From: gliesche@lonestar.utsa.edu (Jules D. Gliesche)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Questions about the LP
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:20:38 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio


David Landis asked some very intelligent questions and Chris
Weyand gave some good responses - but as about as bonafide of
a Libertarian as you can get, I'd like to augment a few points:

>   1)  How does the Libertarian position guarantee that I will
>       breathe clean air?  In other words, how would they protect
>       the environment or would they?

Dave, quite honestly the LP position does not guarantee you will
breathe clean air any more than the current mass of regulations
that set "acceptable" levels of pollution. However, we are
asserting that individual responsibility, property rights, and
active self-interest will better protect the environment than
the current system. For instance, if the Sierra Club, Greenpeace,
etc. are concerned about a piece of land - they could purchase
and administrate it as they see fit (as opposed to spending
millions to buy congressmen and write laws.) As uncontested
owners, they could preserve it to their heart's content - with
our blessings. Since the current system doesn't work, why
should we keep doing the same thing?

>   2)  In light of the fact that nations such as Japan and Taiwan have
>       very good nationalised education programs, how can Libertarians
>       justify a more privitised education system.

Japan and Taiwan also have high rates of teenage suicide (final exam
stress, etc.) and produce class after class of students who have
only memorized, memorized, memorized. It works in their culture,
because their culture is very group-oriented and demands little
original thinking. This is why Japan and Taiwan only improve upon
ideas they "borrow" from others, and also why most Japanese and
Taiwanese have very little personal, intellectual, or social
freedom. In order for our system to work, we need students who
are diverse, dynamic, and original thinkers - not pre-programmed
cogs in a wheel. Hence, since the current government-controlled
school system isn't working, let's try something different.

>   3)  It is an unfortunate fact of life that people who are not Caucasian
>       are more frequently victims of discrimination than those who are
>       Caucasian [U.S.A context].  If minorities are to enjoy "life,
>       liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.." what is in the Libertarian
>       platform that would ensure them the same job opportunities as
>       Caucasians?

Once again, we're not saying we'll guarentee perfect equality.
All the force (i.e. laws) that have been passed since '64
haven't done all that much either (except create generations of poor
people with no way out.) There is still prejudice, there are still
unfair labor practices, there is still ignorance and intolerance.
These things, however, can only be permenantly overcome by
education, evolution, and voluntary cooperation. The early message
of the civil rights movement was essentially: give us a level
playing field and let us support ourselves. The politicos did neither.
We want a level playing field at the legal level, and to allow
free individuals to solve their own problems from there.
This means that groups like NAACP, Urban League, Coalition for
X, etc. would have all the tools of change (boycott, publicity,
strikes, setting up alternative businesses) to fight racism,
sexism, and so on. The bottom line is that you won't convert the
racist, sexist or xenophobe with legislation - you've got to
either show them it's in their own best interest to change, or
simply leave them to wallow in their ways and do business
elsewhere. So long as they don't break out their robes and
assualt people physically or attack the property of others -
they do have the right to be racist assholes. Others have the
right to circumvent and ostracise them.

>   4)  The invasion of Kuwait was indeed a terrible action on the part
>       of Sadaam Insane.  Would the Libertarian party condone the use
>       of force against them outside of our boarders?  It is reasonable
>       to assert that the U.S.'s participation was based upon economic
>       interests.  I'm personally glad that the u.s/u.n. kicked Sadaam
>       out of Kuwait, because I have to commute to work.   I like having
>       income.

The LP holds that government is there to protect us from force and
agression - not institute them. It was US meddling in the region which
created Sadaam, just as the perverse desire to coordinate the entire
world has given us the Shah, Somoza, Pinochet, Marcos, Chaing Kai-Shek,
etc., etc., etc. Hence, this was not solely a war to protect a
commodity, it was another interventionist move to run the world as
the US sees fit.
Have you ever asked yourself why there are NO really viable sources
of energy out there except oil? Do you think it's because there ARE
no more viable sources? Do you think it's possible that collusion
between govt. and big industry are putting you, the consumer, over a
barrel? Without getting long-winded, the LP maintains that such questions
as energy are totally solvable by a free market.

Thanks for the questions and thanks for you interest.

Jules

 _______________________________________________________
 |     "I love my country, but I fear my government"     |
 | Marrou / Lord '92 - VOTE LIBERTARIAN - 1-800-682-1776 |