From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: What happened to non-Big Three votes?
Organization: The World
	<BZS.92Nov9235922@ussr.std.com> <1992Nov10.183900.2640@miki.pictel.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 08:41:23 GMT


From: boba@miki.pictel.com (Bob Alexander) [responding to me]
>>In this day and age the last thing we need is another dogmatic "ism".
>
>Interesting.  Libertarians have a philosophical basis by which they decide
>whether a certain government activity is appropriate.  If I understand
>you correctly, the consistent application of this principle is what you
>call "dogmatic."

Yup.

>But doesn't everyone need some criteria by which they judge gov't actions?

Yes, some, like on its merits etc. But based on simple slogans? No,
people don't need that. They do it, but they don't need it, it's a bad
idea.

>If the criteria is unchanging, isn't it "dogmatic?"

Unchanging? No, not necessarily. Dogmatic means inflexible in the face
of contrary evidence. For a long time people have believed that murder
is wrong, but I don't think I would call that belief dogmatic. It just
hasn't been successfully challenged as a concept.

>And if it *does*
>change, then was it the *real* criteria?  For example, a Republican
>might say free enterprise is his criterion.  But when he makes an exception
>for industries crucial to national defense, is it that he is non-dogmatic,
>or that "free enterprise" was not a full statement of his criteria?

Well, both of the reasons you state could be simultaneously true.

>I think most people are unable to state what their real criteria are,
>and thus they are viewed as non-dogmatic.  Libertarians have attempted
>to put their criteria into words (and that alone makes them unusual and
>strange in the political world) and that opens them up to charges of
>dogmatism.

No, not at all. Libertarians are dogmatic because they are dogmatic,
presented with a situation that would seem to make their slogans
unworkable they claw and scrape to not abandon their slogans.

A good example of this is civil rights, minority rights,
anti-discrimination laws which Libertarians reject as a proper role of
govt, although (many) express the extreme cognitive dissonance that
they think a victim has truly been wronged in some palpable way.

But it doesn't fit, it's not a fraud, it's not exactly a theft,
there's no neat slot for it in libertarianism, so that's that, fitting
neatly into their slots is more important than being rational (or, put
better, redefines what they believe is rational.)

The communists were often like that also, presented with a difficult
situation they'd go back to their Marx or Mao and try to figure out
some basis for a decision, even if the process was absurd and
irrelevant.

>What are *your* criteria for evaluating the government?  Do they ever
>waver?  If so, what caused it?

Of course govt's waiver, through their legislative and judicial
process. A conservative in govt might say that some program represents
too much govt. Only a libertarian would believe the discussion was
finished at that point.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Xref: sparky ne.politics:2707 talk.politics.misc:58239