From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: On Libertarian bashers...
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 09:17:10 PST

   This note is intended for the net.libertarian.bashers out there.  I have no
problem with genuine differences of ideology; I don't appreciate having to
debate with people who are being disingenuous, either intentionally or other-
wise.

   Soap box mode on.

   For those of you who identify with Republicans and "conservatism" as it is
now practiced:  Do you like it and accept it when people lump all of you in
with Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan and Jesse Helms?  I doubt that many of you do.
Republicans come in all types--from the Helms/Buchanan/Robertson right to the
more "liberal" Republicans like Bill Weld and Tom Campbell.  Yet somehow, their
opponents associate all Republicans with the Helms/Robertson wing--the wing
which is generally considered the "extremists."  Reasonable Republicans always
have to deal with Democratic opponents who accuse them of wanting to keep a
"family values" police force and promoting bigotry--which isn't fair.

   For those of you who identify with Democrats, "liberals" or "progressives":
Do you like being always lumped with Ted Kennedy or other ultra-liberals?  Do
you like people seeing the actions of a few very far-left Democrats and equat-
ing Democrats with socialism?  Democrats come in different flavors, too.  Just
as there is the Kennedy/Jesse Jackson wing on the left, there is the Lloyd
Bentsen/Sam Nunn wing of "conservative" Democrats.  Yet when people bash the
Democrats, they always do it using the extremists who border on pure socialism,
even though most people who identify themselves as "Democrats" don't fall into
that category.  Reasonable Democrats have to deal with Republican opponents who
accuse them of wanting to turn America into a purely socialist nation--which
isn't fair.

   What I'm trying to say is that most of you can only bash a political party
or philosophy in general by invoking the actions of that movement's extremists.
Republicans hate being called fascists and bigots (most aren't, but their
party's extremists often might be).  Democrats hate being called socialists and
even communists (although ultra-left Dems might be that, most aren't close).
Those of you who defend your ideology recognize that most of the people in your
camp aren't extremists.  Yet most of you still equate libertarians with pure
anarchy and utopianism.  You assume that we all want a zero-government state
which has no regards for the welfare of the people.  That's not fair either.

   There are extremist (L/l)ibertarians, sure.  There are certainly members of
the Libertarian Party who are anarchists.  They are the equivalent of the
Helms/Robertson Republicans and the Kennedy/Jackson Democrats.  They are the
party's extremists.  And like the Bentsen/Nunn Dems and the Weld/Campbell Re-
publicans, there are moderate Libertarians, too.  I'm certainly one.  I can
see that the government--the federal government in particular--has become too
big and too intrusive.  Our nation was not founded on a strong *federal*
government.  The states have been systematically stripped of their sovereignty
by the goons in Washington and it needs to be returned to them in most cases.

   The nation and the world are more complex than ever.  We need more than a
minimal government.  We need more government now than we had in 1790.  But we
certainly don't need as much government as we have now.  Libertarianism will
at least return the balance of power to the individual--until we return to a
more sane and less intrusive government.  When we reach that point, it is these
"moderate" libertarians who will abandon ship and make further eradication of
the government unlikely.  Too many people see government as an "all-or-nothing"
entity:  we either have too much of it or none of it.  We can have less while
still meeting our needs.

   Many of you assume that if a Libertarian were to become president, or if
the Libertarians somehow gained a majority in Congress, then we'd instantly
have anarchy.  Look here, people.  All major changes of direction need to be
gradual, and I've never known a libertarian in politics who felt otherwise.
We have a long, long road of gradual change ahead of us before we would even
begin to come close to the society which you Liberphobics (tm) dread.  By that
time, I'd certainly hope to see either (a) the Libertarian Party moderate its
stands or (b) get out of the party when the government is returned to the
proper role I see for it.  I'd bail out of the party if it continued to push
for anarchy once I was comfortable with the size and role of government, and
judging by my conversations with other (L/l)ibertarians, most others would,
too.

   End of soap box mode.  Even if you don't agree with what I've said, I hope
I've at least given you something to think about.


Tim Irvin
***************************************************************************
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
 for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist #51