From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: In a libertarian society Was: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:59:06 EST
Organization: ACME Products

In article <C1BpIE.893@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>... 
> Nor do they have the right to protection from the theft of that right which
> would be theirs in a free ecconomic system.
> 
> You see in Libertopia it is rights themselves that would be bought and sold on
> the free market. You would have only the right to protest about the government
> as inalienable, since the government would not exist this would mean no rights
> at all.
> 
	Untrue.  You're confusing Libertarianism with Anarchism (again).

>... 
> John Stuart Mill was a Liberal and later became a Socialist. It is his tradition
> that I am defending, don't insult his memory by claiming that your bogus
> philosophy has anything to do with his.

	Who's to decide whether it is "bogus"?  Certainly not you.

> Strange that you can name the Libertarians who were Utlititarians but none of
> the ones who were not. Could it be that the Liberal Utilitarians and
> Libertarians were one and the same?

	Could it be that you simply hate Libertarians and thus will impunge
the name/label/party at every chance?
	(You gotta love blanket assertions :)

> |> Libertarians want to see a
> |>society with a higher standard of living and more personal
> |>freedom, and we believe that the free market and mutual
> |>respect are the best way to achieve this.  
> 
> You can drop the "we". You have already admitted my saints into your pantheon
> and thus admit that I am a Libertarian too on your own definition. 

	Not unless you join the party.  Of course, libertarian is still
available to all who claim it.

...
> |>Since I consider myself a neoliberal libertarian, I'm a bit
> |>confused about all these "New Right Libertarians" you keep
> |>talking about -- I've never met one, and I don't know anyone
> |>else who has.  

	And you won't.  It's Phills personal label for Libertarians.  He's
angry because they've stolen the left's thunder about personal liberty.
	Thus the need to associate them with the right, and eventually the
Nazis.  (Where it always ends up.)

> Well its an old political tradition that no group gets to chose their own name.
> Just as the name Tory means an Irish Catholic sheep buggerer and was given it to
> them by the Whigs, the self christened "Libertarian" party need a more
> descriptive name. They sit quite happily in with the Pat Buchannans etc as a

	See?

> sort of militant agnostic wing but wanting essentialy the same thing, a retreat
> to the old world parochial certitudes of never never land.

	Yeah, right.  That's us, goose-stepping down Pennsylvania.

> The Neo-Liberal bit is also a bit rich but the gaff was blown on that one years
> back. The Nineteenth century english liberal tradition was not one of removing
> government intervention, far from it since they passed most of the factory acts.
> You can call yourself a Neo-Liberal if you like of course but if we omit the
> classics in favour of a more modern dialect you are really calling yourself a
> New-Liberal. I don't even think that Ronald Regan acting on particularly odd
> instructions from his wifes astrologer would call you that. 

	That's Reagan.

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc