"Luke Kaven" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:
"Luke Kaven" wrote
[...]
There are a couple of specious assumptions in what you say here that
are not backed up by research in the social sciences. The assumption
that industry serves the needs of its consumers is only a contingent
matter of fact, and while it is often a factor, it is by far not the
only factor, and it is not always the most important factor.
Corporations serve themselves first and foremost, and they will do
what they have to do to further their self-interests. They have a
life all of their own without any regard necessarily for anyone's
well-being except their own. Providing a good product is only a part
of that. Monopolies, political affiliations and sweetheart deals, are
often what drive corporate dominance in the marketplace.

I will not offer government agencies as a cure for this. I can
acknowledge many of the pitfalls you would no doubt cite. It is only
my assertion that there are reasons to have the government do some
things, and reasons to have private industry do some things. And
really, there is more continuity between the two things than one might
expect. We'd really have to discuss this in the context of a specific
set of functions though.

[...]
Again in the context of a specific case is where I'd consider it. In
general, there is much to hate about both ways. I don't think you'd
want to suggest that we should dismantle national defense,

Of course not, that is a logical function of government. It actually
protects people and their rights.

and let wars be fought on a profit-loss basis by whoever feels like
paying
for it. Where would you draw the line? [Funny that the right-wing
doesn't think nationalized defense is socialism.]

Because it's not. It's one of the only reasons to have governmenmt at
all.

I'm looking at these questions from the standpoint of philosophy and
the social sciences, the body of theory on which Libertarianism rests.

AFAIK Libertarianism rests on the foundations of Ayn Rand's philosophy of
Objectivism.

Part of my gentlemanly dispute with you is that you seem to be
channeling theory from the 1930s or so, and it is at odds with much of
what has come since.

In what way?

Speaking first of a "logical function of government". You're probably
using "logical" as a shorthand for something else, since your
normative claim doesn't come out of a logical entailment. And
actually, this isn't even a theory in logic, but a naturalized ethics.
All Libertarian views are based on naturalism.


I mean logical in the sense of why it makes sense to have ANY government at
all. The only logical reasons are to protect the people being governed from
those who wish to use force against them. To protect individual rights.

I don't dispute defense as a primary function of government, as it
perpetuates the social group.

Which is made up of individuals. All rights are individual rights. The
only commomnality they have is they are human. They need to be free form
force to allow them to pursue their own rational interests. Governments do
this through courts, police and military.

But you bring up the notion of
protecting people and their rights as well. I'm friendly to that.
But the question is what is to be included in the function of
protecting people and their rights? Not just your opinion, but in
principle.

Individuals need to free to pursue their goals and to join with other
individuals who have the same goals. They need to be secure in their lives
and their property. No one should be able to deprive people of their life
or property on a whim. There must be courts to ajudicate alledged wrongs.
There must be police to round up such people and investigate the charges.
There needs to be a military to defend against agression from other
countries.

Or they get funding because they further the ambitions of the party in
power. Teaching abstinence while conspicuously not teaching safe sex
in the prevention of AIDS is an unrealistic dogma that does not
prevent AIDS.

By now, anybody who doesn't know about safe sex has their head up their
ass.
Aids is a disease spread by particular unsafe behavior. It is not a
national crisis, it's bad manners.

In Africa, India, Asia, there are a millions of people who don't know
about safe sex. But obedience to religious dogma prevents the US from
talking about anything to do with contraception. You can tell me that
those people are ignorant, and they are. But at some point, you have
to deal with people the way they actually are, and not how you'd like
them to be. Only millions of lives are at stake.

That is not a government problem, it is a medical problem and a behavior
problem. If it were me, and many of my friends and neighbors were getting
sick, I'd want to know what I could do to protect myself. I wouldn't wait
for government to tell me. AIAIK the AIDS problem in Africa is well known
and really affects those in the bigger cities who have access to information
on the subject and to medical professionals. What they most lack is
capitalism to provide them with the resources to lift themselves out of
poverty. Virtually all 3rd world governments are socialist and they not the
US or business are the real problem.

The most damaging flaw in your argument, as above, is
the assumption that these organizations exist to serve their clients
and that their success is measured by how "good" they are at doing
that. This is as I say only a contingent matter of fact. Serving the
investors is often the predominant factor. And serving the interests
of those who could otherwise do you great harm is also sometimes a
predominant factor. The only thing a corporation cares about is its
own survival, often no matter what the cost. The idea of serving the
good of anything else is theory that is long gone in research circles.

You still imply that they have an obligation to something else. As long as
what they do is not force or fraud, what is the problem? What is their
obligation?

As long as they do it without force or fraud, which we have laws for, they
are serving the good of everybody. They serve the people they hire, they
serve stockholders if they have them, they serve the community at large by
paying taxes and often times by their own donations to charity, blood
drives, collections, etc. They also serve their customers. There is no
other claim we can make on them.

Sometimes corporations serve the people they hire. Sometimes they
just exploit them. In paying taxes, they may be serving the
community. Or they may just be paying for what they get. All the
things you say are *sometimes* true. But to say there is no other
claim we can make on them is to cut short.

I know we make claims, I just don't see where we think we have a right to.


Tied up in what you say is the deepest part of meta-ethics: the
semantics of value terms such as "good" and "bad", and "should" and
"shouldn't". The business of naturalizing these terms (which I think
can be done, by the way) involves almost every trick in the history of
philosophy. But one principle is a little easier to get a handle on
-- it is the idea that the *only* function of anything that has a
natural function is to perpetuate itself or its kind. There is no
necessary element of serving the "good" of anything other than itself.
In practice, things often do serve the good of things other than
themselves. But just as often, they are parasitic on others.

Which brings us back to force and fraud. I don't know of any business that
forces it's customers to buy it products or services, other than government
controlled monopolies.

You might actually be interested to know some of the ground floor
concepts in altruism and social behavior. These are the assumptions
on which your notion of libertarianism rests, and the research might
tell you some things that would differ from your current views. Who
knows, you might be able to formulate a better libertarianism.

Libertarianism rejects altruism. It is a notion that we are of value only
if we give to others, that self interest is somehow less good than self
sacrifice.

The modern notion of altruism in the research literature is much more
articulated than you may be aware. In reality, the notion of altruism
does figure centrally into your political philosophy.

It doesn't figure into it at all, unless as individuals may choose to be
altruistic. It doesn't involve forcefrom government.

But it is a
somewhat different notion that you may be aware of.




The idea of agents (economic, moral, or otherwise) as "pure
self-interest maximizers" is a popular dogma from the 1930s that is in
serious doubt today. Note bene: Altruism is not the idea that agents
do not act in their own self-interest. What is is involves two kinds
of claims:

1) The notions of "self" and thereby of "self-interest" are expanded
to include the hierarchy of social structures that you are a
constituent functioning part of. If you are a corporate spokesperson,
you're act of speaking is simultaneously an act of yours, and an act
of yours as a part of the corporate agency. Which is the "self" here,
you, or the corporation? Answer: both. you are an agent embedded in
a multiplicity of agencies, and your actions may be coextensive with
actions of the super-agency. You may speak simultaneously for
yourself and for you-and-your-spouse as a unit. Who's self-interest
are you maximizing? Answer: either or both.


Mutually agreed on ones.

2) The notion of altruism is cashed out first in terms of the
naturalistic theory -- evolution and its associated teleology. The
quick answer: you function together with other individuals (like your
spouse) because in the past, your ancestors' fitness was enhanced by
the capacity to do so. Two heads *are* better than one. And since
reproduction favors the individual, your individual fitness does
count. But the individual is not the only thing that counts.


If the individuals in question agree to that. They have no inherent
obligation to take of each others needs. They may agree to do so if they
figure it's in their self interest.

So the Libertarian notion of "selfishness" would be cashed out in
terms of hierarchical agencies -- the self can include any agency in
which you are a constituent functioning part.

That's what the subjectivists would like to think.

That could be your
company, your political party, or, believe it or not, you and your
automobile. So in a modified sense, your notions about the virtues of
selfishness are true; it is just that you yourself are not always what
counts in your selfish behavior. You act also on behalf of things
that you belong to.

Because I choose to, beause it makes sense to protect what I value.

This is a big contrast to the Ayn Rand notion that so many
Libertarians get their views from. The pat slogan "greed is good" is
vastly too simple to capture what is really a very subtle concept.

Note that so far this is neutral with respect to Libertarianism.

[...]
True (and ultimately, as a small business owner, I will feel that
too). But I would not look to the wealthy to make decisions on
solving the problems of the impoverished.

Yet they do it all the time by creating work for people to do. They
create
work and pay people to do it, they have no other responsibilty.

For reasons I gave above, I see no necessary connection between
corporations and benevolence.

Corporations are not formed for the purpose of benevelonce, they have no
obligation to be benevolent. It's purely a side benefit of the fact that
they may be successful. They employ people which is a benefit to those who
are employed.


I can't think of a group
that would be more out of touch with those problems.

That's not their role, nor is there any reason it should be. Your
argument
is that somehow at birth we are obliged to start doing things for the
benefit of others. I reject that as illogical and immoral. Whence comes
this debt that we all owe each other? What we owe is to ourselves to be
well. If one chooses to be generouis, let them, but don't imply that
everybody with less has a claim on the labor and ingenuity of those who do
better than they do, it doesn't make sense.

This drops out under the given theory. The concept of "debt" is not
the operant concept. And the notion of "ourselves" includes all those
(naturalized and abstract) social agencies that we belong to.

That we CHOOSE to belong to.

[...]
In this case, you disagree, but I was there as a research associate in
a well-known AIDS research laboratory. This deserves a topic of its
own. Because from what I've seen, if research depended upon showing a
return on investment, then we would have let millions more die.

Millions die from AIDS primarily for one reason, lack of self discipline.
It's like not putting the safety on a loaded gun and then complaining that
you shot yourself. Ever hear of bareback parties? I can't work up a lot
of
sympathy for such behavior.

Out of all the things you've said, this is the only one that actually
shocked me. AIDS is everybody's problem, and we have to deal with
people the way they actually are, and not how we'd like them to be.

AIDS is not a problem for anybody with self-discipline enough not to get it.

Consider children too, born to infected mothers. Where is their lack
of self-discipline? They too need to be raised to understand.

What is my obligation to them? Where does it come from? Why is it I don't
have a say in it?

It is a fact that people without proper self control can infect themselves
and then procreate. Where exactly do I come into the equation? Quite
simply, I don't unless I choose to be benevolent. It is not an obligation.

As I said before...serving the interests of the customers is not the
purpose of a corporation.

It is an obligation in order to serve their own interest in profit.

Nothing rules out the case where the customer is hoodwinked into
believing in the product until it is too late.

See force and fraud comments.

Again, there is no
necessary connection between a corporation and the well-being of its
customers or workers. None whatsoever.


There is for those who wish to survive.

Under perfect knowledge conditions, things
might be otherwise. But the market exploits ignorance.

It rewards industry and intelligence. It also trains and educates.
Capitalism is the reason their is a thing called the middle class.

It can also exploit ignorance. In the best of cases, it can also do
the things you say.

As long as it is providing a prodcut or service that people are willing to
buy and does so in a way that doesn't use force or fraud I see nothing more
they are obliged to do.

[...]
For the price of one bomber, it would be possible to seed quite a
number of efforts, many of which would result in self-sufficient
enterprises and gainful employment for many.

For the price of the war on poverty we could have just given people a big
wad of cash and they'd probably be better off.

You might be historically right on this. Though that doesn't mean
that there weren't better ways to address poverty.


I agree, the government could have gotten out of the way of those who
produce. They could have not imposed extra burdens on them which slow down
job creation.

The market works if it's
left alone. New jobs, new products and more income to tax. Without those
bombers we leave ourselves open to people who might do us harm. The best
idea is to have a military so mighty, that nobody wants to test it.

One less bomber? That wouldn't bring the US to its knees.

But it's never one less bomber and it's never about giving the people back
the money that pays for it. It's about creating new ways to spend money on
people who can't or won't take the steps to earn more for themselves.



I actually don't know how to cash out the notion of a market "left
alone".

Stop imposing financial burdens on business that make it more difficult to
make money. Stop taxing them at all.

I would not trust private corporations to be the arbiters of artistic
taste.

I don't either, nor do I trust the government to give away money to
"deserving" artists.

These controversial artists you speak of are just the few poster kids
for right-wing causes. Look around the list of people who get NEA
grants. Most of them have displayed some special talent.


None of which is relevant. The government has no business in the arts. Let
artists seek funding either from sale of their works, their own outside
labor, or from people who CHOOSE to fund their endeavors.

The one thing I like about steady government funding of the arts
(partial funding that is), is that it is a good seed investment for a
vibrant sector of the economy that would otherwise suffer in times of
economic downturn. Just in terms of net quality of life and economic
health, I think it is good policy. All for the price of a single
bomber.

I certainly would not trust them to decide on the basis of artistic
value, which is intangible and wholly different than cash value. As
far as questionable tastes, you will always have that in any context.

Then let it be financed by private money. I feel no special benevolence
or
pride in the fact that some portion of my tax money went to pay for photos
of a guy with a whip up his ass.

You don't run an arts organization do you?

Maybe the whip-boy slipped through the cracks, so to speak. One or
two bad artists in the bunch doesn't indict the system. Golly, how
much waste and fraud do you think you'd find in the defense industry
if anyone would even allow you to look in on it? One bad arts grant
for $5000 versus billions wasted on pork-barrel politics. Hardly
fair.

Plenty. How much more of it do you suspect we might be able to stop if we
had less government to watch over? How much waste and fraud is there in
those altrusitic things government spends money on, like welfare and
medicare?

In general, I do not look to
the captains of industry to be good at anything other than their
primary endeavors, and I would not trust them to act in the public
good when and where needed.

Industry is the public good. It feeds, it clothes, it educates and it
doesn't ask for any other approval than you buy it's products. If you
don't
they disappear.

By this point in this morning's post, you know why I think that this
isn't correct.


And why I disagree.


[...]
Of course I did not say to eliminate corporate giving. I would not
bet my life on them however.


Nor should you, you should bet on yourself and make it as safe a bet as
you
can.

In the end, we do much of what we do socially. We evolved for that,
as I said above.

OSAF.

[...]
I'm saying that individuals are always embedded in a multiplicity of
social groups, which influence their choices and behavior. You are
really deferring to these groups as much as to the individuals in
question.

But would I do so if given a choice to opt out? Government uses force to
keep the money rolling in.

Maybe you can make an improved libertarianism out of that,
but either way, it needs to be understood. [Any version of
libertarianism (or any political philosophy) one espouses depends is
underwritten by social and psychological theory (tacitly or
otherwise), and has to be responsive to the truth or falsity of such
theory.]

The main truth that most seem to overlook, is what is good for humans.
What
will work for all humans. Start with the nature of human beings and work
from there. Not what do they need from us, but what they need to do for
themselves. All actions which do not use force or fraud, are OK by me.

That's an empirical question, unless you have a transcendental
argument that I'm not aware of. One thing I am an expert in is that
area of theory, and you would have to go so far down the road to make
a claim like that, that it can only be called conjecture at this
point. Just to be clear, though, I still think that this is an avenue
of inquiry that should be left open. I'm not out to tear down your
thing.

Luke

Humans need to be free to think, to learn, to earn, to trade, to own, and to
be able to protect themselves from those who might wish to deprive them of
those rights. They do not have an inherent right to other humans labor or
money. They need to be able to be free to pursue their own lives.

Government can only protect them in these endeavors, it has no business
trying to stimulate them.