From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Snuff Films was Re: Gladiatorial Libertarians [was Re: Pushkin Dueling...]
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 15:59:00 GMT

In <18ud55INNfbf@news.aero.org>, Richard Foy writes:

>In article <1992Sep12.212850.14353@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanfor
>>In article <18rp7rINNrop@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:

>>>for her children if she will be the main star of a snuff film. That
>>>is she agrees to be killed in a pornographic film.
>>>
>>>Would this be legal in a libertarian world.
>>
>>No one blinks when we pay race car drivers a few million to engage in
>>an activity that will kill some of them.  How is the snuff a mother
>>film different?
>>
>>Unless it is, this is no more of a "hard" case for a libertarian world
>>than it is for our world.
>>
>>-andy
>>--
>>UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
>>ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu

>I find the responses to my sequence of scenarios, quite interesting. To
>the dueling question most reponses said so what. The gladiator raised a
>little more concern, but still the primary attitude was that the state
>should not interfere. The snuff raised very serious concern about the
>well being of the woman. One still expressed the attitude of its up to
>the parties involved.

I believe in the philosophy that every person possesses their own sovereignty,
so *philosophically*, I agree 100%.  Realistically, I don't want to live in a
society which sanctions such activities--and I'm a card-carrying Libertarian.

>I posted this sequence to illustrate the problems I see with the
>libertarian principles. The world is not as simple as the libertarian
>philosophy paints it. Economics, property, force and fraud are
>intimately related. The scenarios seemed to be contrived. However, it
>seems to me quite possible that these cases could arise in a full
>libertarian society. There are enough mixed up people, some with lots of
>money, to make these things realistic possibilities.

I'll agree this much:  There are far more possibilities under Libertarianism
which would be *legal* than under any other set of political principles, so
the fact that unpalatable possibilities exist in greater number under a
libertarian government would be virtually true by definition.

No one little group of people can control the vast amount of wealth in this
nation.  For all of the crying and whining, our society has wealth distribution
which is about as even as you'll find anywhere.  And compare our poor to the
poor in, say, Somalia or Ethiopia.  Does that make it fair?  No.  Remember that
our Constitution doesn't have a Fairness Amendment.  But we all have the right
to make ourselves the best we can be and take ourselves as far as our hard work
and abilities can take us.

>Unfortunately, it is not such extreme situations that concern me about
>libertaria. Rather it is that libertaria would create innumerable
>similiar situations of lesser magnitude. Perhaps no more than we have
>now. But I see no reason for there to be less.

Do Democrats have to agree with 100% of the Democratic platform?  Do
Republicans have to support all of the GOP platform?  Yet, when it comes to a
third party, people somehow feel that, in order to be a Libertarian, they would
have to support the entire Libertarian philosophy.

Well, I don't.  Libertarianism is a beautiful philosophy of individual freedom
but realistically in the world we live in, *pure* libertarianism is neither
obtainable nor desirable.  Yet I find the small-government, minimal state
intervention plank of the Libertarian platform appealing enough to support the
party.  All you have to do is look at the response that the Red Cross gets
after a disaster, and you'll see human nature as most humans practice it.  And,
the Red Cross does it with over 75% of the funds going to the cause...unlike
the 30% or 40% common to government "giveaways."

>The human animal is capable of great creativity, of great compassion,
>and great social concern. We are also capable of great self-delusion, of
>great self indulgence, of great social destructiveness.

Libertarianism is *not* anarchy, like most people claim.  The primary plank is
belief in a small, unobtrusive federal government with the Bill of Rights--
more specifically, the neglected and abused 2nd and 10th Amendments--protected.
I know very few Libertarians who support the kind of world you fear under
libertarianism.  They're no different than the world at large--nothing has to
be absolute, and if one had to support 100% of a party platform to endorse it,
then we'd have 200 million parties in America alone!

>In my view the political process in this country has resulted in a
>situation which has the worst possible combination of government control
>and government non-interference. I doubt that libertaria would be much
>better.

Are you saying that government is ignoring what it should be regulating and
vice-versa?  You're half right.  What ever you think about libertarians, you
should at least acknowledge this much:  how many other political entities apply
their philosophy as consistently as the Libertarians?  Do you ever see the
Libertarian Party fudge on their platform just to gain popular opinion?

Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
****************************************************************************
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
 for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist #51
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,misc.consumers