Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 7 Jan 93 09:47:04 EST
Distribution: na
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

jrmo@volta.att.com (J.R.Moore) writes:
> 
> ...I tried to address my vision of the future in which there are 
> three groups.  

and some think libertarians have a simplistic view of society...

> Competent people who get things done, paper pushers who oversee it 
> and wealthy people who control the fruits of what gets done.  

what's to keep me from being a member of 2 of those classes? all three?
people are more capable than it seems you're giving them credit for.

> Eventually, I see it doesn't matter if you're competent or not, if 
> you don't see value in society as a whole, certain individuals will 
> have technology to convert all resources into some utility with 
> little need for labor.  With no need of labor, no value of society, 

here you're assuming that labor == value to society. that's not the case.
especially since you're limiting "labor" to mean non-technical labor.

> why not create a supercity or palace, with strictly protected 
> borders, a huge Hugh Hefner mansion, with all pleasures, needs, 
> activities available for all residents.  A small number of these 
> power brokers will own all the oil, metals, arable land, fresh 
> water springs, and all these will be guarded to keep out low lifes. 
> The protection around these supercities, built by the people who 
> are now outcasts, or by technological replacements of people. What 
> else could someone want besides ultimate power, every pleasure, a 
> good supply of friends, and any utility available?

MORE!! you're ignoring the entire basis of economics: people's wants 
are (on the whole) basically unlimited. i'm sure Ross Perot could 
retire comfortably in such a setup. does he? no. 'cause he wants MORE 
just like the rest of us.

you're also assuming that technology needs no servants. let's say for 
a second that one -could- live in a mansion surrounded by electronic 
maids. who's going to fix them when they break down? your predictions 
are exactly the same ones made about computers & we know how wrong 
those turned out to be.

> Or I could have said that some resources cannot be owned by one 
> individual but must be shared with society.  

since society is merely a collection of individuals your scheme amounts
to simple redistribution. we know how well that works...

> Capitalism has run its course.  It was great for the last 100 years 
> or so, but now has the potential to ruin the greater part of 
> society if we don't think of a better way to share resources.  We 
> need to balance the rights of individuals with the survival of 
> society.  

with the (false) premises you have it's no wonder you come to an
anti-capitalist viewpoint. individuals are the building blocks that
make up society. strengthen individual rights and you will strengthen
society, since any society is merely a collection of individuals.

weakening individual rights, even under the guise of "good to society" or
"survival of society" is the surest way to make a society fail.

> I think we need to realize that ... society has a responsibility to 
> protect the rights of individuals, but also that individuals have a 
> duty to that society. 

wrong on both counts. society is not capable of responsibility. "it" 
cannot protect anyone's rights. the vast webwork of human interaction 
that is societis not focused enough to hold such goals. -governments- 
can, but governments are most definitely -not- society, and don't 
even represent the needs of individuals in society half the time.

individuals have no responsibilities to society as a whole. i am 
incapable of "loving" all of humanity. i am incapable of -helping- 
all of humanity. i -can- aid individuals (-including- mylf). that 
sort of individual action on a grand scale will result in a better 
society on the whole, but it is still  individuals helping 
individuals on an individual level.

> The goals of the constitution were not just to establish individual 
> rights, but also to establish a more perfect union, a more perfect 
> society.  It also was set up to insure the blessing of liberty to 
> our posterity.  Handing our children and grandchildren a society in 
> which they have the freedom to starve, because their labor is of no 
> value is insuring liberty?

yes. if one wishes to starve, i'm not about to take away that right.
we are all adults. as such, neither you, nor i, nor our government has
the right to play "mommy" to anyone else. that's part of being an adult.
the fact that you think you know what is better for someone an they
do is no excuse to limit their personal freedoms.

> What would you do if you owned vast amounts of land, supplies of 
> metals, factories run mainly by machines, and could get a machine 
> to do anything a person could do?  Sure, you'd be willing to pay 
> the person the value of the power to run the machine and maintain 
> it. Say that was equivalent to a days supply of food.  Eventually, 
> machines are better, because they don't complain, don't get tired.  
> So now, you can go anywhere, do anything you want, and there are 
> millions of starving people who need a job, where at most they can 
> only earn a days food for a days work. I say either you have 
> slavery, or you have a lot of people on the outside looking in.  
> They can't even live in the woods fishing, hunting, because you own 
> the woods and why let them deplete your resources?  I say unless 
> you have a society that values people and insures that no one 
> person can gain such ultimate power, and that all people are 
> guaranteed an adequate opportunity to succeed, such a result would 
> be inevitable.

that's because your model of humanity is so narrow. humans can adapt. 
technology has been increasing since the dawn of  time. has our 
population decreased? has the standard of living dropped? no. 
technology has consistently made more opportunities available. and 
people jump at opportunities. you seem to be assuming that 
individuals have no ability to adapt. wherever there is a need, 
people will fill it, and in doing so, create more need.

jason

--
  "More life, more love, more freedom, more choice!" - MORTAL, Painkiller
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3103 comp.org.eff.talk:8387 alt.amateur-comp:508 soc.culture.usa:9528 alt.activism:20132