NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/sci/econ/6887

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-15 | 3.2 KB

Xref: sparky sci.econ:6887 alt.individualism:5269
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.individualism
Path: sparky!uunet!brunix!cs.brown.edu!pcm
From: [e-mail] (Peter C. McCluskey)
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Brown Computer Science Dept.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 14:38:37 GMT
Lines: 51

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (martin.brilliant) writes:
|> From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Richard Nixon):
|> > ......   If you remember correctly, the libertarian view is that
|> > the only legitimate purpose of government is to control/punish the very
|> > fraud you speak of above, along with the control of violence/property
|> > crimes, etc.
|>
|> Well, does that include implicit misrepresentation of consumer
It certainly includes deliberate misrepresentation. It doesn't
include situations where the consumer could have figured out the
truth with a modest application of brainpower.
|> products, dispersal of pollutants into the commons without
Yes.
|> compensation to the public, takebacks of retirement benefits under
|> cover of fine print, etc.?
No. Libertarianism assumes that people are willing and able to read
contracts upon which they depend.
|>
|> Be assured that the present government safeguards against those
|> fraudulent and effectively criminal practices are woefully
|> inadequate.  If you want to prevent them, some agencies of the
|> government will have to be made much larger, and will have be be much
|> more intrusive into private business, than they are today.
|>
|> What I am saying is that all this Libertarian fluff about minimizing
|> government is totally incompatible with the basically liberal aim of
|> preventing fraud against the public, and you Libertarians are going to
|> have to decide to tell us which you really mean.

Most of the disputes that you are talking about are disagreements
between 2 entities, which can be handled by private arbitration boards
using traditional contract law principles. Competing judicial systems
will make justice faster and less expensive, thereby making it easier
for the average consumer to sue for fraud.
Pollution is one case where you might have a point about more
government being needed, although there are many ways in which
the libertarian solution is less statist than current policies.
First, libertarians want to turn commons into property wherever
possible, so that contract law could be used. Where the commons
is unavoidable, the government would presumably have the following
roles under the libertarian solution:
1. determine the quantities of pollution emitted by each pollutor.
2. determine the amount of harm done.
3. determine whom the compensation should be paid to.
This solution avoids much of the statism involved in deciding what
pollution technologies are practical, which polluters made socially
valuable products, etc.
--
         hardcore signature virus: "As a juror in a Trial by Jury,
         you have the right, power and duty to acquit the defendant
                 if you judge the law itself to be unjust."