In article 9187@panix.com, jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>Libertarians and socialists would agree that the government should repress
>that kind of conduct; an anarchist would not agree. So libs and socs have at least
>some concerns in common that are not shared by everyone (like
>anarchists).
>
Based on this feeble thread of commonality you actually think libs and socs
could negotiate a compromise? And you think this negotiation would produce
libertarianism? Have you ever negotiated for something?
Negotiation requires both sides want to reach a common solution, it's obvious libertarians do not meet this requirement, hard core socialists also do not
meet this requirement.
>I don't agree. It seems to me that the basic argument of free-market
>types is that in the absence of government intervention people will
>develop ways of dealing with the things that arise in the normal course
>of events.
Normal course of events is that you lose your job and have to find a new one.
It may take a while but you are reasonably sure of getting one. Economic
colapse of a region, a terminal illness, destruction due to "acts of god" are
not things that arise in the normal course of events.
>For example, people deal with the risk of unemployment (your
>original example) by choosing stable jobs when they have a choice, by
>saving part of their income to tide them over hard times,
I haven't seen to many of those stable jobs lately, at least those that
pay more than minimum wage. I think you are postulating what should
happen in an ideal world, not what actually happens in reality.
>recognizing the obligation of helping out family members relatives and
>neighbors who are having difficulties,
In a free market you have no such obligation. I am suprised at you.
>Is it so cynical to believe that politicians often favor measures that
>look good but aren't really justifiable on the merits?
You assume we can agree on what is justifiable on the merits. I'm more than
happy for my tax dollars going to florida. They need it. For president bush
to appropriate that money is not political it's normal in the face of disaster.
Now forgiving the 25% payback is political.
>There's a cost to distributing risks that people can do something about
>or that constitute a forseeable cost of doing something (like building a
>house on a lot that's likely to be flooded every 20 years).
Cost is an inherit attribute of any system. The question is what are the tradeoffs
and are the tradeoffs acceptable given our negotiated evaluation function.
You think your ideal world does not have costs? I'm looking forward to your
forthcoming perpetual motion machine.
>Also, economic decline seems to be in a different category from volcano
>eruptions.
>
You say it "seems" to be different. Why? What is the different in effect?
>I don't understand your "more than". By "protecting the right to make
>such decisions" I meant protecting property rights and laying taxes to
>provide the means for such protection.
>
You don't just believe in the right to property, you believe everyone
should pay to protect you and your property. I find it interesting you are
willing to force people through the government to pay to protect you and yours
but you get all excited when someone suggests helping people with disaster
relief through the same mechanism of government.
> Once that sort of thing becomes an
>accepted function of government it may be difficult to keep the "little
>more" little.
>
I could say life is difficult and someone once said the price of freedom
of eternal vigilance. The fact is in any system "a little" more is always
a possibility, unless you are suggesting a democratic government can
enter a steady state? I suggest you just get used to entropy.
>You seem to favor political arrangements in which everything is always
>up for grabs in a perpetual negotiation involving all the members of
>society.
Overtime this is exactly what happens.
> I've pointed out that the current political arrangements of
>the United States aren't like that,
Of course it is. What parts of our system are not negotiable? Supreme court
justices are appointed for political reasons which is informed by public
opinion. The constitution can be altered and reinterpreted. The government itself
is elected. There are always lawsuits and lobyists actively trying to change
the political framework. Just what part of our system is cast in unchangable stone?
>so it appears that libertarians are not alone in opposing such a system.
But they are alone in thinking it could ever happen. They are probably even
alone in thinking it would be a good thing.
>I would also say that arguments from principle should be made if the principles
>are worthy,
Who decides which principles are worthy? Each individual. Negotiation determines
how the combination of principles will be expressed in the system that is
our government and society.
>and that some >good things (like limitation of the functions of government) are
>difficult to achieve without authoritative acceptance of principle,
Spoken like a true dictator. At bottom libertarians crave the absolute power
necessary to make their vision of the world a reality.
