Re: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down with Robin Hood.

[Trent Shipley]

Dan M wrote:
>  
> Of course, I knew there was another strain in libertarianism that was
> based in morality.  This was an ideological commitment to maximize
> individual freedom.  Basically Aleister Crowley's "Harm no one and do
> what thou wilt", with the "harm no one" clause being
> optional--particularly when doing business.
> 
>> That's not a moral principle.  That's principled amorality, an abandonment
> of social >responsibility.  At best it is mysticism; faith that we don't
> have to do anything for our >neighbors because the universe will take care
> of them (if they deserve it, or whatever). >Morality an antidote, not a
> synonym, for self-centered pragmatism.

The antecedent for "you" in this thread isn't clear.  I suspect it is
not Trent Shipley, but I will provide my input anyway.

> Well, how do you define what a moral principal is?  I'd argue it is an axiom
> of a system of ethics.  Now, from your arguments, I suspect you and I both
> strongly differ with some of the basic axioms of, say, Objectivistic ethics,
> but that does not keep it from being an ethical system.

I make a distinction between moral principles that are often religious
or more folksy and ethical principles that tend to come from high
theology or  philosophy and are usually more formal.



Given: Slavery is legal.
Given: You are CEO of a publicly traded company.
Given: The company will make a lot of money if it uses slaves.

Then:

Using slaves is immoral (the CEO commits a sin).

But not using slaves is unethical because the CEO deprives his
shareholders of wealth.



Futhermore, there are ethical systems, but morals are never systematic.
 Instead one should talk about an individuals moral collection or a
group's hegemonic morality.

> You can't prove or disprove ethical, moral principals.

Ethical principles are subject to rational and logical dispute.  Moral
principles, on the other hand, are dealt with using apologetics and are
beyond proof.

>  You can either posit
> them explicitly, or implicitly.  Personally, I prefer explicit, because the
> principals are out there to be discussed, and the implications of those
> principals can be arrived at logically and more clearly.
> 
> Dan M. 

The trick is that moral principles and the relations between them are
seldom explicit.  Discovering moral principles and making them explicit
requires cultural, linguistic and symbolic analysis.  The same applies
to ethics at one remove where discovering an ethical system's deep
structure, unstated assumptions, and meta-morality require analysis.

___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Br!n: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down with Robin Hood.

[tshipley]

Libertarianism is radically individualistic. It sees civilization as a network 
of social contracts between individuals. Government and taxes are evil. One 
reason, among many, is that taxes burden the individual for the sake of the 
collective. Maybe an individual should contribute to the collective but it is 
wrong to coerce that contribution. 

IAAMOAC is not understood by libertarians the way you understand it. A 
libertarian may even deny IAAMOAC is a valid moral principle since it is not 
individualistic. 
Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel

-Original Message-
From: Matt Grimaldi 

Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 17:22:29 
To: Killer Bs \(David Brin et al\) Discussion
Subject: Re: Br!n: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John,
down with Robin Hood.


That falls in with IAAMOAC.  There are dues to pay when you are a member.

-- Matt






- Original Message 
From: David Hobby 
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion 
Sent: Friday, August 7, 2009 5:11:02 PM
Subject: Re: Br!n: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down with 
Robin Hood.

Trent Shipley wrote:
...
>> The moral principle that "taxes are theft" suffers from a similar
>> limitation.  Logically taxes ARE theft.  
>> 
>> Newspeak!
> 
> I stand behind this.  When theft is understood as any taking, except as
> punishment, then taxes are logically a form of theft.  It's a logical
> singularity, but its still logical.  It is not reasonable however.

Trent--

No, taxes are not theft.  They are user fees, imposed for
the privilege of being a citizen and/or being in the country.

Is everybody happy now?

---David


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com



___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

RE: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down with Robin Hood.

[Dan M]

 
Of course, I knew there was another strain in libertarianism that was
based in morality.  This was an ideological commitment to maximize
individual freedom.  Basically Aleister Crowley's "Harm no one and do
what thou wilt", with the "harm no one" clause being
optional--particularly when doing business.

>That's not a moral principle.  That's principled amorality, an abandonment
of social >responsibility.  At best it is mysticism; faith that we don't
have to do anything for our >neighbors because the universe will take care
of them (if they deserve it, or whatever). >Morality an antidote, not a
synonym, for self-centered pragmatism.

Well, how do you define what a moral principal is?  I'd argue it is an axiom
of a system of ethics.  Now, from your arguments, I suspect you and I both
strongly differ with some of the basic axioms of, say, Objectivistic ethics,
but that does not keep it from being an ethical system.

You can't prove or disprove ethical, moral principals.  You can either posit
them explicitly, or implicitly.  Personally, I prefer explicit, because the
principals are out there to be discussed, and the implications of those
principals can be arrived at logically and more clearly.

Dan M. 



___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Br!n: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down with Robin Hood.

[Matt Grimaldi]

That falls in with IAAMOAC.  There are dues to pay when you are a member.

-- Matt






- Original Message 
From: David Hobby 
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion 
Sent: Friday, August 7, 2009 5:11:02 PM
Subject: Re: Br!n: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down with 
Robin Hood.

Trent Shipley wrote:
...
>> The moral principle that "taxes are theft" suffers from a similar
>> limitation.  Logically taxes ARE theft.  
>> 
>> Newspeak!
> 
> I stand behind this.  When theft is understood as any taking, except as
> punishment, then taxes are logically a form of theft.  It's a logical
> singularity, but its still logical.  It is not reasonable however.

Trent--

No, taxes are not theft.  They are user fees, imposed for
the privilege of being a citizen and/or being in the country.

Is everybody happy now?

---David


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Br!n: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down with Robin Hood.

[David Hobby]

Trent Shipley wrote:
...

The moral principle that "taxes are theft" suffers from a similar
limitation.  Logically taxes ARE theft.  



Newspeak!


I stand behind this.  When theft is understood as any taking, except as
punishment, then taxes are logically a form of theft.  It's a logical
singularity, but its still logical.  It is not reasonable however.


Trent--

No, taxes are not theft.  They are user fees, imposed for
the privilege of being a citizen and/or being in the country.

Is everybody happy now?

---David


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Br!n: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down with Robin Hood.

[Trent Shipley]

While writing this I tried to imagine how a certain kind of libertarian
thought about the world.  It is a shallow exercise in participant
observation.  To appreciate what I wrote you must at least partially
empathize with our libertarian subject.

Nick Arnett wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Trent Shipley  > wrote:
> 
> 
> It started me thinking about the bases of libertarianism and American
> conservatism.  Previously when I had thought of libertarianism, I had
> not thought of it as particularly based in a moral principle.  
> 
> 
> Good for you... it's not, IMO.

It is in the sense that a libertarian tends to believe that markets
optimally allocate resources, so a market based economy is best for
promoting the commonwealth.  "The greatest good" is a rather pragmatic
moral principle and very widely held.  That is what I meant by not
particularly based on moral principle.


> Of course, I knew there was another strain in libertarianism that was
> based in morality.  This was an ideological commitment to maximize
> individual freedom.  Basically Aleister Crowley's "Harm no one and do
> what thou wilt", with the "harm no one" clause being
> optional--particularly when doing business.
> 
> 
> That's not a moral principle.  That's principled amorality, an
> abandonment of social responsibility.  At best it is mysticism; faith
> that we don't have to do anything for our neighbors because the universe
> will take care of them (if they deserve it, or whatever). Morality an
> antidote, not a synonym, for self-centered pragmatism.

No it is a morality.  A libertarian believes that nosy neighbors, let
alone the state, should stay out of ones personal life.  Thus,
recreational drugs should be decriminalized and sexual queers should not
be discriminated against.


> But there other moral strains mentioned by one of my libertarian Linux
> respondents. "Taking money from some one who earned it to give it to
> some one who didn't is stealing, government or otherwise."  This
> actually combines two moral axioms common to libertarians and
> conservatives.  The first is that taxes are a form of theft.  The second
> is that it is immoral to give (poor) people money. 
> 
> 
> Ack.  Again, no morality here.  Pragmatic arguments are not moral
> arguments, they are complementary.  Many seemingly practical arguments
> are outlandish because they are immoral, which, for example, is Swift's
> point in A Modest Proposal.

I did not intend to state that these were pragmatic.  Quite the
contrary,  I consider them VERY logical but utterly un-pragmatic.  I
will focus on the principle "taxes are theft".  If you asked my
informant is theft right, he would say "no, theft is wrong."  Thus, he
would also say that taxes are wrong, perhaps a necessary evil, but evil
nonetheless.  Behind the principle that taxes are wrong is a ratio to
the effect that taking someone else's property whether by stealth,
guile, or force is theft and morally reprehensible.  Indeed, unless I
part company with my property entirely of my own free will, or
exceptionally as punishment for wrongdoing, it must be theft.  It is a
moral principle of Others.  It's just not yours.


> The moral principle that "taxes are theft" suffers from a similar
> limitation.  Logically taxes ARE theft.  
> 
> 
> Newspeak!

I stand behind this.  When theft is understood as any taking, except as
punishment, then taxes are logically a form of theft.  It's a logical
singularity, but its still logical.  It is not reasonable however.

___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Br!n: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down with Robin Hood.

[Nick Arnett]

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Trent Shipley  wrote:

>
> It started me thinking about the bases of libertarianism and American
> conservatism.  Previously when I had thought of libertarianism, I had
> not thought of it as particularly based in a moral principle.


Good for you... it's not, IMO.


> Of course, I knew there was another strain in libertarianism that was
> based in morality.  This was an ideological commitment to maximize
> individual freedom.  Basically Aleister Crowley's "Harm no one and do
> what thou wilt", with the "harm no one" clause being
> optional--particularly when doing business.


That's not a moral principle.  That's principled amorality, an abandonment
of social responsibility.  At best it is mysticism; faith that we don't have
to do anything for our neighbors because the universe will take care of them
(if they deserve it, or whatever). Morality an antidote, not a synonym, for
self-centered pragmatism.

>
> But there other moral strains mentioned by one of my libertarian Linux
> respondents. "Taking money from some one who earned it to give it to
> some one who didn't is stealing, government or otherwise."  This
> actually combines two moral axioms common to libertarians and
> conservatives.  The first is that taxes are a form of theft.  The second
> is that it is immoral to give (poor) people money.


Ack.  Again, no morality here.  Pragmatic arguments are not moral arguments,
they are complementary.  Many seemingly practical arguments are outlandish
because they are immoral, which, for example, is Swift's point in A Modest
Proposal.

The moral principle that "taxes are theft" suffers from a similar
> limitation.  Logically taxes ARE theft.


Newspeak!

Nick
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down with Robin Hood.

[David Brin]

Not sure I see where Trent is coming from, associating me with such nonsense.  

I am a "libertarian" in a sense that is not shared by many other 
"libertarians..." in that I believe that harnessing interhuman competition is 
the core element that enabled the Enlightenment to escape the brutal traps of 
nearly every other human civilization.  

Our markets, democracy, science and law courts are all complex machines 
designed to foster and harness competitive efforts by groups that are 
self-organizing and internally cooperative, but eager to win in rivalry viz 
other groups.  Harnessing this was not easy, since most winners immediately try 
to cheat and prevent further competition.  This is the way of oligarchy.

It is also the reason that most modern American libertarians are complete 
whackos.  They ignore 5,000 years of human history, in their shrill claims that 
ONLY government bureaucrats represent any threat to freedom or markets etc.  

Bureaucrats CAN endanger freedom, true, and a healthy impulse should always be 
to encourage citizens to do more and see if govt can do less.  But to ignore 
the fact that oligarchy was, is, and always will be the main enemy... well, 
that is simply mass stupidity.

And that is ALL I will say about this now. I have explained at length elsewhere.
About  looking past "political totems": 
http://www.reformthelp.org/theory/generalizing/foe.php
and... http://www.reformthelp.org/theory/positioning/models.php
and...http://www.davidbrin.com/libertarian1.html
I do dream the LP will someday take its rightful place as a reasonable, 
pro-freedom and markets party to replace the undead GOP.  But till that miracle 
happens, I'll just say I am delighted that at least adults are back in 
charge... even uneven and flawed ones.

Please remove Re: Brin from this thread.

And thrive all.

db






From: Trent Shipley 
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2009 7:42:49 PM
Subject: Brin: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down with Robin 
Hood.

I wrote a suggestion to my Arizona State legislators about de-funding
the state universities in favor of tuition vouchers.  Vouchers would be
in keeping with Arizona's conservative libertarian bias in favor of a
low taxes-low wages-strong small business environment.  If I lived in
Massachusetts or Minnesota where the culture favors high tax-high
wage-strong big business I would never have made this suggestion.
Anyhow, I am through with school.  As a good libertarian and social
Darwinist it is now time to screw the following generations.

When I inappropriately sent a selection of my idea as an off topic
contribution to the Phoenix Linux email list I was astounded that the
comments came not from the left but from the RIGHT!  The respondents
were self-educated technicians suspicious of higher education in general
and wanted NO public funds spent on higher education.

It started me thinking about the bases of libertarianism and American
conservatism.  Previously when I had thought of libertarianism, I had
not thought of it as particularly based in a moral principle.  I thought
it just a political extension of liberal or neo-classical economics that
reduced the general welfare to economic efficiency.

Of course, I knew there was another strain in libertarianism that was
based in morality.  This was an ideological commitment to maximize
individual freedom.  Basically Aleister Crowley's "Harm no one and do
what thou wilt", with the "harm no one" clause being
optional--particularly when doing business.

But there other moral strains mentioned by one of my libertarian Linux
respondents. "Taking money from some one who earned it to give it to
some one who didn't is stealing, government or otherwise."  This
actually combines two moral axioms common to libertarians and
conservatives.  The first is that taxes are a form of theft.  The second
is that it is immoral to give (poor) people money. (Exceptions are made
for rich people and corporations because in that case they earn the
money through their cleverness and not through class conscious theft).
The morality of "taxes are theft", in particular, is logically self
consistent; therefore, convincing on its face.



I used to be a pacifist. I was raised Mennonite.  Pacifism is a
logically self-consistent principle.  Killing is horrific, killing is
murder, killing for a cause or for war is still horrific and is still
murder.  The problem is that war is an inescapable part of the human
condition.  Even in the best of times the potential is there.  Pacifism
doesn't allow for the complexities of human reality, it isn't pragmatic.



The moral principle that "taxes are theft" suffers from a similar
limitation.  Logically taxes ARE theft.  However, one must be expedient
and practical.  We have a society to run.  We need to buy social goods.
Social 

Re: [Brin]: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down with Robin Hood.

[Trent Shipley]

David Hobby wrote:
> Trent Shipley wrote:
> 
>>> Hi.  It's interesting.  I wonder about the last bit,
>>> though.  How does one tell whether or not a profession
>>> is "essential"?  (I can certainly name some that I feel
>>> are NOT essential, but let's get beyond our personal biases.)
>>>
>>> One answer may be "a profession is essential as long as
>>> people in it manage to find work".  Markets certainly
>>> don't solve everything, but may be giving information
>>> about the relative importance of various kinds of work.  : )
>>>
>>> ---David
>>
>>
>> Taxpayers tend to see the Universities exclusive mission as training
>> (not educating) their kids to get a certificate that will let the kid be
>> middle class.  In short we pay taxes for undergraduate education NOT
>> research or grad school.  I imagined the state department of education
>> defining some professional level degrees like Medicine, Master of
>> Nursing, M.Ed. and D.Ed., Masters of Engineering, MSW as essential for
>> Arizona.  Others, like Law, MFA, or a PhD in Astronomy would be elective
>> and unsubsidized.  Some, notably the profitable hard sciences, like
>> geology, biology, or chemistry, might qualify for partial subsidy.
> 
> Trent--
> 
> So you're not big on the "wisdom of the market"?
> Your post did mention libertarians a bit, but I
> was unclear where you stood.  Why should "profitable"
> hard sciences need a subsidy?  I'd hope that the
> state money would go towards fields that we worthwhile
> yet underfunded.  : )

The post is divided into two parts.  The top part is the actual topic of
the post.  The main text.  The part about vouchers and so on is an
appendix provided as background.

Now a pure market fundamentalist libertarian would be against
subsidizing legislation.  So even by brooking vouchers we are in the
realm of libertarian lite.  However, the voucher proposal is a HUGE
libertarian increment over the system of funding higher education common
in all states.  It would make undergraduates true consumers.  They could
study at a community college, for-profit institution, religious
institution, or state university as long as it was approved as a bona
fide higher education program by the Department of Education.  The
student could study English lit or electrical engineering, or for that
matter auto mechanics or go to beauty school.  Power to the individual,
student to customer.  How's that for libertarian morality?

Restricting grad school is a political sop.  Voters really do tend to
see the state universities as their to credential their kids into middle
classdom.  Oh, and tack a medical school on the side.

What I would really like to see is a matching funds market in grants and
 loans so that young undergrads don't do the stupid thing I did and
study history, but are expediently philistine and study business.  The
idea is that if Intel put in 1% for EE, the government matches it 99%.
Oh look! No money for fine arts.  Maybe you should major in nursing,
hospitals put up money so the nursing grants would be funded.

> My daughter is in law school, and is paying for it
> with a pile of student loans.  It's reasonable that
> she not be subsidized, since she'll (hopefully) wind
> up making enough to pay back the loans.
> 
> We're in New York state, which has fairly high barriers
> to entering K-12 teaching.  The teachers who come to my
> school to get the Master's they need for permanent
> certification tend to be making enough money that
> they don't need subsidies.
> 
> As for subsidizing a Masters in Social Work, why not
> just pay social workers a bit more?
> 
> ---David
> 
> 
> ___
> http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Brin: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down with Robin Hood.

[David Hobby]

Trent Shipley wrote:


Hi.  It's interesting.  I wonder about the last bit,
though.  How does one tell whether or not a profession
is "essential"?  (I can certainly name some that I feel
are NOT essential, but let's get beyond our personal biases.)

One answer may be "a profession is essential as long as
people in it manage to find work".  Markets certainly
don't solve everything, but may be giving information
about the relative importance of various kinds of work.  : )

---David



Taxpayers tend to see the Universities exclusive mission as training
(not educating) their kids to get a certificate that will let the kid be
middle class.  In short we pay taxes for undergraduate education NOT
research or grad school.  I imagined the state department of education
defining some professional level degrees like Medicine, Master of
Nursing, M.Ed. and D.Ed., Masters of Engineering, MSW as essential for
Arizona.  Others, like Law, MFA, or a PhD in Astronomy would be elective
and unsubsidized.  Some, notably the profitable hard sciences, like
geology, biology, or chemistry, might qualify for partial subsidy.


Trent--

So you're not big on the "wisdom of the market"?
Your post did mention libertarians a bit, but I
was unclear where you stood.  Why should "profitable"
hard sciences need a subsidy?  I'd hope that the
state money would go towards fields that we worthwhile
yet underfunded.  : )

My daughter is in law school, and is paying for it
with a pile of student loans.  It's reasonable that
she not be subsidized, since she'll (hopefully) wind
up making enough to pay back the loans.

We're in New York state, which has fairly high barriers
to entering K-12 teaching.  The teachers who come to my
school to get the Master's they need for permanent
certification tend to be making enough money that
they don't need subsidies.

As for subsidizing a Masters in Social Work, why not
just pay social workers a bit more?

---David


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Brin: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down with Robin Hood.

[Trent Shipley]

David Hobby wrote:
> Trent Shipley wrote:
>> I wrote a suggestion to my Arizona State legislators about de-funding
>> the state universities in favor of tuition vouchers.  
> ...
>>> Dear Senator Linda Gray, Representative Doug Quelland, and 
>>> Representative Jim Weiers,
> ...
>>> “Be it resolved that the mission of Arizona's public institutions of 
>>> higher education is to educate undergraduates and train graduates 
>>> for essential professions.”
> 
> Trent--
> 
> Hi.  It's interesting.  I wonder about the last bit,
> though.  How does one tell whether or not a profession
> is "essential"?  (I can certainly name some that I feel
> are NOT essential, but let's get beyond our personal biases.)
> 
> One answer may be "a profession is essential as long as
> people in it manage to find work".  Markets certainly
> don't solve everything, but may be giving information
> about the relative importance of various kinds of work.  : )
> 
> ---David


Taxpayers tend to see the Universities exclusive mission as training
(not educating) their kids to get a certificate that will let the kid be
middle class.  In short we pay taxes for undergraduate education NOT
research or grad school.  I imagined the state department of education
defining some professional level degrees like Medicine, Master of
Nursing, M.Ed. and D.Ed., Masters of Engineering, MSW as essential for
Arizona.  Others, like Law, MFA, or a PhD in Astronomy would be elective
and unsubsidized.  Some, notably the profitable hard sciences, like
geology, biology, or chemistry, might qualify for partial subsidy.


 __
> http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 


___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Re: Brin: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down with Robin Hood.

[David Hobby]

Trent Shipley wrote:

I wrote a suggestion to my Arizona State legislators about de-funding
the state universities in favor of tuition vouchers.  

...
Dear Senator Linda Gray, Representative Doug Quelland, and  
Representative Jim Weiers,

...
“Be it resolved that the mission of Arizona's public institutions of  
higher education is to educate undergraduates and train graduates  
for essential professions.”


Trent--

Hi.  It's interesting.  I wonder about the last bit,
though.  How does one tell whether or not a profession
is "essential"?  (I can certainly name some that I feel
are NOT essential, but let's get beyond our personal biases.)

One answer may be "a profession is essential as long as
people in it manage to find work".  Markets certainly
don't solve everything, but may be giving information
about the relative importance of various kinds of work.  : )

---David

___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

Brin: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down with Robin Hood.

[Trent Shipley]

I wrote a suggestion to my Arizona State legislators about de-funding
the state universities in favor of tuition vouchers.  Vouchers would be
in keeping with Arizona's conservative libertarian bias in favor of a
low taxes-low wages-strong small business environment.  If I lived in
Massachusetts or Minnesota where the culture favors high tax-high
wage-strong big business I would never have made this suggestion.
Anyhow, I am through with school.  As a good libertarian and social
Darwinist it is now time to screw the following generations.

When I inappropriately sent a selection of my idea as an off topic
contribution to the Phoenix Linux email list I was astounded that the
comments came not from the left but from the RIGHT!  The respondents
were self-educated technicians suspicious of higher education in general
and wanted NO public funds spent on higher education.

It started me thinking about the bases of libertarianism and American
conservatism.  Previously when I had thought of libertarianism, I had
not thought of it as particularly based in a moral principle.  I thought
it just a political extension of liberal or neo-classical economics that
 reduced the general welfare to economic efficiency.

Of course, I knew there was another strain in libertarianism that was
based in morality.  This was an ideological commitment to maximize
individual freedom.  Basically Aleister Crowley's "Harm no one and do
what thou wilt", with the "harm no one" clause being
optional--particularly when doing business.

But there other moral strains mentioned by one of my libertarian Linux
respondents. "Taking money from some one who earned it to give it to
some one who didn't is stealing, government or otherwise."  This
actually combines two moral axioms common to libertarians and
conservatives.  The first is that taxes are a form of theft.  The second
is that it is immoral to give (poor) people money. (Exceptions are made
for rich people and corporations because in that case they earn the
money through their cleverness and not through class conscious theft).
The morality of "taxes are theft", in particular, is logically self
consistent; therefore, convincing on its face.



I used to be a pacifist. I was raised Mennonite.  Pacifism is a
logically self-consistent principle.  Killing is horrific, killing is
murder, killing for a cause or for war is still horrific and is still
murder.  The problem is that war is an inescapable part of the human
condition.  Even in the best of times the potential is there.  Pacifism
doesn't allow for the complexities of human reality, it isn't pragmatic.



The moral principle that "taxes are theft" suffers from a similar
limitation.  Logically taxes ARE theft.  However, one must be expedient
and practical.  We have a society to run.  We need to buy social goods.
 Social goods have to be paid for and that money has always come from taxes.

There is a more fundamental problem with libertarianism and some of
David Brin's thought.  Libertarianism assumes humans descended from
tigers.  Unfortunately, humans descended from chimpanzees which are the
most intensely social primates.  Humans are as social creatures, they
have an individual dimension, but human experience cannot be reduced to
individualism.  Government--or rather governance--is NEVER going to
whither away.  Governance is part of organizational behavior, and any
human society larger than a hunter-gatherer troop has to have some
formal organization and that organization has to be governed.  Even if
we assume that one day soon (no more that 10,000 years) humans will be
succeeded by their brain children, those children will soon run into the
organizational behavior and governance problem.  Managing your
relationships in ever increasing troop sizes will not scale in
polynomial time.



Begin forwarded message:

> From: Trent Shipley 
> Date: August 3, 2009 3:01:01 PM GMT-07:00
> To: lg...@azleg.gov, dquell...@azleg.gov, jwei...@azleg.gov
> Subject: Higher Education Vouchers and Oddments
>
> Dear Senator Linda Gray, Representative Doug Quelland, and  
> Representative Jim Weiers,
>
> I am a resident of District 10 living a 4750 West Acoma Drive,  
> Glendale (vote in Phoenix), AZ 85306
>
>
>
> Suggestions for the Reform of Public Higher Education in Arizona.
>
> The following are suggestions to reduce the deficit in the current  
> budget crisis and are in keeping with Arizonans' values of free  
> enterprise and small government.
>
> 1 Replace Subsidy with Vouchers
>
> Subsidies to community colleges and state universities should be  
> replaced with a one-size-fits-all higher education vouchers.   
> Students and parents have little or no sense of how much public  
> higher education is subsidized so receiving a voucher will seem a  
> huge boon, even if the actual size of the per capita subsidy is  
> reduced.  Using vouchers will also contribute to a free market in  
> higher education services, leveling the playing field between the  
> Univ