From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Hey, Tim Starr
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:26:45 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

rbeckham@bnr.ca (Rick Beckham) writes:
>mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>>Here's a guy that lacks your pollyana view that everything will magically
>>be all right if only we all adopt libertarianism.
>>
>*sign*, it's been stated over and over again Mike. libertarians freely admit
> there will be problems. We don't think all of mankinds woes will magically
> disappear. The opposite is true with Dems/Repubs, where a belief that
> social engineering will improve mankind's lot. This has never been
> demonstated.

The opposite is true?  You mean all those nasty pollyannic Dems/Repubs
belive that with a bit of social engineering, all of mankind's woes
will magically disappear?  How come they never say things like that
then?  [Note: social engineering has actually improved mankind's lot.
For example, giving blacks and women the right to vote is blatant
social engineering.]

> Let's look at it this way; if mankind is basically good we need no govt,
> if mankind is basically bad you don't want a big govt (why? because the
> same percentage of 'badness' will infect the body politic.) If however
> mankind is neither basically good or bad, why would you need a large govt?

To organize things that individuals and companies are apparently
unable to organize otherwise, to resolve issues of justice in
an equitable way, to provide for infrastructure that benefits
everyone (but no single group enough to make it economically
attractive to the private sector)...

> You've consistently stated you oppose libertarian philosophy. Does this
> mean you back statism? Where do you draw the line? Are you a total
> collectivist? or are you only socialist when it benefits you?

This is funny.  Don't you love people drawing false dichotomies?

> If you
> truly believe the good of the many outweigh the needs of the few then
> would you have no problem with exterminating all people who have
> life threatening incurable contagions? Since the govt is spending your
> childrens money, where will they get the money for govt services for
> those same children once the children become adults? Where do you
> draw the line with taxation? 10%, 20%, 40%? Why not 100% if the govt
> is truly giving our money's worth of services and making life
> 'idealistic'?

And people setting up strawmen?  If you want to discredit someone,
give them an extreme position that they don't hold and that is
indefensible...

> Libertarianism is a belief in the individuals' rights, where they cannot
> be trampled by the majority just because the majority suddenly finds
> it convenient.

Sounds like the modern liberal or the modern conservative to me.
Everyone's in favour of apple pie, as well.

> By that end we systematically apply the same logic
> across the board. If it is wrong for a single person to steal, it is
> wrong for a group to steal, even if the group calls itself a govt or
> if the group is a majority.

Systematically applying any principle across the board without
regard to circumstance is almost always a bad idea.  Jean Valjean
should have been killed.

> So Mike, how far could the govt push you, trampling over your individual
> rights before you decided to resist?

How far has it pushed you already, with the WoD?  Have you resisted,
aside from complaining on the net?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Discord, the Goddess of the Net, was developing a taste for blood sacrifice.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:2680 talk.politics.guns:25265