From: "dalton spence" <dalton.spence@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Subject: libertarianism
Date: 7 Sep 92 05:33:48 EST
Reply-To: "dalton spence" <dalton.spence@canrem.com>
Distribution: alt
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

S-N-M, listening to the discussion about Libertarianism, shakes his
head.  Wandering (I do a lot of that, don't I?) over to the bar, he
asks "Mike, you wouldn't happen to have..."  Mike reaches behind the
bar and pulls out a compact parachute.  Donning it, S-N-M says
sheepishly to the bemused patrons, "I think the soapboxes might get
a little high about this."  Assuming his best declamitory stance, he
begins.

"In <1992Sep1.143233.29614@cco.caltech.edu>, Speaker-to-Minerals
said the following about Re: Libertarianism...

>Vitamin A can be toxic in large doses, but the company selling vitamins
>fails to disclose this information to you.  How to redress the problem?

SS>Caveat emptor.

That doesn't redress the problem.  What might do so would be a
successful civil suit for damages against the company.  This would
set a legal precedent regarding the responsability of companies to
adequately inform their customers about the correct and safe usage
of their products.  This approach does NOT require new laws or
regulations from the government, but it DOES require a fair and
equitable court system.

>If you have a government-run court system, then that requires taxes
>if you select "fair and equitable access to courts" as a criterion.

SS>Nonsense.  Just require that whomever loses a case pay the court
SS>costs.

It would mean that the only people who would avail themselves of the
court system would be those who could afford to lose, and those who
have nothing left to lose.  It would discourage the little guy from
ever going to court, unless the outcome was so certain that the
opponent would settle out-of-court anyway.  The big guys would use
the court (or the threat of it) as a weapon against smaller opponents
if it was cost effective to do so.  There goes "fair and equitable
access".

>If you attempt to regulate the vitamin industry, that too requires
>taxes.

SS>Why should you attempt to regulate it?

You don't have to, if the civil court system can be accessed fairly
and equitably.  An impartial and accessable method of mediating
disputes is essential for Libertarian policies to work."

S-N-M pauses for a moment, considering his next statments.

"I am not a political scientist, or an economist, or even a
Libertarian.  In fact, I was raised in a socialist household,
although I've drifted much farther to the right than my family
approves of.  But the one thing I have noticed about Libertarian
philosophy is a consistent lack of compassion for those who couldn't
measure up under their system.  It has been my perception (which I
freely admit may be biased) that Libertarianism is almost Darwinian
in nature, saying if you can't survive, you aren't fit to.  I find
the very essence of that appalling.

Now, I agree that governmemt has extended its power into a lot of
areas that it really shouldn't. But I don't necessarily believe that
the least government is the best one.  I do believe that the role of
government goes beyond merely serving the public good.  It should
also protect those who cannot otherwise protect themselves.  The
question is, should the government act for them, or give them the
power to act for themselves?  Sometimes, there is no choice."

S-N-M looks down from his pile of soapboxes.  "Geronimo!"

/ Dalton S. Spence  UUCP: canrem!dalton.spence  RIME: ->CRS \
\ Scarborough, Ont. Internet: dalton.spence@canrem.com      /
---
  1st 1.01 #141  Otherwise Known As: Stranger-No-More (or SNM for short)
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044