From: gharris@lando.hns.com (Garnet)
Subject: Re: taxes, theft, police, etc.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Hughes Network Systems, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 00:28:00 GMT

>In article <13646@kgnaix11.aix.kingston.ibm.com>, 
mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones) writes...
>>In article <89.2AA3B7D7@toadnet.org> 
Roger.Franz@p0.f16.n8012.z86.Toadnet.org (Roger Franz) writes:
> 
>Read your history. This is one of the major reasons why money was
>established. Governments were established, in part, to give legitimacy to
>the money (i.e., some expectation that if you took the money in exchange for
>goods, you would in turn be able to exchange it for other goods).
>  
I think that the evolution of government is seperate from the evolution of
currency.  Modern government has evolved from tribal forms of rule.  Modern
currency has evolved from the barter system.  While all modern day governments
regulate their currency, I think it is too broad of a generalization to state
that "money" would not exist without "government".  Many primitive cultures
had forms of currency that were accepted by custom.  And conversly, there are
forms of "currency" that are accepted without the official sanction of 
government, e.g. gold, silver, etc.

It is also incorrect to assume that "government" sanction of a "currency"
automatically gives value to the currency.  Russia's currency has very 
little value yet it is fully sanctioned by the government.  Another example of
history is from this country.  

Before FDR, banks were allowed to issue their own currency.  They backed it 
with gold and the deposits of their clients.  FDR in effect made the issuing 
of "currency" a government monopoly.  He even took away the right to own gold.
I see nothing wrong with the government issuing currency as long as they do
not have carte blanche.  Germany during WWII is an excellent example of the
dangers of giving government carte blanche.

>>Not true either. You socialists really like to distort the truth. 
> 
>Oh please. So, you crypto-anarchists are saying that we'd be much better if
>everybody ignored the government, like, say, in Yugoslavia! Sure! Now, of
>course that's a ridiculous statement, but no more so than yours above.
>Probably the least appealing thing about many net.libertarians is their
>reflex obnoxiousness in calling anyone they disagree with socialists or
>statists. What, did you guys all go to the same school with the Jehovah's
>Witnesses?

Not all libertarians are anarchists and not all anarchists are libertarians.
While there is some overlap between the two groups, the two terms are not
synonyms.

>  
>> > GW: Taxes  are the dues you pay to society in return for all the 
>> > GW: benefits you 
>> 
>>Ah, the benefits. [Obnoxiously long line with several examples of
>government idiocy deleted]
>Yeah, so what's your point? The US government isn't perfect. In some cases,
>like the War on Drugs, it's bordering on dangerous. In libertopia, of
>course, there would never be any crime, no injustice, no pollution. Right,
>and the Queen of England is a drug dealer.
>  

LaRouche is not a libertarian.  He hates libertarians!

>> > GW: elect someone who'll vote the way you want. 
>>We can't; you won't let us put him on the ballot! 
> 
>Is this the hysterical you or the ideological you? Last I saw, Marrou was on
>the ballot in a bunch of states. 

In 1980, the Libertarians were on all 50 state ballots.  After that election,
many states changed their requirements making it harder for a third party
canadate to get on all 50 state ballots.  While I am not crying "consperacy",
I do realize that many local politicians have a vested intrest in preserving
the two party system.  Hawaii, and two other states will not allow write-in
canadates.

BTW, it appears that the Marrou will meet the ballot requirements for all 50
states this election.

>Besides, what is it about so many Libertarians that seems to make them 
>unable to field candidates for positions other than President? If 
>Libertarianism is such a good deal, why can't we have a demonstration of it 
>in a couple of cities, or a state?

This is not correct.  The Libertarians have elected officials serving in
the state legislative assemblies of New Hampshire, California, and Alaska.
(There might be other states, but I know of these three.)  Maryland has
canadites on the ballot for the Senate and House of Representatives in the
5th and 6th districts.

There are several reasons why Libertarines have not done well in the polls.
Some of them include:  media coverage, ballot access, and finances.

Libertarians get very little media coverage.  Perot says that he _might_
run for president and he gets front page news before he is even on one
states ballot.  I have not seen a single article in the _Washington Post_
that even mentions the Libertarians.  (Gary Wills did have an op-ed piece
on them.)  Had Perot stayed in the election, he would have been included
in the Presidential debates.  Marrou will not be included.  When newspapers
do profiles on the various canadates, they usually omit libertarian
canadates.  Most people I have talked to do not know who Marrou is nor are
they aware that there is a Libertarian Party.

Most states make it extremely difficult to get on the ballot for third party
canadates.  Ohio would not let Libertarians run under the LP.  They required
them to be listed as "independant".  (BTW, the courts have overturned that
policy)  Although the MD canadate has meet all the requirements and is 
considered to be an "offical" canadate, his name will not be listed on the
voting machines.  People who want to vote for him must write his name in.

And since the Libertarine Party is a small party, it does not have the mega
bucks the other two parties do to spend on advertizing.  Plus some of its
limited resources must be spent on getting onto the ballots.  This is a
chicken-egg problem.  With no money, people do not know about the LP.  And
if people do not know about the LP, they won't give it money.

NB  The above is not a whining diatribe about how the LP is picked on.  It is
merely trying to answer your question about why more of them are not elected.

Garnet Harris