NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/sci/econ/7172

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-26 | 6.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!uoft02.utoledo.edu!desire.wright.edu!demon
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Stupendous Man)
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:59:31 EST
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Lines: 154

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Todd Hoff) writes:
> In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>    Please ftp the Lib platform and other party positions and post what
>>*exactly* Libertarians will do that will be "cold hearted" and why this will be
>>a problem.
>>
> The basic lib response to the question "In libertopia does the government do X" is
> that unless X is one of a small group of functions then no, the government does
> not do X, but the government does not prevent private citizens from providing
> function X.
>
> So to the following questions a lib would say no: Will the government
> provide universal education (even through a voucher mechanism)? Will the government
> help fund research for uncommon diseases for which there is no profit in making
> drugs? Will the government take an active role enforcing environmental regulations?
> Will the government help people get a decent level of health care?

    I'm one of the Libertarians who see benefit in universal education.
But I also know that government is one of the least efficient ways of achieving
it.  If you haven't noticed, the "certification" process tends to keep the best
teachers away.  Who wants to pay more money for classes they don't need in
order to be "allowed" to teach primary/secondary education when they can go
straight from college/grad school to teaching college?
    As far as uncommon diseases go, it depends on how uncommon it is.  Will
money that goes to that research prevent health care from getting to more
people?  Questions like that are currently being debated in Oregon.  The needs
of the many outweigh the needs of the one.  (Which isn't a common Libertarian
quote :)
    No, the government should stay out of business' way whenever possible.
Let the people involved handle environmental concerns.  What grade would you
give the EPA?
    Health care?  Once again people must decide if its worth paying for,
and whether they want to pay an arm and a leg for it.  One of the reasons for
rising costs is that we've taken the billing process away from the people.
They have no idea what's being spent, and thus have no reason to care.

> But to the following questions a lib would answer yes: Must I pay taxes to
> pay for
> protection of your property, your life, your defense, to build jails, and
> for a judicial
> system?

    Actually the would answer no to that.  There should be no personal
income taxes.  Period.

    One of the roles of government is the judicial process (and in that I
include law enforcement).

> I would ask why do I have to pay for the things you want but you don't have to pay
> for the things I want?

    It's not a question of what *I* want, but a question of the proper role
of government.

> Your answer would be something like "because we have
> correct principles and you don't."

    Sorry, try again.

>And I would say "says who?" And we'll go back
> and forth like this forever...Well let's compromise. No. We are right and you
> are wrong...

    You seem to be tilting at windmills.  No one is arguing what I want
versus what you want.

>>> 3. Thus libertarians will never have a signigficant influence in
>>>    american politics.
>>
>>    !
>>    Do tell.  Since the Libertarians are not one of the "big two", they
>>will never be of any importance?
>>
> No, not because they are not one of the "big two." Perot proved you don't need
> to be a demorepublican to get a lot of support. The real reason libertarians
> will never be influencial is simply because the majority do not and will not
> generally approve of libertarian positions.

    A majority simply do not know the libertarian positions.  It doesn't
help that libertarian positions are constantly misrepresented.

> I do think you can get
> a majority to support the general spirit of libertarianism, but not the
> extreme positions.
>
> If I were debating against a lib I would ask: If a family of 5 was out of work,
> and they exhausted all avenues of help, would you let the family starve? The

    No, I wouldn't.  But then again I'm not going to insist that government
come around and force everyone else to behave the same way I do.

> lib would after many protestations would eventually have to say yes. I don't
> agree with this and
> neither to most people.

    "Many protestations"?  Again the misrepresentation.

>>    As far as "giving a little", I don't believe in sacrificing principles
>>in the name of political expediency.
>
> Hmm, slavery was ignored so we could have these great united states. Sounds
> like a useful political expediency.

    Yes, the choice they made at the time.

> The Louisiana Purchase was made even though
> it technically was outside the powers of the federal government. Sounds like
> a useful polotical expediency.

    It wasn't against their principles, was it?

> The california legislature could use a political
> expediency about now, before our bond rating is totally tubed. And you must
> be real
> fun to work with in a group if you don't accept any expediencies.

    You seem to be confusing compromises with expediencies.

> Immutible principles inevitably leads to righteousness. Righteousness
> leads to nothing but hate and violence. Witness Bosnia, the
> holocaust, muslim attitutes towards women, christian attitudes toward non-christians,
> etc., etc..

    Somehow I knew it would degenerate into Nazi calling.

    Because I have principles, does not mean I am monolithic.  If someone
can prove that supply-side is not the best answer for our economy, then I'll
happily adapt my position.  However, I will not abandon that position to get
elected.

    That is the difference between expediency and principles.

>>However, neither to I believe that
>>policies should be cast in stone, never to be changed.  Times change, people
>>change, and different problems call for different solutions.
>>
>
> Yes, but the solutions must be found within your small bag of acceptable
> solutions or
> you'll pick up your marbles and go home.

    Where you got that from I have no idea.

>>    I don't support *every* Libertarian position or goal, just as I never
>>supported *every* Republican position or goal.
>>
>
> If you did you would be one weird puppy.

Brett
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster                           (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:                                   NOT!