From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 26 Aug 1992 00:31:08 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 3738@desire.wright.edu, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>	Please ftp the Lib platform and other party positions and post what
>*exactly* Libertarians will do that will be "cold hearted" and why this will be
>a problem.
>

The basic lib response to the question "In libertopia does the government do X" is
that unless X is one of a small group of functions then no, the government does
not do X, but the government does not prevent private citizens from providing
function X. 

So to the following questions a lib would say no: Will the government
provide universal education (even through a voucher mechanism)? Will the government
help fund research for uncommon diseases for which there is no profit in making
drugs? Will the government take an active role enforcing environmental regulations?
Will the government help people get a decent level of health care?

But to the following questions a lib would answer yes: Must I pay taxes to pay for
protection of your property, your life, your defense, to build jails, and for a judicial
system? 

I would ask why do I have to pay for the things you want but you don't have to pay
for the things I want? Your answer would be something like "because we have
correct principles and you don't." And I would say "says who?" And we'll go back
and forth like this forever...Well let's compromise. No. We are right and you
are wrong...

>> 3. Thus libertarians will never have a signigficant influence in
>>    american politics.
>
>	!
>	Do tell.  Since the Libertarians are not one of the "big two", they
>will never be of any importance?
>

No, not because they are not one of the "big two." Perot proved you don't need
to be a demorepublican to get a lot of support. The real reason libertarians
will never be influencial is simply because the majority do not and will not
generally approve of libertarian positions. I do think you can get
a majority to support the general spirit of libertarianism, but not the
extreme positions.

If I were debating against a lib I would ask: If a family of 5 was out of work,
and they exhausted all avenues of help, would you let the family starve? The
lib would after many protestations would eventually have to say yes. I don't agree with this and 
neither to most people.

>	As far as "giving a little", I don't believe in sacrificing principles
>in the name of political expediency. 

Hmm, slavery was ignored so we could have these great united states. Sounds
like a useful political expediency. The Louisiana Purchase was made even though
it technically was outside the powers of the federal government. Sounds like
a useful polotical expediency. The california legislature could use a political
expediency about now, before our bond rating is totally tubed. And you must be real
fun to work with in a group if you don't accept any expediencies.

Immutible principles inevitably leads to righteousness. Righteousness 
leads to nothing but hate and violence. Witness Bosnia, the
holocaust, muslim attitutes towards women, christian attitudes toward non-christians,
etc., etc..

>However, neither to I believe that
>policies should be cast in stone, never to be changed.  Times change, people
>change, and different problems call for different solutions.
>

Yes, but the solutions must be found within your small bag of acceptable solutions or
you'll pick up your marbles and go home. 

>	I don't support *every* Libertarian position or goal, just as I never
>supported *every* Republican position or goal.
>

If you did you would be one weird puppy.


Newsgroups: sci.econ