From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: The Libertarian Party will wreck the US ?Re: Perot drops out!!!!
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:48:47 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: LNK Corporation, Rivedale, MD

In article <1992Jul30.151441.1@sara.cc.utu.fi> mavalto@sara.cc.utu.fi writes:
>In article <l78v10INNt4l@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>> Al Date) writes:
>> |> 
>> |> >
>> |> >Regardless of the policies they propose a group like the libertarians
>> |> >will cause a disaster. Any group that thinks that the only way to save
>> |> >the ecconomy is to apply a theory regardless of the effect it has will
>> |> >cause a disaster.
>> |> >
>> |> 
>> |> Oh, you must be referring to the current borrow-and-spend regime.
>> |> You're right, it will cause a disaster.
>> |> 
>> |> The Libertarians want govt to live within its means, just like
>> |> everyone else has to do.  We have seen that the only way
>> 				     ^^^^
>> |> to get democratic govt to do that is to structurally limit its scope.  
>> |> Otherwise, the special interests conspire to raid the Treasury. 
>> |> 
>> Where have you *seen* this?  Where in the world is your model of a
>> structurally limited democracy?  How about in the last 50 years?  The
>> world is much different that in was 200 years ago, why do you think
>> a 200 year old model would work today?
>
>This is implying that you have the ideal form of democracy at present, which
>is functioning well. Voter participation in US elections is around 50%, which
>would suggest that a significant proportion of the population do not believe
>they can influence the political system through the formal mechanisms described
>in the constitution. In reality political parties and special interest groups
>have an inordinate say in determining government policy. The expansion of the
>role of the state in the economy has reached a point were it is stifling the
>economy. The government in it's present form is no substitute for the markets
>in efficient allocation of resources. No government has the capability to do
>that. (Maybe sometime in a science fiction future)
>To get back on to a growth path may require extraordinary measures, which calls
>for the consideration of unorthodox ideas. 
>The present political establishment is certainly not an 'unlimited democracy',
>and there is no reason why it shouldn't be modified.

	We can speculate somewhat about why the US rate of participation
in elections is low compared, for instance, to the former Soviet Union.

	1. Were there more real choices in Soviet elections? No, of course
	not, since the "choice" was either to vote for the Communist Party
	candidate, or not. In the USA, we generally have at least the choice
	between an incumbent officeholder and an opponent of the opposing
	(Republican or Democrat) party. This can lead to some strange 
	political affiliations in a large country such as the USA, but
	the system tends to enforce a choice which the voter can either
	embrace or reject by staying home. 

	2. Were Soviet citizens more civic minded than US citizens ?? Well,
	when you are more or less compelled to vote by the state, you'll
	vote as a means of serving your interest not to go to jail, rather
	than your political interest in supporting a political party
	candidate, who in turn serves your interests.

	3. Did Soviet citizens have more to complain about from their government
	than US citizens?? Here we have an interesting situation. Despite what
	one might get from the state-run TV networks in Europe, Americans are
	by and large indifferent to their government, and have as little as possible
	to do with the American state. As long as the US government doesn't mess
	in their sandbox, they seem all to happen to stay home. Contrast this
	with the former Soviet system, in which the citizens were forced to
	elect governments which performed more and more poorly in "delivering
	the goods" and which proved incapable of responding to their concerns
	when they finally were allowed to speak freely and gained some limited
	voting priviledges. The irony of all this is that the jaded American
	voter, who can barely be cajoled into getting out of bed early
	and go to the polls, is still much better served by his/her government
	than the enthusiastic East European voter, who is doing it for the 
	first or second time, votes his conscience, but still can't seem to
	elect a government that helps him/her adequately in solving his/her
	problems. That's why we in America worry about Eastern Europe.


	Yesterday's edition of "USA Today" had a good article about the roles
of different generations in American politics. It is no accident that US
electoral participation went down with the coming of age of the post-war 
generation, which was badly spoiled by its elders, and never had to take any
real responsibility for its economic or political wellbeing. The result, as 
"USA Today" points out, is that the "Baby Boom" generation is politically and
econimcally powerless, and probably always will be incompetent in political
decision making. This partly explains why there is such a large number of
people staying away from the polls in America, rather than some phony 
Marxist rhetoric about class interests.

	Bill R.

	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any 
government agency."
		
-- 
Bill R.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36710 ca.politics:6174