From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 16:52:09 +0800
To: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Respect for privacy != Re: exposure=deterence?
Message-ID: <m0tc1KD-000918C@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 12:27 AM 1/15/96 -0800, Rich Graves wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Jan 1996, jim bell wrote:
Richard Graves wrote:

>However, you won't consider looking at a dissenting FAQ.

Aha! Now you identify it as a "dissenting FAQ"!  Let's play a little game.  
Let's say, for purposes of the argument, that there are people who are 
"pro-libertarian," "neutral", and "anti-libertarian."  I know plenty of 
people who hardly even know what libertarianism is about, but in fact are 
more-or-less libertarian in philosophy.  Let's call these people "neutral."  
But in general, people who identify themselves as "dissenters" from 
libertarianism (claiming they know what it is, and assuming for the purposes
of the argument that they are correct about this knowledge) are fucking
statists. 

Somehow, I think I've got you pegged correctly.


>> "Proposition 187"?  Isn't that from CALIFORNIA, not Pennsylvania?  Your
>> commentary is very confusing.
>
>Sorry, an old irrelevant battle.

Then don't confuse people with things like that!


>There was quite a row between Californian "libertarians" and
>non-Californian "libertarians" about Prop 187, with those in California
>saying that the illegal people were STEALING MONEY, and those outside the
>state, including Reason Magazine, saying it was hypocritical at best to
>use government force to deny freedom of movement, especially when neutral 
>studies showed that the illegal people were a net plus for society. In
>effect, Reason Magazine was calling them selfish.

You miss the point.  (this is probably congenital.)

There is a generic problem with "asking a libertarian his position on an
issue."  See, the question assumes how much of an opinion you want, and what
assumptions you're making.  

I'll try to formulate a relevant analogy:  Suppose  you're building a new
house, you have your plans, I'm your friend, and you ask me over for an
opinion on how it ought to be done.  On the one hand, my advice might simply
be to "change the color of the paint."   Or, I could say something more
detailed, like, "you should add another floor."  Or, finally, I could say,
"I don't think you should be building a house THERE, in that low area
subject to flooding, you should build it 10 feet higher, 100 yards away."
Finally, I could say, "No, I don't think you should build that house AT ALL."

Each of these is a form of advice.  The difference is the scope of the
advice.  __YOU__ may only have wanted me to advise you on the color of the
paint.  My advice was to change EVERYTHING.  Both may be quite valid and
correct opinions.

A third party, observing the discussion, would think that there was some
sort of contradiction going on, when in reality (remember reality?!?) it is
simply a matter of scope being determined.


Now, proposition 187, as I _vaguely_ recall, deals with immigrants,
primarily illegal immigrants, and the services a community provides them.
So if you ask a libertarian, "what should we do," there are a number of
separate and distinct types of advise he could give you, depending on the
scope of the question.

On the one hand, the natural response of an unrestrained libertarian is to
say, "There should be no borders, no governments, no taxes, and no welfare,
as well as no public schools, etc."   And that would be correct, as far as
it went.

If you responded to that libertarian, "Uh, sorry, we're not interested in
changing EVERYTHING; we're just asking you to decide whether or not we
should get public services (paid for by tax dollars stolen from citizens by
government) to people who got into the country in violation of the law,"
then he might provide a more limited form of advice based on this
restrictive set of parameters.  

The important thing to remember, however, is that exactly which kind of
advice he gives may be entirely dependent on how restrictive the set of
parameters you've insisted that he follow.  An intelligent libertarian could
give a good and valid piece of advise, with the proviso that since he's
being restricted in the scope of his advice, it will not necessarily be a
"completely libertarian" position.  This should be ASSUMED.

Which means that you could ask essentially the same question of two
different libertarians, and by subtle manipulation of the parameters, get
what might otherwise appear to be two contradictory opinions, depending on
how much latitude each is given in his advice.

>Obviously, I was on the right side.

Obviously, you always THINK you are on the right side.

>
>> >Where, exactly, do you get off disparaging my political philosophy, with 
>> >which you are completely unfamiliar?
>> > 
>> >> >See the non-libertarian
>> >> >FAQ, at http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
>> >> 
>> >> Sounds like it would be extraordinarily un-interesting.  
>> >
>> >Good to see you're as open-minded as I thought.
>> 
>> Well, you called it, and I quote, a "non-libertarian FAQ."   Well, I know
>> what a "libertarian FAQ" would generally contain, information to teach the
>> uninformed about libertarianism. These FAQs are generally prepared by
>> libertarians, and are often (usually?) intended to convince people to
>> support the libertarian cause.
>> 
>> But what, pray tell, is a "non-libertarian FAQ"?
>
>Information to teach the uninformed about libertarianism.

Then you should have called it a "FAQ _for_ pre-libertarians."   Or a "FAQ
for those not yet informed about libertarianism."  

But in fact, since above you called it a "dissenting FAQ," more likely, "a
FAQ intended to dissuade people from being (or thinking) in a libertarian
manner."  Far more informative.  Which is why I said that I would consider
it to be extraordinarily UN-interesting.

>> And thus, as I said, I think that would be extraordinarily un-interesting.
>> I've heard PLENTY of idiots try to debunk libertarian philosophy, the vast
>> majority of which know so little about it as to make their attempt not only
>> totally ineffective, but also counter-productive to their intention.
>
>How many is plenty?

In 4 years on FIDOnet?  Dozens.


>> >I see no sequitur here. Where have I excused anyone's actions? I was
>> >talking about ethics, justifiable force,
>> 
>> Libertarians have a principle called "Non-initiation of Force/Fraud." (or
>> "Non-Agression principle.")  Anyone who collects taxes has AUTOMATICALLY
>> initated agression.  Violence against him is not a violation of any
>> libertarian principle.
>
>Libertarians have a practice of USING CAPITAL LETTERS and RIDICULOUS JESSE
>JACKSON-ESQUE RHETORIC to define anything they DISAGREE WITH as VIOLENCE
>AND FRAUD, a non-falsifiable approach that leads to ludicrous conclusions.

And you appear to be a fucking statist.

>> > and probable cause. If you have
>> >probable cause that Watergate or Whitewater has occurred, then further
>> >investigation is justified. If you don't, then the customary financial
>> >disclosure statements should do. 
>> 
>> You're hiding behind the rules of the GOVERNMENT.  Rules written for the
>> benefit of GOVERNMENT people.  Violations of law by GOVERNMENT people are
>> hardly ever prosecuted; Rodney King's assaulters were prosecuted only
>> because somebody JUST HAPPENED to have a camcorder on at "just the right
>> time."
>
>> >Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, but that doesn't mean you need 
>> >to spy on everybody.
>> 
>> When my system is in place, we won't have to worry about that ever again.
>...
>> >No matter what rhetoric you use, it is not nice to respond to a tax
>> ----------------------------------------^^^^^^^^
>> 
>> >collector COMING TO STEAL YOUR MONEY by invading his privacy. 
>> 
>> Huh?  You're crazier than I thought!  You would deny even the principle of
>> self-defense!  You're truly crazy; you're just about as far as you can
>> possibly get from being a libertarian.  No wonder you had so many questions
>> above!   "Nice" has NOTHING to do with it!
>
>A restaurant denying you a free lunch is the initiation of violence.

Do you really believe this, or were you merely trying to misuse this as a
contrary (though extremely weak) example?


> If 
>you try to skip a debt

What kind of "debt"?  One that you agree to?!?

> and your creditor finds you, are you then 
>justified by the principle of self-defense to kill him? After all, if he 
>pulls a gun on you first, he's the one initiating violence.

Your misunderstanding of libertarianism exceeds only your misunderstanding
of simple logic.

>Measured response and justifiable force. Contracts and justice. When your
>kid misbehaves, you spank them. When someone cuts you off on the freeway,
>you flip them off. When you disagree with someone, you are supposed to
>construct a logical counterargument. When someone insults you, you insult
>them back. When someone pulls a gun on you, you blow their head off. 
>
>Nobody's "stealing" "your" money. The IRS is enforcing a contract.

I've signed no such "contract."  I agreed to no such contract.  I'm AWARE of 
no such contract.  The "contract" or "social contract" argument is debunked 
repeatedly in the various libertarian-oriented political echoes.  Actually, 
it's debunked in non- (not to be confused with "anti-") libertarian echoes 
too, because even if you ignore all the people who don't yet claim 
themselves to be libertarians, the rest of the public can't agree on exactly 
what this "contract" really says.

The "social contract" of a liberal contradicts the "social contract" of the
conservative.  The "social contract" of a Republican contradicts the "social
contract" of a Democrat.

Even if you take a generous position and say that we owe taxes, it has been 
repeatedly demonstrated by media/reporter types (by visiting a number of IRS 
offices, presenting them with the same identical numbers, and asking them 
how much taxes are owed, and each office gives a DIFFERENT amount.  In other
words, even if we ASSUME the existence of some sort of "contract," nobody
seems to be able to agree on what the terms of that "contract" are.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV, but one thing that I
do know about law is that for there to be a "contract" there is necessary to
be a "meeting of the minds" about what that contract is actually for.  Both
(all?) parties to the contract must have the same UNDERSTANDING of the terms
of the contract in order for it to be valid.  Clearly that is not the case
about the "social contract" statist lunatics speak of.

Furthermore, in order for there to be a valid "contract" there must be
CONSENT.  One party cannot threaten or extort from the other, getting the
other party to agree to terms that are coercive. Both parties must have the
option of NOT entering into that "contract."  Yet, practically the whole
reason for the existence of governments is "coercion," meaning that absent
some clear evidence of arms-length negotiation, it is impossible to come to
a valid "contract" with the government.

Like I said before, you're a fucking statist.

>>  Remember the following words:
>> "Klaatu Burada Nikto."     I'm working on a similar system.  You'll
>> eventually hear of it.
>
>You're building a giant robot? Oh my. I thought this was starting to read 
>like bad science fiction.

Just wait.

I've decided to post this to Cypherpunks.  Forgive me, it's only marginally
on-topic, but I think it's vital for the public to know how Richard Graves
thinks.