Subject:
|
Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 2 Jan 2000 07:26:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1793 times
|
| |
|
|
<386E8B8E.EF62ED6C@voyager.net> <FnorLK.8q2@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
John DiRienzo wrote:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <386E8B8E.EF62ED6C@voyager.net>...
> > See, where Libertopia differs from other -topias is fundamental. First,
> > we are not claiming that it's perfect. Instead, we claim there IS no
> > perfection in society. There always will be situations where things turn
> > out unfairly (is a freak tornado "fair"?) or where the guilty
> > inadvertantly walk free. It's merely a shorthand for a society in which
> > rights are paramount. That's a definitional thing. You can't use the
> > word unless that's what you mean, unless you are deliberately trying to
> > be confusing or obstructionistic.
>
> Right, its not a utopia, not a mere fantasy. It is workable. People
> would need to adapt to a different way of living. People are good at
> adapting.
By John's definition, the socialist/anarchist Utopian projects *are* in the same
category as "libertopias". I fail to see how "workable by adaptation" would
make it any different than the other types of idealized "new societies" I've
mentioned (leaving Lysenko aside, please). When you get down to it, even
uttering the Panglossian "best of all possible worlds" means you're talking
Utopia--because even if you don't intend to reach (or even if you say it's
impossible to reach!) what More or Owen or Marx were describing, you're still
talking about changing (or dismantling) the rules of engagement to some optimal
point. That our Utopias are imperfect says more about the age we live in than
about some fundamental difference between the ideas.
What definition of "libertopia" did you think I was using? I was talking about
a society of rights, where the individual is paramount and governing bodies did
not interfere with any but the basest functions--defence, for example, or the
prosecution of heinous crimes (although that's a grey area to a few people I
know--not here, though--who profess themselves Libertarian). The way it's come
across to me is as the ultimate iteration of Adam Smith's vision of the ideal
state, free individual, and unfettered free trade. Now, if that's not what you
mean, let me know. My original objection to its feasibility *presently*
(although not necessarily *for all time*) is unchanged.
> > Second, and this is one I've convinced myself of, but which almost no
> > one else agrees with, human nature does NOT need to change in order for
> > us to successfully move in the Libertopian direction. People already are
> > good enough, honest enough, industrious enough for it to work. Pockets
> > of it exist today, at least in limited form. I have no idea how to
> > convince the rest of you of that point except to repeat my assertion,
> > which is rather a poor debating technique, and by giving examples. But
> > no example list can be exhaustive, it can't be a definitive proof.
>
> Human nature has not changed, ever. History proves it. So, I agree.
> People definitely need to change a lot, though. As said above, adapting to
> something different is something people can do. Usually they don't want to,
> and usually it involves some pain. No pain, no gain. But the human nature
> won't change in a libertarian type society, just the way they think,
> interact and feel, etc.
I apologize for using the horribly vague blanket statement "human nature." More
appropriate would have been to say that the way that human nature writ large
interfaces with the external world needs to change--core values need to be
redistributed. Jasper said something about the value people place of virtue and
community, our society's preferences and expectations about the world, and what
those things even *mean*--that's the inertia I'm talking about. That's what
needs to change--the way the majority of human beings order their world and
place values. Those are things that change very slowly, and only change quickly
in large masses of people when there's extreme social trauma (the French
Revolution, the Black Death, the PRC's Great Leap Forward, and so forth).
I'm not saying it's impossible--just that it's going to be a long trip, and you
won't likely know how close you are until you're there. It's even truer with a
vision that relies heavily upon individual virtue and not a single virtuous,
visionary leader.
> > So I always try to turn it round. Why does everyone else believe people
> > are bad? What a downer if that's what you really think? Why not believe
> > in the best of people, expect it, and deal with it if you don't get it,
> > instead of expecting the worst.
>
> I have no expectations, Larry. It can be dangerous to expect things.
> But, I know by history that people take advantage of political systems when
> given the opportunity. I believe that Libertarianism has fewer of those
> opportunities, and also has much more accountability on individuals.
That's thinking from the top down, though. One of the vital changes that needs
to take place before a society of individual rights can work is that people need
to feel like they *are* the political system, not set apart from it. I'd wager,
though, that you can't do it the other way, by instituting a Libertarian
government and then trying to change people's habits and expectations (not that
anyone here was advocating that position, of course). No matter how tight you
cock the rudder, the ship only turns so quickly.
As for believing people are intrinsically bad, I never said that--it wasn't even
implied, though I can see how you may have read it into the words. I assume
people are good until they give me cause to believe otherwise. The part that's
really unfortunate is that so many do give said cause. I never once said that
people were good or bad, just that their "nature" (corrected for meaning above)
needs to change. I rather like to expect at the beginning of each semester that
my students are there to learn, that they're paragons of academic honesty, and
that they're all virtuous and intelligent, if occasionally hung over from Bar
Night. I'm not disappointed often.
> > When I mail someone a check, I expect they are going to be good for the
> > goods I've won at auction, and I'll deal with the consequences if they
> > aren't.
I expect this as well, but I still take various factors into account when
deciding if I'll hold a shipment until the check clears--or on the other hand,
when deciding if I want to deal with someone. Trust and expectation are fine,
but you've also got to use the old noggin. ;)
best,
Lindsay
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
188 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
