Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 8 Jan 93 11:04:31 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
> From: hhuang@athena.mit.edu (Han-Young Huang)
> 
> >Or how someone can make a few million raiding people's savings, 
> >when a crucial point of libertarianism is that one's property 
> >cannot be taken without one's consent, whatever the circumstance.
> 
> I assume you missed the recent Savings and Loans scandal that's
> costing the US around $500B?

i believe you're getting close to the "libertarian==anarchist" fallacy
that so many people use. a primary point of libertarianism is that
with privilege comes responsibility. in fact, i've found most 
libertarians to be more concerned with personal/corporate 
responsibility than either Democrats or Republicans.

example: the S&L bailout is the result of the government insuring S&L's,
while allowing them to make whatever (bad/unethical) investments they
wished. lots of privilege, no responsibility. that sort of thing is
rabidly opposed by libertarians.

the difference between libertarians & most other people is that 
libertarians tend to look for solutions that don't involve piling one 
governmental patch on another. sure, go ahead and deregulate S&Ls.
but make sure that their investors & owners are held responsible for
their financial successes & failures. it works for any other business.

> Or is the plan that under libertarianism there will be no one 
> pushing the envelope of what they can get away with? 

quite the opposite. which is fine. greed & fear are the two prime human
motivators. any system that denies greed is asking for one that operates
on fear. while libertarians do favor giving people the maximum possible
freedoms (or rather, not taking away the freedoms that we already have)
i have yet to meet one who believes that people should be able to "get
away with" much at all. the prohibition of force and fraud is probably
-the- strongest tenet of libertarianism.

> A lot of the folks who made money off the S&L crisis technically 
> didn't break a law, perhaps they used "poor judgement" or caused 
> others to do that by loaning on property of questionable value, but 
> hey, all the way to (or is it from?) the bank...

why? 'cause government was sitting there to hold the bag. instead of making
laws to keep people from abusing that loophole, how about closing the
loophole? again, it's the philosophy of addressing root causes instead
of symptoms.

> You are talking about idealized behavior. Enormous amounts of what 
> you see around you in terms of laws and regulations is because 
> there seems to always be a certain ruthless type of human being who 
> insists on living right at the edge of what is absolutely forbidden 
> and what is questionably legal. So you have to firm up that edge 
> lest they prey on people who run their lives based on reasonable 
> common sense. You can't posit a world based on reasonable and 
> honest people, reasonable and honest people rarely go near the edge.

damn straight. remember, libertarian != anarchist.

> >Perhaps you are assuming that people are stupid and cannot be 
> >counted upon to protect what is theirs.  It's a rather malevolent 
> >notion.
> 
> Yes, so stupid as to hand their money over to banks for deposit who
> then go belly-up after loaning all the deposit money to their
> brothers-in-law. You must have an amazingly naive notion about
> punishment and accountability. Even if these scum are caught do you
> think they ever have the money? Do you think victims get paid back? 
> Do you think punishing them pays people back?

nope. who says people have a right to get payed back after they've 
been defrauded? if someone steals my TV set the government has no 
responsibility to replace it for me. if i want it replaced i either 
buy a new one myself or use my insurance (you -did- buy insurance 
didn't you?) likewise, if some banker steals my deposit, it's insane
to ask the government to replace my money. as sure as they do, that
will get abused. (huh. go figure.) besides, the government gets its 
money from -me- in the first place. it'd be cheaper to replace my own
loss & simply cut out the middle (mis) management. the individual shares
of a $5 billion bailout would have been enough for everybody to insure
their own investments. whoops. the government won't allow competition
in that area. hmm. an enforced monopoly. -now- do you understand why
libertarians tend to dislike government? not only does it create problems
in the first place, but it effectively outlaws the real solutions then
fails to hold those who abuse the situation responsible.

> >The whole problem with a democratic society is that at any time, 
> >50.1% of the society can vote to wreck the livelihoods of the 
> >remaining 49.9%.  Do you consider this good government?  Does 
> >sound quite dictatorial to me...
> 
> 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.

forgive some of us for -trying- to escape the will of the mob.

> 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?)

is libertarianism incompatible with democracy? i don't believe so. all
the proposals i've seen assume we're working under a democratic 
government, or a democratic republic. the idea behind libertarianism 
is that the government is specifically limited in what it can do.

> I suppose that is why they are so pugnacious, anyone who doubts them
> is at least something to push against. It must be frustrating 
> shouting at the air most of the time.

oooo. insults. no, we just get tired of being misrepresented as the
proponents of prime evil.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`      "We are errant knaves, all; believe none of us." - Hamlet      `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`