From: frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib.
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 17:12:18 GMT

doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:

> frazier@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazie) writes:
>>interested in pragmatism.  Yes, there are pragmatic reasons to be interested
>>in libertarianism and the Libertarian Party, and that is why I'm listening.

>Ignoring the Bill of Rights to fight the War on Drugs is pretty pragmatic.
>Suspending civil rights and closing off "bad" neighborhoods, searching
>from house to house for guns, drugs, and fugitives (and, with the "civil "
>seizure "laws" what they are, looking for good stuff to steal) is a pretty
>pragmatic idea, and one a lot of Americans would approve of, apparently.
>Allowing illegally-obtained evidence, so long as "we know the suspect is
>guilty", theirby telling the officials that violating civil rights is ok, is
>pretty pragmatic.  Trying to get rid of poverty by giving people money sure
>*seemed* pragmatic.

No, none of those seemed pragmatic.  They were all done or advocated
by people who had "religion" against drug use.  The pragmatic way
to deal with the current situation wrt drugs is legalization, in my
opinion.  I also think that it is the moral/ethical thing to do,
but that is much harder to sell (except to the converted, eh?).
FWIW, the legalization of drugs is becoming more widely accepted as
the pragmatic solution in this country, although we still have a long
way to go.

>Taking central control of the banking system, the money supply, and creating
>income taxes is certainly pragmatic thinking.  To many people, the idea of
>a centrally-administered economy sure makes sense.  So much easier to
>control, and if you have it run by "experts", it's gotta be good, right?

Yes, that is pragmatic thinking.  I do not know if it is correct
thinking.  I certainly wouldn't describe our economy as "centrally-
administered".  There are some components that are centrally
controlled, and some that are not - that sounds like the correct
approach to me.  As to whether we currently have the correct
balance, or whether the current administration is correctly
handling their responsibility, well, I'm not overly thrilled.

>A small example of this "pragmatic" thinking is the farm economy.  $20
>billion is spent annually on farm programs, centrally administered by
>"experts", whose purpose is to cost Americans $10 billion more for food than
>it's worth.  Predictably, "protecting" the farmer from market forces has
>attracted a lot of people into the farming business.  The average full-time
>farmer makes $168,000 a year, and the number of farmers is growing.  We pay
>them to idle 60 million acres of good farm land.  But the *idea* sure
>*sounded* good.

Farm subsidies are religion in this country.  Politicians can't
threaten farm subsidies because "the American family farm" is
a cultural icon, even as it becomes extinct (remind you of a
large bird of prey with a white head? :-).  Clearly, farm subsidies
are currently a mess - at least, it is clear to you and me.  Of
course, we might disagree as to how far we should go towards
eliminating them.  I might see some value in ensuring (a) a
relatively stable price for grain and (b) a relatively stable supply
of grain; these are important for social stability and national
security.  You're screaming, "How can this nut in one sentence agree
that farm subsidies are bad, and the next sentence be a proponent
of them!"  Well, let me tell you - I think that *a small amount*
of farm subsidy is a *necessary evil* in a nasty and dangerous
world.  You see, I don't see this as a matter of principle - I'm
interested in what works (which is very different from knowing
what works - that I don't pretend to).

>A big example of such pragmatic thinking is, oh, Eastern Germany or the
>Soviet Union.

You've lost me there - Communism was clearly religion gone amuck (and
don't confuse the issue by arguing that Communism was atheist - Marx,
Stalin and Lenin were quite clearly worshiped, and atheism itself is
religion).

>We have *too much* pragmatism (is that a word?).  We are simply fighting
>fires, apllying quick-fixes that sound good, and that leave everyone worse
>off than before government got involved.  

Doesn't sound very pragmatic to me.

>It's time for analysis, direction, and goal setting.  From where I stand, the 
>phrase "the path to hell is paved with good intentions" supports *my* view.
>In my humble opionion, of course.

Only if you want to go to hell! :-)

Seriously, libertarians and Libertarians do apply huge amounts of
logic and reasoning in creating their model society, and I agree
with many of their points.  My major problems are how they propose
to get from here to there and how far down that path they want to
go.

>   From high atop my horse ;-)
>      Thanks awfully,
>                 Patrick

Thank you!
-- 


Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc