From: hhuang@athena.mit.edu (Han-Young Huang)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 06:18:49 GMT

In article <BZS.93Jan9001054@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>From: hhuang@athena.mit.edu (Han-Young Huang)
>Punishable by whom? And how does punishment clean up the mess or get
>your coastline back (note: although Exxon certainly did a lot of clean
>up things are hardly even close to what they were.)

Libertarianism != anarchy.  Government is there to enforce contracts.
If government would stop owning coastlines, then people can collect
damages.  Pollute someone's backyard and/or coastline, and suffer the
consequences of destroying someone's property.

>>The S&L scandal was brought about by an *increase* in regulation,
>
>Actually, no, it is generally laid to the deregulation of the banking
>under the Reagan administration.
>
>Yes, that is a common effect of poorly planned deregulation (it can be
>well done, that's not my point), the unscrupulous take advantage.

You seemed to have conveniently ignored what I tried in a few
paragraphs to say.  Since my previous post may have been too
obtuse, I will simplify:

Heavily regulated = deposits insured up to a trillion dollars
Unregulated       = zero deposit insurance

Now, let's look at this carefully.  Under Reagan (strangely enough),
the federal deposit *increased*.  Hence, the regulation *increased*.

>>>You will never escape the will of the mob, about the best anyone has
>>>ever figured out to do is herd them into voting booths. That's hardly
>>>an opinion.
>>
>>Let me construct one type of homophobic mob: which would go out and
>>slaughter lesbians, bisexuals, and gays en masse if given the license.
>>However, the American government specifically denies them that
>>license.  It seems to work quite well against the mob.
>
>Right, so we agree, so what has this to do with libertarianism?

I just wrote:

``It seems to work quite well against the mob.''

You wrote:

``You will never escape the will of the mob...''

We do *not* agree, and hence (since you brought up the issue) this has
plenty to do with libertarianism.

>>>In the end that's the pathos, it's impossible to understand who
>>>libertarians are appealing (complaining) to? Is your point that people
>>>should democratically vote what you assert they will not? Or are you
>>>going to force them into libertarianism at gunpoint, or what? (And
>>>don't repeat the catechism about coercion to me, what are your plans?)
>>
>>Can we agree that a non-libertarian is a statist of some sort.
>
>I supposed you would have to define "statist" for me. Libertarians
>seem to use the term derogatorily, so who would agree to that? The
>problem is that the label is applied to the smallest difference in
>opinion, and then extrapolated madly to make a questionable point.
>
>    "Ah, so you admit you are a statist! You believe people should have
>    driver's licenses! No doubt, like all statists, you therefore believe
>    in branding id numbers on children's foreheads with hot irons you
>    filthy child-molesting statist pig!"

``Ah, you are a libertarian!  You don't believe in driver licenses.
You don't even believe in *marriage*!  You support suicides, drugs,
prostitution, and all sorts of ghoulish and ghastly sexual acts.
Worst of all, you're a capitalist.  That means you must be in cahoots
with the filthy dirty rich, who corrupt government and are the source
of most of the ills on earth since their wealth is made on the backs
of the oppressed.''

It goes both ways, no?

>>Who are the statists complaining to?
>
>Who's complaining?

Well, there was Clinton.  There was Bush.  And there was Perot.  I
sure heard lotsa noise last year.

>Well, far be it for me to say I have no complaints, but they're not
>exactly of the degree and damnation one gets from libertarians.
>
>>Plans?  Cut government at all levels, of all kinds.  Do it slowly, but
>>steadily.
>
>At all levels? Even the ones which will enforce against crimes and
>frauds?

A dumb, misleading statement of mine.  But, yes, even those against
crimes, since many anti-crime measures are trying to enforce
victim-less crimes.  Though I do see that, if anything, anti-fraud
government will even increase in size, as people come to sign more and
more contracts among themselves, rather than having government oversee
everything they do.

>>Reform the judicial, law and tort systems.
>
>How so?

Take out most unnecessary laws.  Reform and rewrite many bodies of
laws from the bottom up.  Allow very few loopholes, allow fairly
specific and easily enforceable laws.  Helps people at very many
levels.  The fresh air will be appreciated.  Surely you'll agree that
our legal system needs a bit of cleaning up to do.

>>Phase out contracts.
>
>Now there's an odd one I've never seen in this particular bag.

That's because I said it stupidly and misleadingly.  I meant
``contracts'' meaning ``government contracts'' such as Social
Security, Medicare, welfare and other social spending.

>>You don't have to
>>be a genius to vote LP.  You just need to be disillusioned from the
>>false prophecies of statism (to begin with, there're the Democratic
>>and Republican parties).
>
>Well, I can agree with that sentiment, but can't the same be just as
>easily said about communism (and often has been!) A chicken in every
>pot! Who can disagree (well, it certainly appeals to people who are
>short one chicken.)

Libertarianism doesn't promise a chicken in every pot.  But it
promises that it won't compel you to go get that chicken, nor will it
prohibit you from getting it, so long as you acquired it with the
consent of individual(s) or you bred the chicken yourself.  Ideally,
you will see the value in either breeding your own chicken, or in
doing other work of value which can be bartered for someone else's
chicken.  It's really a simple concept that even the most downtrodden
can understand.  But whatever one does, it is ultimately up to the
individual.  The best part is that your chicken, once you've earned
it, is all yours.

See, libertarianism's not all that bad, after all.  It doesn't promise
global peace and happiness.  But would you rather place your faith in
the individual's ability to live his/her own life, or in the demagogue
holding a burning torch at the head of a raging, looting mob?

Is it really that difficult of a choice?  For sure, I'm simplifying
things.  But perhaps you, too, are trying to implicate us all as
raving, ranting lunatics?  Even just a little bit?  :-)

Han-Young Huang
hhuang@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism