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 19:51:37 GMT

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

>In article <1992Apr10.171218.21678@cs.ucla.edu>,
>frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes:
>>Seriously, libertarians and Libertarians do apply huge amounts of
>>logic and reasoning in creating their model society, and I agree
>>with many of their points.  My major problems are how they propose
>>to get from here to there and how far down that path they want to
>>go.

>When you get right down to it it doesn't really matter at this point
>how we'd like to get from here to there or how far we'd like to go.
>Before any of that is relevant we have to ask what's going to set
>us on the road in that direction.  If Libertarians could elect a
>majority in some legislative body you concerns would certainly be
>relevant, but at this point we're just talking about getting *some*
>Libertarians elected.  Under those circumstance what Libertarians
>will be able to accomplish will be to nibble away at those thing
>they oppose any place they can build a coalition to do that.

I'd suggest that my objections are what are keeping Libertarians
out of office, i.e., it matters *a lot* how you'd like to get
from here to there and how far you want to go.  If a Libertarian
stands up and says "I want to eliminate all fair-employment laws"
they aren't going to get elected.  It's that simple.  If, on
the other hand, Libertarians gradually occupy political offices
and gradually implement a libertarian society, perhaps the day
will come when fair-employment laws are seen as extraneous and
*then* are removed.  Mind you, I don't ever see that happening,
but that's me.

> The
>most major advantage is that an elected Libertarian has a much
>better platform to explain the ideas and attempt to win over others
>than someone limited to running for office.

That doesn't seem to be the case.

>Remember that the goal of Libertarians is not to get elected but to
>live in a libertarian society.  Ultimately that can happen only if
>the vast majority of people become convinced of the validity of
>Libertarian principles.

The only way I'm going to be convinced is to see it in action.
So, let's start implementing some "libertarian" laws (or
removing non-libertarian laws, I guess) and see what happens.
How are we going to do this?  By electing Libertarian candidates.
Need this Libertarian candidate believe in the entire libertarian
manifesto?  Not for my money.  If Libertarians were truly
interested in change, they'd make getting elected a goal.

>By it's very nature libertarianism is *not*
>something that can be imposed, even democratically imposed.  To
>work, 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).
-- 


Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17812 alt.individualism:2397