From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Libertarian discussion.
Keywords: libertarian
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:52:19 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <chen.703240415@informatics> chen@informatics.wustl.edu (The Chenster) writes:
>I have been following this interesting discussion.  I have also done
>some reasing on my own. Some conclusions:
>
>1) Someone [i forget whom] pointed out that even though the Socialist 
>   Party has never won an election in the U.S., every one of their 
>   planks were enacted into law.  So maybe in 20 years even though 
>   no libertarian will win, they will have succeeded in overturning 
>   all of this legislation.  
>
>2) Much of the deregulation the libertaarians are proposing appear to
>   be similar to the conditions present at the end of the 19th century
>   in America.  There, large coorporations and "robber barons" made 
>   huge profits while their workers lived in miserable conditions.  
>   Remember, "as much as the trafffic can bear?" [Or something similar.]
>   It seemed that "market forces" did not drive the cooporations to 
>   better treat their workers. In fact, just the opposite happened. 
>   To maximize their profits, they tried paying their workers as 
>   little as possible while still getting work  out of them. 
>   A few workers might have died, but that that was just part of the
>   cost of operating.  Now, did the workers have "personal freedom"
>   because they could have chosen to starve instead? I mean there is 
>   some point where pesonal freedom ends. If I threaten you with a gun,
>   do you still have "personal freedom" because you can choose not to 
>   do what I tell you?  
>   It seems that if a cooperation is making a huge profit, some of 
>   the "reward" should go to the employees.  It seems that conditions
>   improved when child labor laws, minimum wage laws, and the maximum 
>   workweek were implemented.  This seemed to be the case for the 
>   California citrus growers, who used "okkies" displaced from their homes 
>   by the Dust Bowl. Of course the citrus growers COULD afford to pay their
>   workers more, but had agreed with each other not to.  Any grower 
>   who did not go along with this would suffer because of actions
>   by the other growers (flooding of markets, etc.)   In fact 
>   many hired their own "private security force."  When anti-trust 
>   laws were passed to prevent this type of collaboration, and 
>   other workers' laws  did conditions improve.


Agreed.  A good point about what happens in the so-called free market.



>
>3) The philosophy about allowing people "freedom" unless it directly
>   inhibit's another's "freedom" is genarally an admirable one, but 
>   seem otherwise when you try to apply it to all cases.  Then, I 
>   argue, people should be allowed to drive when they are drunk until they
>   endanger someone else.  This seems to be the philosphy behind 
>   legalizing all drugs.  Even with legal drugs, there is always a trade-off
>   between my freedom and the user's freedom.  The second-hand 
>   smoke of cigaretts indirectly reduces my "freedom" because it 
>   increases my likelyhood of cancer.  However, in this case we determine
>   [and I agree] that the smoker's freedom is more important.  The case 
>   could be made or individual drugs such as marijuana, etc.  However
>   to do away with all regulation is ridiculous.  
>
>4) Many govermental functions such as funding scientific research, 
>   setting eveironmental policy, and space exploration seem difficult 
>   under "private contributions."  For example people do believe that 
>   research should be funded, but how difficult will it be for 
>   inidividuals to make an infomed decision as to which 
>   project in what area is worth funding?  It seems the individual will
>   have to have a pretty in depth understanding of all areas of science
>   to make this decision.  WHat about regulating cooporations so that 
>   they do not do things that interfere with things that we enjoy 
>   like clean air and sunlight without too much UV radiation? 
>   There should be some regulation shouldn't there? 
>

That is totally true.  Our contry's freedom is enhanced if
we attempt to improve's environment.  We might not feel a lack
of freedom over polluted rivers -- but wait till it gets into
food supply, etc. etc., thus look at the ozone layer and the warming





>5) If we take away public education, health care,,and the minimum
>   wage law (not even affording them subsistance), then the 
>   promise of "liberty" to those born into the most unfortunate
>   conditions seem but a hollow one.  This is why I've decided 
>   against the libertarian party even though their ideals seemed
>   promising at first.
> 

Economic duress when one is poor means that none of choices are
free.  It is a sham -- your lot in life is chosen for you.



>                                                
>
>
>
>
>
>
>