From: weyand@getafix.cs.uoregon.edu (Christopher Scott Weyand)
Subject: Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS
Organization: U of O
	<visser.702539448@convex.convex.com>
	<1992Apr6.204612.1031@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
	<1992Apr6.223315.22612@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 06:53:22 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.223315.22612@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> ajl9@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Aaron J Lebovitz) writes:

   In article <1992Apr6.204612.1031@cbfsb.cb.att.com> skrone@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (stuart.krone) writes:
   >In article <visser.702539448@convex.convex.com> visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
   >>In <1992Apr4.085611.8063@eskimo.celestial.com> Corner.Core.Cafe writes:
   >>
   >>
   >>	The party also supports the "right" of private discrimination in
   >>employment, housing, and "service".  
   >>
   >The government does not exist to force your set of moral values
   >on other people. If I own a house it should be my decision as to who I
   >will or will not sell my house to.
   >

   For a political candidate, you sure have a poor understanding of history.
   The only justification for private discrimination in employment, housing
   and service comes from men like David Duke, et. al., who want to keep the
   "bad elements" (i.e. Blacks, Jews, Asians, etc.) out of mainstream society.
   Remember all white lunch counters, drinking fountains, bathrooms?  Do you
   want those back?  Are you prepared to answer this question?

Do you really believe that white-only drinking fountains would suddenly
spring-up all over the country?  
If "Mom and Pop Country Store" wants to serve people of race X only, for
example, why should they not be allowed to?  They own the store, it is a
private enterprise.  Now I'm guessing that such businesses would not be
very successful.  For one, they are excluding customers and thus possible
profits; and two, they probably could not withstand the incredible public
pressure that would result from their racism.

   >>	They believe that it is wrong to
   >>have laws that require doctors to help at the scene of an accident or
   >>an emergency.
   >
   >What right do you have to compell someone to act just because of their
   >chosen profession? Who are you to tell them what risks they should 
   >take.

   There is this little thing called the Hippocratic oath.  Ever heard of it?
   Any doctor who wouldn't jump in to help shouldn't be a doctor in the first
   place, and the AMA, all of whose members are doctors, establish the oath.

I believe the Hippocratic oath is an oath of ethics not of law (incorrect?).  
Your confusion is a common misunderstanding among those so critical of 
libertarian ideas.  Namely, that if something is not strictly illegal then it 
is condoned.  That is an absurd notion.  As someone else mentioned I really 
don't think we'd have to worry about doctor's not helping out in emergencies
if laws requiring such action were abolished.  It would take a near evil
doctor to not offer assistance in cases for which personal risk was low.  And
the public pressure on such doctors (if discovered) would be so intense that
I doubt they could continue such behavior.


   >>	They believe in repealing the various neutrality acts that prevent
   >>corporations from forming and supporting armies aboard and overthrowing
   >>governments abroad.
   >
   >Are you implying that this doesn't happen today ??

   Not as much as it would if you made it easy to do...
   Murder is illegal, but you wouldn't say it doesn't happen today.

Again, how in the world do you expect a corporation that is in the business
of controlling foreign gov'ts to survive public pressure.  And of course
the public would find out.  A secret that big could not be kept for long
in this day of instant global communications.  
Additionally, who is to say that I shouldn't support a foreign military operation
as an individual.  We do it all the time but OUR gov't makes the decision
as to who gets the money.  I want to make the decision to fund (or not fund)
war.

   >>	They believe in repeal of the child labor laws and the minimum wage.
   >>They believe in repeal of compulsory vaccination laws and in the establishment
   >>of a free market for human body parts.
   >
   >What gives you the right to dictate "morality" to anyone else ??
   >If I wish to sell my kidney or work for $1.00/hr. who are you to 
   >tell me that I can't ?? It's my life thank you, I'll live it as I see fit.

   Allowing employers to pay $1.00/hr doesn't make it the worker's choice;
   it makes it the employers choice, and how are you going to deal with all of 
   the people who get screwed over by stingy employers?  Bagging the min wage
   will only lead to exploitation, and greater need for gov't intervention.

How so?  You are not forced to work for $1/hr.  If an employer does not fufill
the terms of the employment contract then gov't will exist to protect the
individual.

   >The child labor laws would be highly debatable by the way.
   >Most Libertarians would NOT support that.

   The fact that it is debatable is scary to me.

Scary statement.  Translation = "1st amendment, what's that?"
There should be no idea so repugnant that it is not open to public debate at 
any time.  In fact it is only through public debate that we can identify those
ideas worthy of our consideration and those ideas demanding our condemnation.

   >Some of what you said is correct, but to imply that Libertarians are
   >joined at the brain stem and think alike is incorrect.
   >There is considerable debate over these and other issues within the party.
   >I joined the Libertarian party because almost all of their policies made
   >sence. These policies are a hell of a lot better than what the Republicrats
   >have done to our country.  

   The "Republicrats" spent many years solving the problems that your 
   "sensible" policies would re-create.

Solving?

   Aaron Lebovitz


Chris Weyand
weyand@cs.uoregon.edu
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:3302 misc.legal:9011 talk.politics.drugs:2778