From: wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Better a libertarian in Hell than a taxpayer in Heaven.
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:17:38 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <18qn3aINNr8@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>Arrgh!  I can't stand it any more!  I've barely read 50 messages in this
>newsgroup, and they are so blatantly STUPID that I can barely refrain from
>responding to each.


>One twit declares that he can leave his job if his employer treats him
>unjustly, but he doesn't want to leave his country if his government does
>likewise.  Poor baby.  He should be glad his government can't fire him.

I think that's part of the problem.  The government doesn't fire anybody.

>
>Another twit declares people should be able to opt out of the economic
>system and not have to pay property taxes.  Property IS part of the economic
>system, a non-monetary component.  But it's convenient to ignore the facts.
>Hey, if property isn't part of the economic system, I'm going to leave the
>economic system long enough to get me some property and then return.

Did the person say that we should abolish property taxes or did the
person say that he or she was refusing to pay them?  I mean, do you 
believe that all economic entities should be taxed?  Our tax code now
is very inconsistent.  Why is it that if you invest in buying a house
you get large tax breaks on your mortgage interest, but if you invest in
a company you have to pay taxes on the dividends you earn PLUS a tax on
capital gains if you decide to sell the stock?  

>
>Still another pulls out of thin air the divine right to be left alone (which
>has as much basis as the divine right of kings.)  He talks of legalizing
>drugs, but punishing harshly those who are caught driving under the influence.
>Where does the philosophical justification of this come from?  Driving
>under the influence causes no harm unless an accident occurs.

Some libertarians do make that argument, and also argue against the
speed limit.  However, I think there is a difference between using a drug
and using a drug and subsequently causing harm to others.  If you simply
want to smoke pot and you don't harm anyone else in the process, why
should you be considered a felon?   

  Thus, under
>libertarian thought, there should be no government interference unless an
>accident takes place.

Usually there isn't anyway.  The police don't have the time or resources
to pull everyone over to see if they are drunk driving.  And is often
the case, they never catch a drunk driver until after he or she has
been in an accident.  If you want to drink and drive, the cops by and
large are not going to be there to stop you from getting into the car
and driving off.

>
>The worst thing about it all is the blatant class interest that most
>libertarians display.  "I'm in the upper middle class, or going to be, or
>already have a better education than most people, and I want to keep
>every penny I earn and the hell with everybody else, let them lie in
>the gutter, let children starve, etc."

Oh, nice stereotyping.  I guess it's better to be bigoted than libertarian,
right?  


>
>Mike Huben

William F. Tell
UC Berkeley
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian