From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:45:26 GMT
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering

In article <nr99a54@zola.esd.sgi.com>
thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
 
>
>In article <168318A82.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com>, MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com writes:
>
>[...]
>
>> I do not buy the program of either party totally.  I even acknowledge
>> the Libertarians have some good ideas, especially in the field of civil
>> liberties.  You do, however have a hard time with economics.
>
>He he!  There are, of course, people who have come to exactly the
>opposite conclusion.  How convenient for the State.
>
And too bad for you.  You are silly enough all around that you are (and
will remain) a fringe party getting an insignificant fraction of the
vote.
 
>But seriously, libertarians don't expect the homeless problem to
>disappear.  What libertarians want people to acknowledge is the
>costs of regulations that purport to promote safety.  This is
>good economics.  They also want people to acknowledge that
>government solutions haven't worked, and that operationally the
>main functions of organizations like HUD is to provide welfare
>for politically well-connected construction companies.
>
Of course regulations cost.  Who ever said they do not?  The
Libertarian alternative of removing these regulations costs too.  You
assume builders would only cut corners on housing for poor people?  I
don't.  I assume they will cut corners on my house given the chance.
Without standards, they would have no reason not to do so.  I don't
want my kids sleeping in a firetrap because the builder could save a
few dollars on the electrical system, while charging me for more
expensive parts.
>
>> I personally believe Libertarians are hopeless, but that is not what I
>> said in my post.  Saying that logical arguments are useless is not
>> necessarily the same thing.  You start from a Libertarian set of
>> premises, from which you draw conclusions.  I start from a different
>> set that leads to different conclusions.  Neither of us has the
>> slightest chance of being convinced by the other.
>
>The only premise that libertarians start with is that people have
>a right to decide for themselves what the appropriate balance of
>costs to benefits is.  (This premise doesn't mean issues like
>abortion are automatically solved for you.  But it does provide
>a foundation from which rules for social interaction can be
>derived and institutionalized.)
>
Other Libertarians have cited other premises to me.  Yours would seem
to be derived from some of those others.  The problem is that an
equitable contract depends on a balance of power between the
contracting parties.  Power can include money or knowledge as well as
coercive power.  In the absence of a balancing mechanism, like
standards, and the knowledge that the standards will be enforced, the
provider of a service often has disproportionate power.
 
>The alternate premise is that certain people have a right to decide
>for others against their will what is best for them.  Is that what
>you really believe?
>
In some cases, yes.  I want regulations that say a manufacturer cannot
dump poisons into my drinking water supply.  If that makes the
customers of that plant pay more because the manufacturer has to cover
the costs of proper disposal "against their will", then tah's just too
bad.
 
>thant
>
Jim
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections