From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Summary: Yeh Right!  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 12 Jan 93 02:38:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.101421.7898@microsoft.com>, leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)                           writes...
>In article <C0nIDp.oy@dscomsa.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>>The event that caused a massive change in Socialist thinking worldwide was of
>>course the Second World war, and to a great extent the Social-Welfare policies
>>of FDR. FDR proved for the first time that the state could be used as an engine
>>for social progress within a democratic society.
> 
>And look how successful he was.  There is more poverty, crime, and
>hatred in the US today than there was before any of FDR's social policies
>were enacted.  Sure, a few people got fed (mostly bureaucrats), but
>more people were put out of work by high taxes than were ever helped
>by them.

This is so rediculous that it's laughable. Mr. Crocker do you have ANY
idea what condition the economy was in in 1932? Can you buy a clue?
>>
>>If we were to liquidate the social structure in the manner that the New-Right
>>suggest, the total wealth of society would fall. This loss would be far, far
>>greater than the amount that society considers is necessary to be spent on the
>>releif of the poor, care of the sick etc.
> 
>So we want to "liquidate the social structure" now?  Where did that idea
>come from?  We don't want to liquidate it, we simply want to make it
>voluntary.  Libertarians would love a society where citizens of the US
>lived under exactly the same social structure we have today, but where
>each has given his explicit consent to it, and those who have not
>given consent are allowed to fend for themselves.  Wealth is created
>by people working together, that's true; but that's what Libertarians
>want--people working together _by free universal consent_, not some
>sctructure arbitrarily imposed from the outside that may not work
>when things change.  Libertarians want social structures, we just
>want ones that are fluid and free-market driven, not ones that are
>rigid and totalitarian.

And what about the courts, police, and national defense?
>>
>>The crux of the matter is "freely contract". If there is only one employer in an
>>area and the only alternative to taking employment from them is to starve then
>>does that consititute a contract "freely entered into". The problem with the
>>New-Right is that they are incapable of producing a response on this question.
>>The usual retreat into claiming that the free market will cure all does not wash
>>since even the most ardent free marketeer must accept that there may be a time
>>delay in the re-establishment of the free market in a locality where it has
>>failed. 
> 
>Well, life's a bitch and then you die.  The issue isn't some contrived
>notion of what might happen, but whether a free market would handle the
>situation better than a controlled one.  I have to believe that the
>free market is better able to adapt to new situations and failures
>than a controlled one is, and further, that it creates fewer failures
>than controlled ones do.  Or do you postulate that oppressive local
>situations never arise in socialist economies?

What about company script? That was once legal until NeoSocailistPolicies
made that illegal. Under Libertarianizm that would be legal since the 
government wouldn't interfere with the way the company pays it's workers.
In an area that has only one major employer (like a mining community) the
mining company could rule every facit of the communities life from birth
to death, forever. I guess life is a bitch.
> 
>Lee Daniel Crocker    | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
>leecr@microsoft.com   | Libertarian Party  1-800-682-1776

-garrett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc