From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Raving a bit, aren't we?
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:48:23 GMT
 <1992Oct6.210642.28699@u.washington.edu> <1992Oct7.021654.4599@desire.wright.edu> <1992Oct7.211232.29099@u.washington.edu>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct7.211232.29099@u.washington.edu>, sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
> In article <1992Oct7.021654.4599@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>>>
>>>>	Libertarians don't want pollution, or lax safety, or anything else like
>>>>that.  It's a common fallacy among statists to believe than anyone who wants
>>>>less government likes pollution, etc.
>>> 
>>> And, it's a common falacy among (some) libertarians to refer
>>> to holders of contrary opinions as statists, specifically
>>> whim-worshipping statists.  The only group who would be justified
>>> in attaching the opprobrium "statist" to their opponents
>>> would be anarchists; nearly all members of the Libertarian Party
>>> are quick to distinguish themselves from anarchists.
>>
>>	People who advocate more state intervention are indeed statists.
>>
>>	Next?
> 
> My point is that the meaning of the word
> "statist" when used in anarcho-capitalist literature
> is useful as a contrasting philosophy to anarchy.  When an
> anarchist refers to someone as a "statist", I know what
> he means.  When someone who believes in the legitamacy
> of specific government functions, and supports candidates
> who intend to become legislators/executives in the 
> government, uses the term "statist", I'm confused.
> Is the LP definition = statist: someone who believes
> in a larger government than I do?

	Can't speak for the party, but IMO, a statist is someone who believes
that [more] government is the only/best answer to almost any problem/question.

>>>>	However, the Libertarians believe that the individual, and the market,
>>>>are strong enough to keep these things under control.
>>>>
>>>>	As long as government isn't interfering and allowing companies to
>>>>pollute and have unsafe work conditions.
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure that I read this correctly:  are you saying that the
>>> government should allow companies to pollute and have unsafe
>>> working conditions, or not.  If not, then the LP have come
>>> quite a distance since I left it.
>>
>>	Not should, they *do*, under the guise of regulation and "let the
>>government take care of it".
>>
>>	Libs would let the market, and individuals, punish polluters. 
>>Litigation and informed consumers shut down many polluters/unsafe operations.
> 
> I am THOROUGHLY aware of what libertarians believe.  I know that 
> "litigation" has been used to shut down polluters.  One of the
> reasons that I left the LP is that it makes more sense to
> me to use effective government regulation to enforce environmental
> and safety standards in the first place, then to wait until
> the damage is done and then "punish" the polluters.

	Ok, *if it worked* I might agree with you.  But the EPA and OSHA are
dismal failures.

>>>>	Which government agency was supposed to inspect that Carolina chicken
>>>>factory?
>>> 
>>> I heard that is was an agency which had a staff of two people
>>> who were responsible for inspections of thousands of businesses
>>> in North Carolina.  No red tape here!
>>
>>	You just don't get it, do you?  The assertion is that government is
>>taking care of it.  Oops?  People burn?  Why, obviously *more* government is
>>needed!
> 
> I GET IT!  I just don't accept the sarcasm.  To me, this is a clear
> example of why better enforcement of existing laws is called for.

	OK, but IMO, any amount of government will not solve the problem. 
Bureaucracies simply make poor watchdogs.

>>	Government *isn't* doing the job.
> 
> Frequently, this is correct.  You and I draw rather different
> conclusions from that fact.

	Apparently.  I don't care which one of us is right, as long as the
problem is solved :).

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment