Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 9 Jan 93 14:57:38 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
> From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
> >> I assume you missed the recent Savings and Loans scandal that's
> >> costing the US around $500B?
> >
> >i believe you're getting close to the "libertarian==anarchist" 
> >fallacy that so many people use. a primary point of libertarianism 
> >is that with privilege comes responsibility.
> 
> And just who is supposed to enforce this responsibility? The govt???

ultimately, the government is responsible for enforcing responsibility.
many times however, there mere threat of say, court action is enough to
keep people in line. many people don't need threats to keep them in line
in the first place. ("law abiding citizens") my point is this:

governmental action is a LAST RESORT that uses resources unnecessarily &
puts a burden on everyone. whenever possible we should -not- rely on
it. is that simple enough for you? libertarians are -not- anarchists.
we fully realize the need for government. we just don't believe that it
can or should be the solution to every problem.

> Ooops, we got rid of them mostly...(and I don't mean anarchy, who? 
> who is supposed to enforce responsibility? please don't lecture me 
> with the libertarian vs anarchy polemics, just answer the question.)

pardon me, but are you just acting obtuse or are you this way naturally?
libertarians don't want anarchy! you seem to assume that it's an all or
nothing proposition. even the most extreme libertarian positions assume
we WILL have a government that enforces the law. 

> >the difference between libertarians & most other people is that 
> >libertarians tend to look for solutions that don't involve piling 
> >one governmental patch on another. sure, go ahead and deregulate 
> >S&Ls. but make sure that their investors & owners are held 
> >responsible for their financial successes & failures. it works for 
> >any other business.
> 
> I'll ask again, who is supposed to hold them responsible? How?

i already answered that. and your response so far has been "a 
libertarian society wouldn't have a government! no they wouldn't! no 
they wouldn't! now tell me again how this non-existant government 
will enforce laws!" makes you sound like an idiot is what it does.

> >> Yes, so stupid as to hand their money over to banks for deposit 
> >> who then go belly-up after loaning all the deposit money to their
> >> brothers-in-law. You must have an amazingly naive notion about
> >> punishment and accountability. Even if these scum are caught do 
> >> you think they ever have the money? Do you think victims get 
> >> paid back? Do you think punishing them pays people back?
> >
> >nope. who says people have a right to get payed back after they've 
> >been defrauded? if someone steals my TV set the government has no 
> >responsibility to replace it for me. if i want it replaced i 
> >either buy a new one myself or use my insurance (you -did- buy 
> >insurance didn't you?)
> 
> Oh ho! You think insurance companies will be much the same in the
> society you describe where there is no or little govt playing an
> active role preventing crime and recovering property (play twilight
> zone music.)

again, you ASSUME that a libertarian government wouldn't be concerned
with preventing crime. that's an anarchist situation, not a libertarian
one. no wonder you have such a bad view of libertarianism: you don't
even know what it is!

> >besides, the government gets its money from -me- in the first 
> >place. it'd be cheaper to replace my own loss & simply cut out the 
> >middle (mis) management.
> 
> Do you really believe this tripe you are spouting? Let me get this
> straight, if your bank down the corner goes belly up, not every 
> bank, yours, then you and the other say 1500 depositors are better 
> off replacing your own money than spreading that rare event around?

yup. i have -no- right to demand someone else take my loss from a bad 
investment. notice that when one assumes that such events are rare &
"spreads it around" such events are no longer rare. why? 'cause people
begin making bad investments, knowing they won't have to take the fall
for it.

> A minute ago you were talking about the wonders of insurance. Now 
> you seem to believe insurance doesn't work. Which is it? What does 
> FDIC stand for? How is it operated? Is it different than any 
> insurance, other than the fact that the US Govt happens to own it? 

yes. it is different. it insured things no insurance company who can't
just steal from the population to make up for its losses would have.

> >the individual shares of a $500 billion bailout would have been 
> >enough for everybody to insure their own investments. whoops. the 
> >government won't allow competition in that area.
> 
> It was $500B.

corrected.

> It WAS insurance, what are you talking about?

insure it privately, with insurers who have more than half a brain.

> Your cheap attempt at reasoning here is promoting the illogical
> fallacy that this kind of thing is spread around evenly and you can
> just average the problem magically. You cannot, thousands of people
> lost their shirts (or potentially lost their shirts) on the order of
> $50-100K each in Texas. But 100 million people were chipping in one
> insurance against that possibility. Now use a little sense and re-
> work your statements, what you are presenting isn't even laughable.

so? thousands of people lost their shirts. big deal. if i invest all my
money on the stock market & lose my shirt it's not the government's
responsibility to bail me out. if it -is-, i'm going to start investing
in a bunch of stocks. i can't lose. sure, everyone else's taxes will
go up, but i can easily pay for that with my new-found government insurance
$$.

> >hmm. an enforced monopoly.
> 
> So you just posit out of thin air that your idea is better because 
> it happens to be derived not from the slightest understanding of 
> how the system works but from your own personal ethical and moral 
> system that eschews annoying details like how the banking system 
> works but instead slaps simplistic junk-food ideas on any problem 
> it confronts? Excuse me, but I am not impressed.

oh piss off. you haven't even bothered to examine my ethical system &
have done nothing more than put forth your own, which seems to believe
that the failures of a few individuals are the responsibility of everyone.
does that sound stupid to anyone else?

> >-now- do you understand why libertarians tend to dislike government?
> 
> No, I only understand that libertarians like to spout simple-minded
> crap and together don't seem to represent more than 15 minutes
> thinking about the problems they propose to solve.

*sigh* more invective & not a sign of rational thought anywhere...

> >not only does it create problems in the first place, but it 
> >effectively outlaws the real solutions then fails to hold those 
> >who abuse the situation responsible.
> 
> The real solutions? I see, you axiomatically state a few things like
> of course private depositor insurance would be better than govt
> depositor insurance (why? i dunno, because it fits your personal
> philosophy better) so therefore given that as a fact we
> conclude...huh???

i already outlined why private insurance is better than govt. insurance.
you have not yet said anything about why govt. insurance is better than
private. and before you do, remember that it's govt. insurance that
got us into this mess in the first place, so you're arguing from a position
of failure.

> The leaps would make superman airsick.

indeed...

> >> You will never escape the will of the mob, about the best anyone 
> >> has ever figured out to do is herd them into voting booths. 
> >> That's hardly an opinion.
> >
> >forgive some of us for -trying- to escape the will of the mob.
> 
> Good luck, go move to a mountain somewhere. Anyhow, you expect to
> escape by saying "please leave me alone"? Yeah, that sounds like a
> good plan...seems to be working great in places like
> Bosnia-Hercegovinia...

would you be more satisfied if libertarians started rioting in the streets?
no. the fact is, you don't seem to like the idea that individuals  should
be responsible for their own failures & successes. -any- expression of
that ideal will probably be met with the kind of mindless insults you've
written above.

> >is libertarianism incompatible with democracy?
> 
> The person I was responding to said exactly that. Since the current
> democratic system has led to the system that libertarians satanize
> it's not an irrational conclusion to come to, as they say, if the 
> shoe fits wear it.

ah. another victim of semantics. you're right, in a sense. libertarians
(as i said beleow) want more of a democratic-republic, not pure democracy.

> >i don't believe so. all the proposals i've seen assume we're 
> >working under a democratic government, or a democratic republic. 
> >the idea behind libertarianism is that the government is 
> >specifically limited in what it can do.
> 
> I see, democracy, but you get to make the rules...

my, what big misrepresentations you make. there's a big difference between
making rules & prohibiting people from making certain rules. i believe
the founders knew about this. ("Congress shall make NO LAW...")

> >oooo. insults. no, we just get tired of being misrepresented as the
> >proponents of prime evil.
> 
> Maybe instead of getting tired you should wonder why this is so.
> Sometimes everyone else is crazy, and sometimes they're not and you
> have just missed something really basic.

i can see why now. there's no gap in logic or anything reasonable like
that. you simply don't like the idea. fine. but don't go about portraying
libertarians are raving lunatics without offering more proof than you
have to this point. it makes you look like an idiot.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`      "We are errant knaves, all; believe none of us." - Hamlet      `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3452 talk.politics.misc:67405