From: frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib.
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 23:12:17 GMT

GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:

>In article <1992Apr10.195137.27840@cs.ucla.edu>,
>frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes:
>>GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:

111By it's very nature libertarianism is *not*
111something that can be imposed, even democratically imposed.  To
111work, people must believe that it works as well.

>>Sounds like marxist communism to me (i.e. for it to work,
>>everybody must believe, and it will only come about by
>>revolution) - what is needed is a system that is stable
>>enough to sustain the weight of non-believers and can be
>>incrementally implemented.  Mind you, a libertarian society
>>may fit the bill (it has always struck me so, I don't know
>>why you said what you said).

>When a society attempts to implement as law any moral principle
>which is not held by an overwhelming large percentage of the population

You ignored the key part of your own initial statement (what
used to be above the 1's).  Certainly, implementing something
by force that is not commonly believed in won't work.  What I
object to is the notion that Libertarianism is an all-or-nothing
philosophy requiring full participation.  My use of "revolution"
was not to imply armed insurection or the use of force, but
to contrast it with "evolution"; libertarians seem to espouse
sudden and complete societal change, rather than a gradual
and never-ending societal change.  Yes, a simplification, but
if the shoe fits...

I'm sure there is teeth-gnashing going on.  No, I haven't
ignored the posts about how sudden change wouldn't happen
cuz Lib's aren't going to get a sudden majority in Congress.
That isn't the issue - the issue is that if you want to
get *any* seats in Congress, you are going to have to come
up with your own evolutionary path.

>The lack of hope and general despondency of life in our inner cities
>has now reached such levels that life really is cheap.  This is a
>very dangerous turn of events.  We must restore to these people a
>belief that life does have something to offer them, and I firmly
>believe that only the program offered by the Libertarian Party has
>the potential to do that.

Then unwind a bit and get people into office who will make
a difference, rather than running philosophers who consider
their philosophy a moral one and any devience from it on
their part hypocrisy.  Pick an issue (the war on drugs would
be a good place to start).  Run a candidate for a semi-major
office.  Let his platform be demopublican *except* for our
key issue - on that issue, deviate from the norm, and deviate
in a way that everybody can believe in.  Or make it two
issues - combine anti-WoD with tax reform (oops - you
Lib's don't think taxes can be reformed - oh, well).  In any
case, get this person into office, make the change and if
it works you can say "See!?  We weren't nuts after all.  Now,
here's what we should do next..."
-- 


Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17777 alt.activism:7528 alt.news-media:204 soc.rights.human:1353