[755] in libertarians
Re: Zimmerman case
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vernon Imrich)
Fri Feb 24 16:52:54 1995
To: sethf@MIT.EDU
Cc: libertarians@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 24 Feb 1995 15:00:36 EST."
<9502242000.AA18216@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 16:50:37 EST
From: Vernon Imrich <vimrich@MIT.EDU>
|> > What else is new? That's why we're libertarians and not Republicans.
|> > Republican's think government is great as long as it's helping their
|> > businesses. Libertarians don't want ANY people to use laws to thwart
|> > competition whether they're rich or poor.
|>
|> I'd believe that a lot more if I saw Libertarians reflexively
|> denouncing patents and "intellectual" property as attempts to thwart
|> competition, instead of focusing almost exclusively on any Government
|> presence. But I think that doesn't happen, because it's a very touchy
Actually, we had a debate on patents a while back. It's definately an
unresolved issue. Some are hard core against intellectual property period.
Others support copywrites for particular things but not the concept of
patents, and others support patents as a form of "temporary copywrite"
for things that have to broad a scope to get real copywrites (like some ideas).
Also, there are different kinds of libertarians; Conservatives who've
decided personal liberty is "ok, I guess", Liberals who've decided free
markets might be workable after all, "as long as..." and anarchists who'd
prefer not to bother you politically with how they'd set up their local
community, but would you please leave them alone to do it (like the Quakers).
For example, I do not really consider myself a true capitalist since I do
not think the accumulation of material wealth is such a grand goal. I do
consider myself a free marketeer because I don't want state control of
the economy. There are subtle differences in motivation, and different
tropisms for each. Since the GOP has been the biggest advocate rhetorically
of smaller government, a lot of the libertarian movement gets colored by
their other views, becoming less inclined to speak out where they have
differences in the hopes that they can break off with the GOP as soon as
they get their tax cuts. Those that think this is folly, either don't
bother at all or stick it out for the long run with a new party (like me).
This is not uncommon. NOW screams about Packwood's treatment of women but
not Kennedy's. It's simple. Kennedy is more likely to give them what they
want so they can overlook his indiscretions. Some libertarians do this with
the GOP and GOP issues like "business friendly" attitude.
|> argument - Libertarianism deals a lot with the importance of property,
|> and to grapple directly with the property-rights and redress arguments
|> being used in these issues would be to admit that businesses can misuse
|> these philosophical constructs, and persecute individuals in the
|> question for greater control and profit. That goes to a place
|> Libertarians don't want to be, questions of corporate evils (if someone
|> can claim a property violation that doesn't exist because it increases
|> their profits, what other philosophical property claims might be
|> similarly shaky?). The concept of "abuse of private power" is almost
|> regarded as an oxymoron.
This is because it so rarely happens no in the true sense. If you want to
abuse someone today, you go and get the government to do it for you. In the
cases that private people do abuse with their own power Libertarians
are not fogiving -- the Mafia for example.
It is because of the age that we live in now that only a certain tendancy
towards government intrusion is villified. We don't see very often the
cases of bad big business driving some legal small owner off his property
without using government. We often do see it with some group that is using
government.
One area definately unfriendly to "big business" is libertarians insistance
on the removal of limited liability laws and cost externalization (a euphamism
for pollution). If investors had to bear the risks of corporate practices
it would be much harder to fund imporperly (self-) monitored operations. Saftey
and other measures would be handled through placing real costs on investors for
failure, rather than by imposition of arbitrary limits (often controlled by
agencies which have far more contact with the corporations than with the public).
Currently, if someone tries to emit something it takes ten years of stydy to even
decide if its dangerous (ala DDT) and then you get backlash on the merit of
the science. With property rights, a river owning/management group or local
land owner could decide it doesn't *want* DDT on it's property period, whether its
a danger or not (or in it's airspace or whatever). The users either stop using it,
or make sure it can't leach beyond their own field. No blue ribbon committee need
be formed to see if it's dangerous. Instead of lobbying congress, Greenpeace could
go around asking people "do you want this toxin on your property?" and gather
class action cease and desist orders.
|> property based motivations "Zimmerman has grievously injured RSA company -
|> theft! theft! - and we're trying to get back at him any way we can" is a
|> lot more demanding (and, I think, much more difficult politically for a
|> Libertarian).
As I said it is an unresolved issue. Ideas/algorithms are on the weakest
ground (patents), then copywrited specific material.
|> > at fault. In short, Libertarians view their government as the sleasiest
|> > cheat around.
|>
|> And don't think of businesses as cheats at all.
Crystler (in fact, all the auto makers if you consider "free" highway funds)?
Cable companies? Etc.
The usual model is: something is free and vibrant. someone gets successful.
they decide they'd rather not deal with all that free competition or the
responsibility for open ended risks. they ask for "standardiziation" or the
real big one "stabilization" which means the govt sets up comissions or agencies
that the companies (directly or indirectly) control. now the companies can
escape competition and responsibility for risk simply by legislating whatever
it is that they've optimised as THE standard for all.
|> do not. You've exactly proved my point above - whatever the particular
|> implications of the case, it's to be pressed into service as more
|> proof of the desired social theory, by focusing exclusively on a few
|> elements, throwing in some broad philosophy, and ignoring everything else.
What I was trying to explain was that libertarians generally see laws and
government, as something that *by nature* are abused. Yelling "someone is
abusing government laws" just gets you a "so what else is new." We assume
more laws == more abuse of those laws. That's the nature of law. Yes, there
are the conspiracy nuts who think everything the government does is part of some
sinister plot, but most tend to adopt the view of the movie "Brazil" -- a
government that is preoccupied with paperwork, shirking of responsibility, and
voraciously oppressive admistrivia.
Finally, the really anarchic ones probably don't care so much about business
misdeed because they feel that absent the codification of law, they and their
armed buddies would make it very difficult for big business to maintain
control. They don't fear an open fight, only the justification of some
defenders as the only legitamate ones. Thus, they don't fear fighting evil
businesses, who maintain no legal legitamacy, only governments. You tend
to demonize only those you fear most.
|> It's important to fully understand the issue - the PGP and Zimmerman
|> case doesn't have so much to do with misuse of government power, as opposed
|> to the question as how much can an algorithm be considered property (and
|> if so, what kind of property is it - like a machine or like a book?). A
|> Libertarian take on it should deal with those basic problems, not cliches.
As I've said before, this is a wide open issue, and part of the reason
we'd be interested.
At last years MA LP convention, the ONLY language in the state
party program that was challenged was the phrase: "we want to help business"
After some review, and examination of the contex, "we want to help
small business escape the regulations of..." was allowed.
And I gurantee you, we'd never even THINK of funding a new sports stadium
or megaplex on behalf of some private business interests. Trouble is,
it's hard to find Democrats that oppose this vociferously because of their
desire not appear too "anti-business."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Vernon Imrich | market failure, n. The inabilty of the |
| MIT, Dept. OE | market to recover from a blow by |
| Cambridge, MA 02139 | intervention. (The Exchange) |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| MIT LP: http://www.mit.edu:8001/activities/libertarians/home.html |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
