From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: Libertarian heaven
Summary: REfutting your arguments (when I can understand them)
Keywords: Try again
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 07:29:57 GMT



>>The elitists in the US Congress were elected by their consituents.
>>True many of them are jugheads, but at least they were elected 
>>and when they lose - they are out.  Who elected the warlords?
>
>Well who elected the US warlords?? Specifically, I'd like to know
>who is =directly= responsible. I know who isn't. 
>

"US warlords" - do you mean our elected officials?  Perhaps
you didn't pay attention this last couple of months but Bush
lost and is going into retirement.  Clinton is in.  Works every
time, even when you don't agree with the result.  In the entire
history of the United States no President has ever refused to leave
office.  Makes you feel good.

 [ various questions and suggestions about voting deleted ]

There are people who can't vote and those who don't vote.  If
people don't choose to vote that's unfortunate, but it's still
a free country.  As for those who can't vote, there are no
restrictions by race, creed, sex, and it works pretty well.  The
year I turned 21 they lowered the age to 18 - so we're always
changing.

>(2nd.) A simple question: 
>
>	What better description than "warlords" can be applied
>	to the rulers of the most powerful military nation in 
>	history?

How about "freely elected, temporary leaders of a free nation",
sounds good to me.

>
>(3rd.) A not so simple question:
>
>	What makes you think our military rulers will give up power?
>

They always have.  Patton, MacArthur - they stepped down when they
were told to.

>>> The US central government seems pretty disrespectful of people
>>> to me. Ditto for the CommuKapitalist Chinese. 
>> 
>>That is true, but we can vote them out.  Who votes out the warlords?
>
>Exactly -- including in the US. But who did you mean by "we?"
>Surely not the people constituting the military/industrial complex.
>

"We" are the voters of the US.

>And regarding the "Red/Green" Chinese... 
>(You likely overlooked this second part, but if you have a way 
> to `vote them out' -- that would be interesting. ;-)
>

I can't control the governments in foreign countries - why
would you expect me to be able to?  What kind of logic is this?

>>Sure, a dictatorship is the bad people in charge and running
>>roughshod over everyone else.  You also can't vote them out.
>
>Because they use the methods of `police powers.' Which is why we
>have a second amendment. (Not that I think it's needed, since any 
>generic form of violence will counter the generally legal form, 
>ie guns.)

Still, we have always voted people out and fired bad police leaders
and military leaders.  What is your problem with that?

>>> Really, let's try it and find out. Not that I'd want Libertarian
>>> societies running amok either.
>> 
>>How will you prevent it?  What are the checks and balances?  I've
>>seen none that make any sense in any Libertarian posting.  The
>>only thing I've seen is "It won't happen that way?"
>
>Ok. As a "Perotian Prototype," We hereby declare Montana, a Libertarian
>territory for the next 10 years. Those wanting to move in please make
>arrangements with those wanting to move out. Reports and social monitoring 
>will be required from everybody there. To be reviewed when the experiment 
>is over.
>

Those who move in make arrangements with those moving out?  Why?  Why
not just move in and set up anything you want to do?  Sell drugs?
Extort funds?  Who is going to stop you?  As for reporting being
"required" - doesn't sound very Libertarian to me.  Still if you want
Montana to be a Libertarian experiment, sounds good to me.  We'll
just cancel all state functions and make the police some kind of 
voluntary pay as you go scheme and see how it  works.

>
>If the R/G Chinese can play around with Kapitalism regionally -- what stops us?
>(This is not a rhetorical question.)

We have Capitalism here - who's stopping you?

>
>>> Chemistry is easier and cheaper than guns.
>> 
>>Okay you got me there.  I haven't any idea what you are trying to
>>say.  Can you clarify this?  
>
>Sure. {Do not try this at home.} Gasoline is one of the most available
>and explosive chemicals around. It makes a great fuel air explosive
>with very little effort. Fortunately, most people in the world aren't
>willing to resort to mayhem -- including the "bad ones." Even organized
>crime depends on maintaining the wealth producing sector of society.

To some extent.  but only to loot it.  How will people protect themselves
while still keeping their business goings.  It will probably be
one or the other, not both.  I still dont' see how home grown explosives
will do the job.

>The argument can be extended to poisoning food and water supplies, and
>a host of other insanities -- which don't occur, I believe, because of 
>GOD's care. Except where a society challenges the care-taking of GOD,
>asserting they collectively can do better. 
>
Well, here's where you are going off the track.  Do you really believe
that God will step in and fix things?  Based on what?

>An aside:
>If you're hung up on living, it would be best to flee from such a 
>society -- who'll likely get plenty of opportunity to try saving the
>nation, the world, or the race on their own, without GOD. 
>
If you can flee from such a society - unfortunately where would yo
flee TO?

>However, if you love GOD, (especially if more than life), then it's
>likely you won't leave a group of people who are ignoring GOD. Even if 
>it means the annihilation of 6 million individuals including your self
>and family. 
>
What does that mean?  Stay somewhere even if they will kill you and
all you're people?  Are we trying to prove something?

>The Jewish people, as has always been, stand largely apart from secular
>authorities. Long ago they should have (according to worldly logic) been
>assimilated or destroyed by the Assyrians, Persians, Egyptians, Romans,
>and such. Except for the promise of GOD. Which is more important; the
>acts (or non-acts) of those individuals in the Holocaust, or the spiritual 
>survival of the people of Israel? 

Why do you see a difference?  Do you really believe that the deaths
of the 6 million was an either or proposition, that we should just
shrug off wholesale slaughter as being a step towards  a greater
good.  Very sick.

>
>{Only my beliefs sure; which might be curious to others only in so far 
>as they explain what motivates me, and those similarly minded -- regard-
>less of human logic.}

Very curious, and very regardless of human logic.

>
>Not that the Jews should feel too special, the children of Ishmael haven't
>done too badly in this regard.

Yeah, not too bad - the crusades, the pogroms, the inquisitions, the
expulsions.  

>
>>> >I think that in an evolutionary sense - the bad people would always
>>> >win such a fight, or convert the good people to their idea. 
>>> 
>>> No faith in GOD, eh. Or even in aliens. Or even in evolution. 
>> 
>>No, only faith in pure power.  The bad people will show the good
>>people that they are chumps to work so someone who spent all his
>>cash on guns can take it away.  So they will spend all their
>>money on guns and take it back.  Not much productivity there.
>
>"Pure power" huh. Sounds to me like you've quoted the media analysis 
>of Somalia. 

Do you think the warlords over their worry about anything but
raw physical power - not likely.  That's why they have the guns and
are running things.

>
>Let's extend the evolutionary argument. Accordingly we should all
>be thugs by now. If you acknowledge being one of the "bad" then
>why bother with the discussion -- you and your kind inevitably must
>"win," to your thinking? {Disregarding predator-prey phenomena of 
>course.}

Most people are not thugs. That's why we pay taxes to support
police to provide some sort of check on those who are.  Without
that, they would rapidly take over.

>
>>> >The solutions to a problem like Somalia are varied.  You could
>>> >institute a government with police powers and make it against
>>> >the law to terrorize other people. 
>
>"Good" people no doubt.
>

Let's hope so. We're lucky that way - although they might not
be.

>>> 12 & 14 year old (agewise) "organized groups of highly motivated thugs." 
>> 
>>What has their age got to do with it.  A 12 year old with a gun
>>can kill you just as easily as an adult.
>
>"Can kill =you=" in the general sense of the dwellers in the center of
>society who haven't learned to defend themselves. Or =you= in the sense
>of those who would rather take a chance on being killed rather than
>raise violence against children. There are other cases. 

Can kill "you" in the sense of people who are standing in the path
of bullets when they leave the barrel of the gun.  How do you defend
yourself in such a society.  The mere fact that you have a gun is
no deterent to killers with nothing to lose and no motive to stop.

>My point though, was that the "Somali thugs -- are hardly "well organized 
>or highly motivated." Continuing with your alternative "libertarian"
>analysis....

I'd say they are very highly motivated.  What makes you think they
aren't.
>
>>> You've got a knack for expressing strong opinions marc. You 
>>> might want to back 'em up a little, please.
>> 
>>Okay, try this - in the recent election, Marrou got 300,000 votes.
>>He complained afterward that he could have done better but ran
>>out of money.  The dems and repubs ran $1000 a plate dinners and
>>packed them in.  The Libertarians ran a $100 dinner and no one
>>showed up.  Libertarians will sit back and let other people do
>>the work and take the risks.  
>
>I have my criticisms of the Libertarians too. But that doesn't mean
>that the only thing they have to overcome is funds raising -- access
>to the media most notably. The US system is stacked against all 3rd
>parties -- strictly an exercise in political power. I won't put it 
>above the Libertarians to use free market methods (contributions-for-
>representation, much like lobbies), but they still have to overcome
>other oppression -- which the democrats and republicans wield -- and
>which =make= the constitution and rational-government both lies. 
>
I also would have included the libertarians in the debates.  The
criteria they use is mainly fuzzy, but being on the ballot in all
50 states (or perhaps in enough states to win if you carry them all)
should be more than enough.  As for media coverage, I saw quite a
few articles, not only on Libertarians but several of the others
who were only on the ballot in a few states.  Still has a long
way to go.  We think of ourselves as  "two party" system and
it's tough to change that kind of thinking.  It's been awhile
since we've had viable third parties.  I heard that Lincoln was
the last 3rd party candidate to be elected.

>As to the previous point; one person (your "Leader") does not make a
>party, no matter how "good" or charismatic or compelling. There are
>always similarly minded people who share in the exercise of power (such
>as with local communist party groups in the xssr). 
>
I never said they did - at least in this country - we have federal,
state, county, city governments.

>The "king's-will-prevails" myth is bunk and always has been. The king
>doesn't get to be king, without bowing to the will of the current power
>clique, thus becoming a puppet. Hitler, S.Hussein, Bush, Clinton...
>all were or are, only convenient scapegoats. 
>
Not so true.  While it is true that someone like Hitler couldn't
rule alone if the entire country ignored him, he wields tremendous
power in several ways:

1)  he appeals to a sizable (though not necessarily a majority)
    of the population.

2)  His constituency must include people with the power to overwhelm
    (or at least intimidate) a sizable portion of the rest of
    the population.

3)  He must appeal to the confused, the angry, the desperate, so
    they will follow him no matter what.

In all, hardly scapegoats, but leaders.

>Back to your supposed Libertarian(?) analysis....
>
>>[libertarians...] In a dangerous situation like
>>Somalia, give everyone a gun and the warlords will make the
>>first move while most people sit at home and hope their neighbors
>>get killed instead of them. There is no motivation to take risks.
>                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Your only motive is to stay alive and you accomplish that by
>>staying home, not by risking your life opposing the warlords.
>
>Again, sounds like another media summary of Somalia. The analysis
>excludes other motives. And is simply reductionist, handy for a ten
>second "news" sound byte. Or "discussions" over commercials during a
>football game. Libertarians (despite their stubbornly ideological and
>impersonal tendencies to spout party rhetoric) are complex people too. 
>
>Even in Libertarian heaven, there are many other "motives" people act 
>on -- in addition to the preservation-of-self. Others are: Truth, Life,
>Love, Freedom, etc. etc. etc. The strongest are personal relationships.
>Which is why "self-preservation" stands out. But by no means is it the
>be-all-end-all of the analysis for libertarians (who despite their
>cold heartless facades are only human -- especially to neighbors).
>
Perhaps, but I've seen little proof of that.  Think of a Libertarian
America.  How many people would rush to the aid of, say Montana
to ward off a Canadian attack?  Would they risk their lives to 
save Montana?  If you think so you have ignored most of American
history.  The isolationist streak in American is very strong and
it took us a long time to get involved in both World Wars. The
prevailing attitude was - that's their problem. 


>So you'll agree I think that you've parodied the pro-gun arguments 
>of that faction of the Libertarians. But by far the strongest motives
>arise from a direct individual relation with GOD. Not even excluded
>as a motive for individuals by Randians.
>
I have never seen religion as a motive for that much good.  Perhaps
on a small level - a person here and there.  But in the big picture,
most of the evil done in the last 2000 years has been done by people
who were convinced they have a personal pipeline to the Almighty.

>> 
>>If you are depending on God to save anyone - he hasn't yet.  I'm
>>Jewish and he let 6,000,000 of us die.  Don't hold your breath.
>
>GOD has "let" about 100 million people die. Pretty good confirmation
>that some dynamic more important than life is going on.

Like what?  Stocking heaven?
>
>I used to wonder why, knowing they were going to die, that the
>victims of the Holocaust didn't gang up against the Nazis guards
>and die fighting -- since we all die anyway. The opportunity to make 
>a statement was there, and the costly possiblity of breaking free. 
>But the statement they made (Psalm 73) was much more powerful than 
>what I'd considered back then.

In 1984 (the novel) Winston Smith is in the hands of the Thought
Police.  He's been told that he cannot be saved, but that the
underground movement might manage to smuggle him a razor blade.
He wonders if he would use it. He finally decides that "... it
was more natural to accept another ten minutes of life, then to
die at once."  I believe I also read a quote from crime and
Punishment that it would be better to stand on a cliff for a thousand
years in a raging storm then to die.  You should think about that
before you tell others what they should do.  Also - there were
escapes and rebellions, mostly unsuccessful.

>
>>And if you are hoping that genocide solves the problem, you
>>are mighty sick.
>
>I only echoed worldly logic marc. It is sick yes, because it
>assumes that humanity comprehends some measurable portion of 
>reality. Our progeny will consider us tribal many generations 
>from know; and most certainly as regards the advance of science 
>and logic. Assuming reality last that long.

I think reality will last as long as their are people.  Maybe
you should stop "echoing worldly logic" and say what you mean.

>
>Beyond so called (human) reason there is much to learn. Even 
>rhetoric takes a lifetime. So we're stuck, unable to grasp
>even the essentials -- unless some external agent assist us.
>(No better proof than a baby.)

What the hell does that mean?  In case no one explained it to
you they've figured out where babies come from.

>
>And "you" who willfully ignore GOD, who idolize life or power 
>as if such could sustain you, all the while trying to preoccupy 
>your thoughts in distractions, drunkeness and lust, as if the 
>terror of your self-chosen desolation at death could long be 
>kept from your mind.... 

maybe there's a god and maybe there isn't. But if there is,
he's sat back and let evil roll over innocent people.   So
if I ignore god, it's because he ignored us first.
>
>God loves you, even when you turn away.

Well, that's swell.


marc colten

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67218 ca.politics:10564 ba.politics:8159