From: frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib.
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 16:52:15 GMT

pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:


>In article <1992Apr7.193628.24602@cs.ucla.edu> frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu
>(Greg Frazier) writes:
>>If there was a little less "purity" in libertarianism and a little
>>more interest in taking the current system and, by small modifications,
>>gradually make it more libertarian, I'd be into it.  Trying to
>>re-structure society in one fell swoop just doesn't cut it for me
>>(call me chicken).

>1) No one is proposing changing everything overnight; doing that is
>   impossible. It would take years to implement the changes we
>   propose.

That isn't what I've been hearing, but I'll continue to
listen.

>2) If you really want less "purity", more "compromise", and the like,
>   well, go and support a Republocrat. I don't see why we should
>   settle for what is less than the BEST solution.

Are you really so sure your solution is best?  You've more
self-confidence than I do.

>   If someone came to
>   you and said "Well, you have a tumor. There is a risk if we try to
>   take it out of the operation killing you, and there is a very real
>   risk of you dying if we leave it in, so we are going to take half
>   of it out as a compromise", you'd say they were not fit to practice
>   medicine -- They've just handed you the WORST of both worlds.

Sorry metaphor.  How about they say "We've got some medicines here.
They're all experimental, but we've never seen a disease like yours
and nobody has every cured it - but we think these might work.
We've got a structured program here for applying them one at a
time and seeing how they go - if one seems to work, we'll go for
the full dosage."

>   Libertarians don't like settling for less than the best possible
>   system.

I'd say some Libertarians have gotten a bit too much religion.

>   I admit that being willing to compromise our ideals would
>   get us elected more easily, but our objective is not to be elected
>   more easily but to accomplish our goals, and our goals will be lost
>   if we sacrifice what you call our insistance on "purity", but what
>   we think of as our insistance on doing what's right.

I disagree 100%.  First, while being willing to work with the
system and making incremental changes is compromise, it is not
compromising your ideals.  It is simply living in and with a
democracy/republic - it is the nature of the beast.  Second,
if you are not willing to compromise, then you won't accomplish
your goals, which definitely would *not* be sacrificed by
achieving them one at a time.  If you'd stop thinking of the
libertarian philosophy as "the right thing to do" and start
thinking of it as a better way to go than what we have now, I
think you'll (a) have better success at convincing others,
(b) have better success at working with the system to achieve
change and (c) sleep better at night.
-- 


Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,misc.taxes,alt.politics.elections