartheid, and Coretta Scott King is
not on the right side as long as she is willing to talk to Botha.
It is true that the sides in a particular conflict are not necessarily
morally equivalent. One side may be fighting a more defensive war,
while the other side is more of an aggressor. But I have several
problems with the argument about moral equivalence. First, it
identifies one side as being bad guys, rather than criticizing
particular actions. It follows then, since they are unreasonable,
that they should simply be met with violence. I don't accept that,
for reasons I have given above. It is not wrong to talk with Botha.
Second, this argument is sometimes used to say that we should refrain
from criticizing the side which is morally superior, but should direct
our criticism at the side which is morally inferior. I don't buy
that. Good ends don't justify every means that one may use to achieve
them. Third, I am not always so sure of the moral superiority of one
side. Is the United States morally superior to the Soviet Union?
Certainly, if you consider the ways in which the two countries treat
their own citizens. Certainly, if you look at the behavior of the two
countries in Europe. If you look at the behavior of the two countries
in Latin America, our moral superiority is more questionable. The US
and the Soviet Union both often disregard the rights of people in
Third World countries. Maybe someone could demonstrate to me that the
Soviet Union does it more often. But I am not willing to believe that
only because we are better to our own citizens. (I assume I don't
need to explain to people in this news group why I am not willing to
consider a group morally superior because it calls itself a liberation
movement.)
Another question is what a pacifist government would look like. I
don't think it is inconsistent to oppose war and support police
forces, given that war involves extensive killing of innocent
civilians, which police activity doesn't. But since I do oppose all
violence, I am uneasy with a system which relies on placing people in
a very unpleasant place and shooting them if they refuse to go or try
to leave. Mennonites and Amish have traditionally held that a
Christian may not take part in government. Quakers oppose the death
penalty, and some Quakers have argued against prisons (but I haven't
studied their arguments enough to know what alternative to prisons
they propose). I am not sure what a pacifist government would look
like. It is certainly possible to use nonviolent sanctions. In fact,
the Amish and Hutterites control their behavior pretty strictly
through organized ostracism (not that I would care to live there).
But I haven't really thought through what such a system could look
like.
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Thursday, 25 Sep 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 92
Today's Topics:
Drug tests &
Crime and Punishment &
Political Trends &
Technology and Employment &
Libertarian Viewpoints (3 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < campbell%maynard.UUCP@harvisr.HARVARD.EDU>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 86 12:58:55 EDT
From: campbell%maynard.UUCP@harvisr.HARVARD.EDU
Subject: Re: Drug tests
KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU writes:
> Well, as you know I oppose laws against drug use. In fact, as far
> as I know there ARE NO laws against drug use, only against
> possession, buying, selling, and manufacture.
It's pretty hard to use drugs without possessing them.
--
Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc.
ARPA: campbell%maynard.uucp@harvard.ARPA 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA
UUCP: {alliant,wjh12}!maynard!campbell (617) 367-6846
------------------------------
Return-path: < seismo!sun.COM!fluke!tikal!amc!sigma!bill@topaz.rutgers.
Return-path: edu>
From: seismo!sun.COM!fluke!tikal!amc!sigma!bill@topaz.rutgers.edu
From: (William Swan)
Subject: Re: Prison (and Statues)
> Why let people OUT of prison after their first major felony
> sentencing? Prison overcrowding? Use bunkbeds. Still overcrowded?
> Use bunkbunkbeds.
Great. And how about:
#1: Those who never committed the crime in the first place. (What's
that? You don't believe that the innocent get convicted in this
country? Boy, have I got a bridge for you!!)
#2. Those who did, but will never do it again.
------------------------------
Return-path: < fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 86 12:48:09 PDT
From: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Barry S. Fagin)
Subject: Fritz's Folly
Randolph Fritz writes:
> There is, in American democracy, an inherent conservatism.
> Congressmen, driven by the desires of their electors, will seldom
> propose acts that will change the lives of their electors.
I think this is true, but not very insightful.
> In answer to the Great Depression the United States government
> implemented stringent bank regulations and made the government a
> major employer; socialist policies of a violently anti-socialist
> nation.
There's no question that many of the reforms sought by socialists
at the turn of the century have been adopted over the years.
The short-term effects were beneficial for selected groups
of American society; the long-term effects include gradual
impoverishment of most of the nation.
> Wage and price controls are another socialist innovation, ...
> ...to stable wages and prices. If radical plans would return
> wage and price stability, then bring on the radical plans!
One of the best things about poli-sci was that for months now
noone had suggested that wage and price controls were a good
idea. I guess it had to happen sooner or later. You don't
have to be a libertarian to realize that wage and price
controls are sheer idiocy. You cannot dictate the economic
behavior of human beings by legislative fiat; prices set
too low cause shortages, prices set too high cause surpluses.
Randolph has obviously never tried to live in a socialist
country. (I have, spending two summers in Eastern Europe).
Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania are indeed blessed with wage
and price stability, along with chronic shortages of just
about everything. There simply is no other way to determine
the correct price of a good or service other than lettting
people haggle in the marketplace. I thought even socialists
realized this, but I see there's at least one who hasn't.
Market prices provide *information*, information that
people may desparately need. Wage and price controls
are a form of censorship. It's always a pleasure to see someone
from the radical left advocating them, since such people usually
imagine themselves to be vigorous defenders of free speech.
--Barry
"Free minds, free bodies, free markets ..."
------------------------------
Return-path: < dmw@unh.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Sunday, 14 September 1986 10:13:36 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Technology and Employment
A recent study using the input-output model of the economy showed only
a slight rise in unemployment under the high productivity gain model,
compared to the moderate gain model.
One point that the article does not address is what do you do when
productivity increases by a factor of 10 or 100. Shortening the work
week does not seem possible in this case. There is also the
fundamental fact that many people like their jobs, and are going to do
a lot of work no matter what. Unless we live in a police state,
there's no way the go