Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Libertarianism: The Great Satan or NOT!
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 7 Apr 92 09:20:29 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.


In <visser.702539448@convex.convex.com> visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:

>In <1992Apr4.085611.8063@eskimo.celestial.com> Corner.Core.Cafe writes:
>+>     The Libertarian Party is America's third largest and fastest growing
>+>political party. Libertarians believe "That government is best which governs
>+>least." The party supports civil liberties, a free market economy, and a
>+>non-interventionist foreign policy.
>
>	The party also supports the "right" of private discrimination in
>employment, housing, and "service".  

	Untrue.

>	They believe that it is wrong to
>have laws that require doctors to help at the scene of an accident or
>an emergency.

	Misleading.  They believe that doctors should do this without having to
be forced into it.  Accordingly, they should also be protected from litigation
as a result of such aid.

>	They believe in repealing the various neutrality acts that prevent
>corporations from forming and supporting armies aboard and overthrowing
>governments abroad.

	??? I haven't seen this anywhere.  Indeed one the basic tenents of
Libertarianism is non-intervention.

>	They believe in repeal of the child labor laws and the minimum wage.
>They believe in repeal of compulsory vaccination laws and in the establishment
>of a free market for human body parts.

	Minimum wage sucks.  It is an inflationary device.  1) If kids want to
work for spending money they should be allowed.  2) This does not mean 12 hour
shifts in coal mines.  Once again you are being misleading.

>	They oppose laws requiring either air-bags or seat belts to be 
>provided as standard equipment in cars. 

	Evolution in action.  Stupid people should be allowed to die.  They'll
just find another way to kill themselves.  Should we require padded homes and
25 MPH speed limits everywhere also?
	It is to everyone's benefit that people not die in accidents, so bags
and belt use should be encouraged, but if people insist on living dangerously,
we shouldn't stop them.
	Or shall we put policemen at the base of mountains to enforce
"No climbing!" laws?

>	In regard to the environment they believe that "strict liability, 
>not government agencies should regulate pollution."  They do not speak of
>what happens when the liable entity has ceased to exist through bankruptcy,
>disillusion or lack of funds.

	It serves as a great example to other companies of how *not* to do
business.  Besides when people are alert, abuse is much more likely to be
caught than if it is left to some bureaucrat whose job depends on there always
being a problem to look into.
	You seem to think government regulation/responsibility prevents a
company from going bankrupt to avoid settlements.  Shall we talk about
Asbestos?

	[All the above is from the current Libertarian party platform.  The
	 parts that usually are not part of the public pitch.]

	Hmmmm.  Where is the FTP location?

Brett
===============================================================================
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                            CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
===============================================================================
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17266 ca.politics:3358 ba.politics:2600 alt.politics.homosexuality:1829